Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[Tomster]

Like Pual, it seems you have a “problem” with self designating self alone as the sole interpreter - then declaring self infallible/unaccountable for such. I understand and fully agree. Your problem, however, applies to only one: The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87.

But it does get to the issue here: You seem to embrace accountability! I agree. But The Catholic Church exempts one from that - itself, exclusively. So, your insistance on accountability and rejection of self excluding self from such is an issue you have with just one: The Catholic Church.

Oh, I entirely agree with it! I just dont’ accept the claim of The Catholic Church alone that Jesus founded The Catholic Church or promised or authorized The Catholic Church exclusively all the remarkable things it alone so claims for it alone. Nor do I agree that just because there is responsibility - ergo there is infalliblity/unaccountability for such, or that because God leads us all - ergo all must infallibly follow and God exempts all from accountability.

No. I agree with The Catholic Church that Scripture is inerrant.

.

Now we are getting somewhere. The Catholic Church is the only institution on earth who could infallibly declare that the Scriptures are inerrant. And rightfully so. For example, it was the Catholic Church who determined the Canon of Scripture. Take a historical look at what the founder of your sect tried to do to the Bible around twelve hundred years after the Catholic Church pronounced her decision.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Now we are getting somewhere.

I agree! You disagree that one may simply designate self as the sole interpreter - and declare self alone “infallible” in such. I would not agree more! But your “problem” is with only one: The Catholic Church (CCC 85 and 87, for example).

And you agree that self exempting self from accountability has zero relevance to that one being correct! I could not agree more! But then your “problem” is exclusively with just one: The Catholic Church, and you have just embraced that all are accountable - including The Catholic Church (no less or more than any other teacher).

The Catholic Church is the only institution on earth who could infallibly declare

… round and round and round we go…

It’s called a circular argument. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. I don’t need no accountability cuz I’m right. Just accept whatever I say with docility.” Odd, because this rubric - that you agree is absurd - is the very thing you are working SO hard to try to defend as infallible.

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,

You recognize that scripture can only be inerrant if it is interpreted correctly.

You recognize that this requires an inerrent interpreter

You DON’'t Recognize that the inerrent interpreter is the Catholic church.

But You also can’t identify a better candidate as the inerrent interpreter.

So you are left with no inerrent interpreter and therefore, no way you can know what scripture really says. So you are left with no path to really understand the way to heaven.

So be it.

We Catholics are willing to believe the Church’s teachings, both through reason and through faith and we will follow those teachings to the best of our ability.

Your complaint that the Catholic Church claims the authority to teach for itself is absolutely true. Each man needs to determine for themselves whether this claim is valid.

 

[kepha1]

Do I have this right?

The Catholic Church is unaccountable to nothing but itself when the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized.

Is that what happened, AmericanJosiah?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,

You recognize that scripture can only be inerrant if it is interpreted correctly.

No. You CONTINUE to play the shell game, constantly changing the topic.

We all embrace Scripture as inerrant. We do not all embrace that it is good epistemology for self alone to declare that self alone is an infallible interpreter so that self alone is except from accountability, the issue of his/her/its teaching is circumvented and replaced with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted “with docilility.”

We Catholics are willing to believe the Church’s teachings, both through reason and through faith and we will follow those teachings to the best of our ability.

Yes. This is what The Catholic Church requires: That it alone be exempt from accountability and thus norming, and that whatever it alone says rather just be accepted “with docility.” You’ve not been able to reveal why this is a sound epistemology to determine correctness (you claim infallibility), why self alone exempting self alone from accountability is a certain and sure indicator that that self alone is correct. IMHO, it suggests just the opposite, as my study of the cults (and life!) suggest. Indeed, it seems to be the true teacher is one who welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s Truth and caring nothing for his own ego or power or lording over others. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and examination, circumvent accountability, and demand that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted “with docility.”

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of it’s doctrines. It doesn’t. It rejects it for the exact same reason that the LDS and all the cults do, because it alone simply exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming and the rule/canon in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Just accept that I am with docility.” I don’t agree with you that that is the most sound epistemology for determining if that teacher is correct, in fact my study of the cults STRONGLY suggests that claim of self for self is a pretty big red flag that that teacher may well be wrong. In any case, it is entirely, completely, absolutely MOOT to the issue of whether he/she/it is correct. It’s simply and only a CIRCUMVENTION of the issue by self alone for self alone.

.

 

[paul_c]

No. You CONTINUE to play the shell game, constantly changing the topic.

We all embrace Scripture as inerrant. We do not all embrace that it is good epistemology for self alone to declare that self alone is an infallible interpreter so that self alone is except from accountability, the issue of his/her/its teaching is circumvented and replaced with the demand of self alone for self alone that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted “with docilility.”

There is no shell game being played here. Why do you assume bad intent on my part?

Without an acknowledged authority to correctly interpret scripture, it can not be trusted to yield the truth. After all, Satan himself used it to test Jesus. If not the Catholic Chruch, what is your authority to discern the truth from scripture?

Yes. This is what The Catholic Church requires: That it alone be exempt from accountability and thus norming, and that whatever it alone says rather just be accepted “with docility.” You’ve not been able to reveal why this is a sound epistemology to determine correctness (you claim infallibility), why self alone exempting self alone from accountability is a certain and sure indicator that that self alone is correct. IMHO, it suggests just the opposite, as my study of the cults (and life!) suggest. Indeed, it seems to be the true teacher is one who welcomes the light and comes into the light - confident the light will reveal God’s Truth and caring nothing for his own ego or power or lording over others. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, shield his teachings from accountability and examination, circumvent accountability, and demand that whatever self alone says rather just be accepted “with docility.”
The Catholic Church does not hide its tachings from accountability. It is the holder of the sacred truths and shares those truths completely with everyone who will listen. It also shows where those truths came from. It is not afraid to answer questions. It just ppoints out in CCC paragraph 87 that the faithful will follow those teachings with docility . Stop comparing the Catholic church to cults. It is most definitely not a cult in the way you describe it. Your use of that comparison just shows how much you have to learn about the catholic Faith.
AmericanJosiah;6229912:

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of it’s doctrines. It doesn’t. It rejects it for the exact same reason that the LDS and all the cults do, because it alone simply exempts it alone from accountability - and thus norming and the rule/canon in such. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Just accept that I am with docility.” I don’t agree with you that that is the most sound epistemology for determining if that teacher is correct, in fact my study of the cults STRONGLY suggests that claim of self for self is a pretty big red flag that that teacher may well be wrong. In any case, it is entirely, completely, absolutely MOOT to the issue of whether he/she/it is correct. It’s simply and only a CIRCUMVENTION of the issue by self alone for self alone.

I have told you many times that the reason that the Catholic Chruch rejects sola Scriptura is that it is wrong.

How many times do I need to point out to you that you can’t trust scripture on its own. Any one, Satan included, can bend scripture to say what he wants. Instead, scripture is only useful if interpreted within the context in which is was written. You need, the author, the Catholic church, to correctly understand it

Look, we’ve already reached the point where it is clear that your thesis that sola Scriptura is the norma norman has been completely discredited since even you acknowledge that it is not repeatable without authoritative interpretation.

Your only argument over the last week or so has become a complaint that just because the Catholic Church claims to have the authority to interpret scriptures, doesn’t make it so.
You rightly point out that other groups also claim that authority. So this has become a discussion not of the validity of sola scriptura (it is not) but of whether the Catholic Church is the valid authority for scriptural interpretation.

to me, this thread is now concluded. You have added nothing new in a week so we are both wasting our time. If you would like to discuss the Catholic Church’s claim of being the Church appointed by Christ to the task of spreading the Gospel, I would be more than happy to engage on that topic.

 

[LionHeart777]

You’ve not been able to reveal why this is a sound epistemology to determine correctness (you claim infallibility), why self alone exempting self alone from accountability is a certain and sure indicator that that self alone is correct.

If you, AmericanJosiah and Paul will allow me to intrude again, or pardon my doing so, I would like to help you, AmericanJosiah, to see a point that I came to see during my almost conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism:

I again refer you to the NT Canon of Scripture. We, I think, both agree that the books selected were done so infallibly, and the reason is because, according to us Catholics, the Church says so (due to Tradition and ultimately by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.) Why do you believe that the NT Canon is correct?

I have noticed that you and even James White in his Sola Scriptura debate w/ Patrick Madrid like to start with the Canon as a given. It is not just a given for it was determined by the Church.

You say that Sola Scriptura is only to determine whether a given doctrine is true or not, but to me this begs the question; how do you know that you have an infallible Canon of Scripture? Your comment about going to JC Penny and getting a measuring tape when I was trying to make this point a while back doesn’t relly get to the issue: how do we know that those 27 books are what are supposed to be the contents of the NT Canon?

I guess I am saying, prove to me that our “tape measure” is as it should be. If you cannot, then how do you know that your norma normans is correct? If there might be a book left out or one that shouldn’t have been added, that changes your norma normans, no?

No offense, but I find your argument of comparing the Catholic Church up w/ the LDS is not strong once we begin to trace the roots of each one of these organizations.

P.S. A lot of the point that I have been trying to make the last week or so in this thread was from and/or drew on Patrick Madrid’s debate w/ White on Sola Scriptura

Transcript available here, thanks to Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Also, I first read Madrid’s arguments in one of his articles available here, thanks to Catholic Answers.

 

[LionHeart777]

If you, AmericanJosiah and Paul will allow me to intrude again, or pardon my doing so, I would like to help you, AmericanJosiah, to see a point that I came to see during my almost conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism

I meant my conversion, I was going to say almost completed conversion (Easter Vigil.)

oops.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I refer you to the NT Canon of Scripture. We, I think, both agree that the books selected were done so infallibly, and the reason is because, according to us Catholics, the Church says so.

1. Whether it is correct or not is actually moot to our discussion. Let’s say a policeman pulls you over and notes that you were driving 60 MPH. He directs your attention to a sign next to you, posted by the side of the road. It is a large, square, white sign with big, black numerals and letters. It proclaims: MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH." There it is. Knowable by all, alterable by none. It says what it says - and there’s nothing you are the friendly man in blue can do about that. And concerning whether you were speeding or not (correct or not), it is above BOTH of you. And both of us regard it as normative to the issue of what the speed limit is. Now, do you need to regard this rule as INFALLABLE for it to so serve? Do you need to regard the Department of Motor Vehicles that posted the sign to be INFALLIBLE in doing so for this to be the most sound canon? Obviously not.
2. You seem to be evading the issue here. Do you embrace accountability? For YOU when you drive, for the policeman when he stops drivers and writes tickets. For teachers of doctrine - whether they be Joseph Smith or Martin Luther, Pope Benedict or Jim Jones, The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Do you regard people as accountable for what they say or do? Do you regard teachers of dogma as accountable for such? THAT is the fundamental issue. Do you agree with God as He repeatedly and sternly warned us about false teachers (never once exempting any - including The Catholic Church from that)? Do you agree with Jesus in Revelation 2:2 for example when He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the exact opposite of what The Catholic Church requires, for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them (norming), for arbitrating the issue, and for declaring them false? IF so, then you have embraced that The Catholic Church is accountable (and, according to the Catholic Catechism # 87 ceased to be Catholic - or at least a faithful one), and norming is thus required. The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for such? Those that embrace Scripture (the Rule of Scripture - aka Sola Scriptura) agree that Scripture is the most sound rule/canon. The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all the cults) rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming it’s doctrines NOT because it has an alternative it would like to use instead (it doesn’t) but because it rejects accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole case of itself alone. Because it declares that it is unaccountable, thus it is exempt from norming and all that goes with it - whether Scripture or anything else. Any such norming is to be circumvented, laid aside, disregarded in the singular, exclusive case of just one - itself. Instead, all are called on to just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” The Protestants here have rejected this rubric as the most sound way to determine correctness of a teacher, the Catholics have defended it as not only the most sound way to determine if a teacher is correct, but regard it as “infallible.”
3. You have a wrong premise. The Catholic Church did not write the Bible. It did not give anyone the Bible. Nor did The Council of Trent form the embraced collection of Scriptures. Nor did the meeting at Hippo or Carthrage or Rome much earlier. As my Catholic teachers taught, and as history unmistakenly reveals, AT MOST, those meetings AFFIRMED a list already embraced, and (until Trent) not in any official or ecumenical maner (none of those meetings was an Ecumenical Council, including Trent - claim of self for self notwithstanding). I can official declare that the sun arose this morning. I suppose a denomination could even affirm that in some official way for itself as its own official position. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality that the sun rose - only that that denomination is AFFIRMING it, in some official way, for itself alone. .

you start with the Canon as a given. It is not just a given for it was determined by the Church.

Perhaps, although it was not The Catholic Church. It was not even there when the first Scripture was accepted as such, that happened over one thousand, four hundred years before even its own self claims that itself came into existence.

We all embrace this rule/canon as reliable. That is an essential aspect to any rule/canon in any normative process - regardless of discipline. My degree is in physics, and our norma normans is math and objective observation of repeatable experimentation. Now, I don’t think any physicist regards either of those as “infallible” but reliable for our purposes - and since all physicists agree on that reliablibity, it makes for a sound rule/canon. The point is: the physicist is ACCOUNTABLE for his position - not to himself exclusively, and not exempt simply because he himself so declares that he himself alone is, not “infallible” beccause he alone declares that he alone is. If I were to submit a paper to a scientific journal, I would RIGHTLY be laughed at if I presented my position and then said, “I don’t need to norm this with any math or objective data because I alone am exempt from accountability for what I alone say, I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right, so there - just accept it with docility.” Nope. I need to substantiate my position with the rule that is ABOVE, BEYOND, OUTSIDE of me. Knowable by all and alterable by none. Accepted as valid and reliable by all parties. I need to substantiate my position with THAT, norming it by the norm/rule/canon.

… continues in the next post.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continuing the post above:

You say that Sola Scriptura is only to determine whether a given doctrine is true or not

Nope, I’ve NEVER claimed that. IT can’t determine anything. What I said is it is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for that. That speed limit sign next to the road proclaiming “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH” cannot determine whether you were speeding or not, it cannot determine anything. It rather is the rule/canon for such. IMHO, this is a more sound epistemology for addressing the issue of whether you were speeding than for you alone to simply exempt you alone from any accountability for your driving -yourself declaring that yourself alone is simply INCAPABLE of any driving errors whatever you did is simply to be accepted by all as correct… “with docility.”

how do you know that your norma normans is correct?

All parties agree that it is, and it is not just oneself using the views of oneself as the rule for the views of oneself, or oneself simply declaring that oneself exclusively is exempt from any inquiry, correct because he alone is correct because he alone is correct - so he alone is correct. Friend, when the policeman pulls you over and directs your attention to that big white square sign, I wonder what his response would be if you said: “You can’t prove that that sign is infallible, the very inscripturated word of God - we both agree that it is, but you can’t PROVE it, and it’s moot because there’s just one driver in all the world who is INCAPABLE of any driving mistakes and that one is me. Exclusively. Besides, there is one who is UNACCOUTABLE for whatever is done on the road, and that one is me. I say I was not speeding, so I was not speeding - just accept that as an infallible (and thus unaccountable) statement “with docility.” Good-bye, officer. God bless you!” I wonder what his reaction would be?

If there might be a book left out or one that shouldn’t have been added, that changes your norma normans, no?

No, but it would change the size of it. Just as when the legistlature passes yet another driving law. It doesn’t change the soundless of The Rule of Law, it just changes the size of that law. It’s moot, of course, since we all regard the canon as closed, but it’s moot to our discussion. Let’s go back to that policeman. Okay, let’s say you replied to him thusly: “Sir, with all due respect, this sign is moot because you cannot prove that 1,437 years from now, there may be a new sign posted on a new road, 600 feet above this one, for the rocket cars that then will exist, and it will say “MAX SPEED 450 MPH” so therefore, this sign on this road has no bearing on whether I’m speeding.” Good luck with that one, too! Look, the Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that IS - not that might be. The Rule of Scripture was just as sound when Scripture consisted of nothing more than The Ten Commandments, it’s just that Scripture got bigger over the next 1400 years. If God clearly adds more books 20,000 years from now - it might again. Let’s have that discussion IF and WHEN that EVER happens. Meanwhile.…

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Josiah,
you seem incapable of seeing anyone elses point of view and you simple regurgitate the same tired arguments. But let me use your speed limit analogy to explain the fallacy of yoru thinking to you.

A speed limit sign might look like this:
View attachment 7306

Now even as simple as it is, unless you know how to interpret it, it is useless. For instance, if you are not familar with American units of measure, you might not know that 25 refers to 25 mph. If you were from a remote third world country that has few cars and no speed limit at all, the sign would mean absolutely nothing to you. That’s why the government that created the law, also created an agency to explain it (the DMV), to enforce it (the police), and a third to interpret it (the courts) That’s why you are given a drivers manual that explains how to interpret these signs and you must be tested by a competitent authority (the department of motor vehicles) to make sure you know the correct interpretation of this and other signs before you are allowed to drive. And because people who are caught for violating even so simple a law will often want to contest it, there has to be a court to interpret the law for them.

Now the Bible is far more complex than a speed limit sign, covering 73 books and about 1400 pages in my copy. It too requires proper interpretation to be meaningful. On its own, it can not be a norma normans.

 

[LionHeart777]

AmericanJosiah,

to be honest I am not really willing to address every point you have raised beacuse to do so would take time and effort which quite frankly I am not wiiling to exert right now, and arguably could be better spent in my duties as a husband and father and student.

I any event, I wanted to focus on the NT Canon b/c to me it is not a moot issue; it ultimately, IMO is the “achilles heel” of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. IA couple of points;

I would agree that the Church recognized the books but whether they were recognized for what they were, Sacred Scripture, or determined to be so; for me is not relevent. Here is why; there was still an authority (we will call it the Church b/c you don’t agree that it was the Catholic Church) who recognized the books and that recognition of the 27 books is binding on everyone. To me, this is an example of self declaring self to be right that every Christian now accepts (as I think Kepha may have pointing out.). Such a belief for us Catholics, I think is consistent with our Catholic understanding of the authority of the Church, and that She is able to “bind and loose.” It is consistent with a belief that includes Tradition, Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church. It is not, I would argue, consistent with Sola Scriptura because the virtue of the fact that the Bible does not contain an inspired “Table of Contents” (as Madrid pointed out to White), IMO forces Christians to look elsewhere for than just Scripture for Divine Reveletaion. If there is an authority outside of Scripture which is able to make decisions that are binding on all Christians, what is that authority? We say the Church. Andi it is both Biblical (Mathew 16:19 and 18:18) and Traditional (i.e. ECF’s understood these texts to teach that the Church has true authority.)

When one realizes that the Church has actual authority to “bind and loose” and to :forgive sins", as Scripture teaches and the early Church understood as do Easter Orthodox and Catholic Christians today, one is forced to then seek out this Church. To me, I came to the conclusion that it was either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church; I became more convinced of the latter.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Do I have this right?

The Catholic Church is unaccountable to nothing but itself when the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized.

Is that what happened, AmericanJosiah?

When exactly are you referring to as to the “canonization” of the 27?

 

[Gatecrasher]

If you would like to discuss the Catholic Church’s claim of being the Church appointed by Christ to the task of spreading the Gospel, I would be more than happy to engage on that topic.

Open up a thread and I will engage you. I just signed in and am ready for battle. The Roman Catholic position will fall like a house of cards.

BTW, how do you put in your own avatar? I can’t find the link anywhere.

 

[paul_c]

Open up a thread and I will engage you. I just signed in and am ready for battle. The Roman Catholic position will fall like a house of cards.

BTW, how do you put in your own avatar? I can’t find the link anywhere.

you must be kidding…

 

[Gatecrasher]

you must be kidding…

For your information Mr. C, I just got a note from the moderator saying for “some reason” you cannot put in your own avatar at this time.
Open mouth, insert foot.

 

[Gatecrasher]

you must be kidding…

Well, I gave you some time and you didn’t take me up on the challenge, so it must be YOU who is kidding. Since you appear to be so confident of the RC position, let’s start with the assertion made elsewhere, that the Scriptures do not teach that it should be looked as the primary source of faith. Nonsense! The fact that people come to different conclusions is not the issue—God will open the eyes to truth, and He does not reveal ALL truth to ALL people at ALL times, and sometimes not at ALL! If I incorrectly install my car engine, the fault is with ME, and NOT the instruction booklet. People coming to different conclusions is NOT the fault of the Bible, but either the sinfulness of man to twist it, or the mere fact that God has not chosen to reveal that truth. In any case, the issue is, can the Bible function as the sole rule of faith and does it claim that for itself? The answer is a resounding YES!
Let’s get right to 2 Tim 3:16-17

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

I am aware that certain RC’s are now trying to deceive the public by arguing that S is merely “proficient”----but certainly not “sufficent” to function as the sole rule of faith… Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am assuming you are one of those people and so I will argue from that viewpoint. The first deadly blow to your position is that Paul tells us that the man of God may be “fully equipped” (i.e., not 50% —or one third percent as the RCC proclaims in her three-fold authority of magisterium, tradition and S) with the God-inspired scriptures. It is only reasonable to assume that if there were any other rules of faith that need be mentioned to “fully equip” the saints with, logic demands that just here he should have directed us to any and all other sources. But he, like Cyril above, does not! The second deadly blow is that “Tradition” is never once even hinted at from Genesis to Revelation that it TOO should be considered, “theopneustos” (God breathed, as “inspiration” signifies in 3:16).

Next to be examined is “perfect” or “complete” (artios) in 3:17— from which we get “fully equipped, or thoroughly furnished”. Artios is related in its root to these secondary terms from which Paul builds upon so we may embrace his fully-orbed meaning of “completedness”. The apostle (and hence, the Holy Spirit) is using the verb, to compound and EMPHASIZE the meaning present in the adjective (fully or thoroughly)----the third deadly blow to your position. Now while it is true that Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich & Danker define exartizo (fully equipped) as “complete, capable and proficient”, they further note that this MEANS, “able to meet all demands”, specifically citing 2 Tim 3:17…so a “ONE THIRD” quality of proficiency which YOU assert, is something the experts would disavow—face it. Apparently, the wide difference you are desperately seeking between “proficient” and “sufficent” to buttress “Tradition” being on the same “fully equipped” level as Scripture, is pure fantasy; thus, the fourth deadly blow.

The great Greek scholar, Richard Trench, in his “Synonyms of the New Testament” said with reference to artios, “If we ask ourselves under what special aspects “completeness” is contemplated in artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves, further, adaption and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve. St. Paul would say the man of God should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed.”
Hence, the fifth blow.

Please note that Paul was not simply satisfied to use the term “complete”, but forged ahead to define exactly what he means; namely that of being “fully equipped”. Vine tells us that it means to, “furnish completely”…(the sixth blow). Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker expressed these same words in relation to “equip”—(the seventh blow). Eric Svendsen reports that “fully equipped” is, "the participal form of artios that is INTENSIFIED by the prefix “ek” (the eighth blow). Therefore, if the Scriptures are fully able to equip us for every good work relating to “doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction”, then the burden is on YOU to show me one “good work” the Scriptures are INADEQUATE to handle in relation to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Again, NAME ME ONE GOOD WORK that S is unable to equip the man of God for. If you cannot do that, you have lost the debate; thus, the ninth deadly blow.

I ask you—what does it mean to say that one is “fully equipped”, if not to say that one is SUFFICIENT for a task? If you cannot answer THAT question, then the imaginary line of demarcation you are trying to create to sustain your position must be rejected. Hence, the tenth blow.

Now I also ask you to consider the scriptural standard that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall a fact be established:

1. Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, where we encounter the definition for the semantic domain for exartizo:
   They state, “To make someone completely adequate, or SUFFICIENT for something, to make adequate, to furnish completely; to cause to be fully qualified.” (By the way, these are two witnesses----the 11th and 12th blow).
2. “Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament”, by Reinecker & Rogers. In regard to 3:17, they state: "complete, capable, SUFFICIENT, i.e. able to meet all demands. (Another two witnesses; thus, the final 13th and 14th blow).

This is “Catholic Answers”, right?
Then answer me.

 

[paul_c]

Gate crasher, the point of this website is to find the truth about Jesus Christ that leads to heaven, not to 'battle"

You, like many others, spend considerable time on a snippet of scripture, without understanding scripture as a whole. You claim 14 blows on about 25 words of scripture from 2Tim3: 6-17, trying to read into those words that sola Scriptura is valid.

Why didn’t you read the whole passage:

10 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

You claim that Paul is saying that scripture is all you need, but that is clearly not true. The only scripture that was available to Timothy at the time of this writing was the old testament and it clearly didn’t have all truth. It was all true, but did not contain all truth. There is a huge difference. Nor could it be intepreted by everyone to lead all to salvation. If that had been the case, Jesus would not have had to sacrifice himself because everyone would already have known the truth.

Note, also that while Paul is telling him that scripture is useful for teaching, refutation, for correction and for training, he NEVER says that it is the ONLY thing that is useful as you claim. In fact, in verse 10, Paul directs him to remember what Paul taught him . This is Catholic tradition. Only after that did Paul point him to scripture as a useful reference.

Gatecrasher, you are very enthusiastic but you come off as very young. Take some time to learn what the Catholic church teaches and why before you come crashing into a website like this, thinking you are doing battle. This is not a battle.

Take to heart what Peter says in 2Peter 3:
:
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

 

[Gatecrasher]

Gate crasher, the point of this website is to find the truth about Jesus Christ that leads to heaven, not to 'battle"

You, like many others, spend considerable time on a snippet of scripture, without understanding scripture as a whole. You claim 14 blows on about 25 words of scripture from 2Tim3: 6-17, trying to read into those words that sola Scriptura is valid.

Why didn’t you read the whole passage:

10 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me.
12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

You claim that Paul is saying that scripture is all you need, but that is clearly not true. The only scripture that was available to Timothy at the time of this writing was the old testament and it clearly didn’t have all truth. It was all true, but did not contain all truth. There is a huge difference. Nor could it be intepreted by everyone to lead all to salvation. If that had been the case, Jesus would not have had to sacrifice himself because everyone would already have known the truth.

It should be obvious to anyone reading this that you utterly failed the Bible’s challenge to name for me one good work that Scripture was inadequate for (since you take the position that it is indeed inadequate to function as the sole rule of faith). Therefore, it IS adequate.
Now, as to what you say above, even though Paul was referring to the O.T. Scriptures, that does not in the LEAST invalidate my argument! As William Hendrickson says in his “Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles”, p. 300

“By using the phrase ‘all scripture’ in vs. 16, the apostle EXPANDS the scope of divine writing to include WHATEVER has a right to be called inspired scripture.”

And I will remind you that earlier in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul quotes Deut 25:4 AND Luke 10:7, categorizing them both as scripture, indicating that some documents of the N.T. corpus were, even at this early stage, given canonical status. Thus, your statement that the only thing Tim had was the O.T., is categorically false. We even find Peter referring to Paul’s epistles in connection with “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16), and hence, there is strong evidence that the Pauline corpus was already given canonical status by the time 2 Peter was written (!!!). Furthermore, even the apostle Paul clearly regarded his own writings as inspired (1 Cor 14:37), and thus he would naturally bind them on the consciences of his readers. The O.T. Scriptures were able to make one wise to salvation in that it prophesied the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4). And Paul could stand before Agrippa “saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22-23; 24:14). The gospel Paul preached could be CONFIRMED upon an examination of the O.T. Scriptures (Acts 17:11).

At the end of the day, your statement that “if everyone had known all these things, Jesus would not have had to sacrifice Himself” is compleeeetly nonsensical and out of order.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Gate crasher, the point of this website is to find the truth about Jesus Christ that leads to heaven, not to 'battle"

Note, also that while Paul is telling him that scripture is useful for teaching, refutation, for correction and for training, he NEVER says that it is the ONLY thing that is useful as you claim. In fact, in verse 10, Paul directs him to remember what Paul taught him . This is Catholic tradition. Only after that did Paul point him to scripture as a useful reference.

Gatecrasher, you are very enthusiastic but you come off as very young. Take some time to learn what the Catholic church teaches and why before you come crashing into a website like this, thinking you are doing battle. This is not a battle.

:

I utterly disagree with you in that this is not a battle. The N.T. has numerous references to battle, not the least of which is the admonition to dress in the whole ARMOR of God per Eph 6, and elsewhere being classified as “soldiers of Christ”, who use “weapons of warfare”, and Paul telling Tim to “war a good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)…God’s word being a “SWORD”.

I find your observation that I come off as “young”—quite amusing. Do the things that I say reflect the words of a “babe” in Christ? They most certainly do not, so I have no idea how you can even think such a thing. If you MUST know, I am 51, and am quite familiar with your doctrines, having left the RCC 25 years ago and have not looked back since.

Next, is your erroneous leap of monumental proportions that just because Paul refers Tim to the things that he taught him, DOES NOT FOR A MINUTE, mean that Paul was referring to some sort of extra-biblical, unwritten infallible tradition to be passed down through time till kingdom come! Not one Bible commentary on planet earth will carry that little bit of eisegesis, including my NAB St. Joseph edition with footnotes. Your legs are quite long my dear Mr. Leapfrog. No where does Holy Writ designate “oral tradition” as some sort of continuing revelation. Scripture reserves this norm for itself alone and by self-designation, as previously reported, unites to itself the function of making men wise for salvation and being profitable for all manner of rebuke, correction and instruction. There is NO other revelation that God pronounces to be “God-breathed” to make the man of God complete, and since we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor 4:6)…that, as they say, is that!