Sola Scriptura is True

[Contarini]

Do you think that the French experience during this period brewed underneath the surface until the idea of reformation was abstractualized and, via the philosophes “inspired” the revolutionaries against the Church and the Ancien Regime ( reacting against the theological thread running through medieval thought you referred to before; i.e., “divine right of kings”)?

That is, what role, by your lights, did the Reformation have in emboldening the revolutionaries/atheists to attempt (nearly successfully) to overthrow the Church in France, and religion in general?

I think it’s clear that there was a link between the Huguenots, particularly Huguenot refugees, and the Enlightenment. And of course one can argue that the Enlightenment in many ways took more radically some of the anti-traditional principles of the Reformation. However, I think that there’s another factor you’re not considering. The vicious persecution of French Protestants seems to have turned many of them (in the late 17th and early 18th centuries) against orthodox Christianity altogether. They hated Catholicism–and frankly it’s hard to blame them when you read about what happened to them under Louis XVI. But they also found it hard to accept the Protestant orthodoxy of the older generation. (And to be fair, one reason may have been that they realized that dogmatic French Protestants were just as intolerant as their Catholic opponents, only less powerful.) So they turned to a religion of reason and tolerance which would, they hoped, make religious violence a thing of the past.

And of course this led to the Reign of Terror. Talk about the irony of history. . . .

Edwin

 

[DD2007]

It would be more effective to refute DD2007 rather than simply “calling him out.”

That, my friend, is what has not happend here. Good point and thanks for steering attention back to the subject at hand. The original post is standing strong. Here it is again as a reminder:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Breathed out by God - Inspired by God authoritative, the words of God, God made this writing happen for a purpose.

Profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction, training in righteousness - This is the purpose of scripture. This is what it is good for. Teaching the truth. Rebuking false doctrines. Correcting errors, and training in righeousness. That is everything a christian would need.

That the man of God may be competent - Who scripture is meant for and for what purpose. Those who are regenerate believers in God the elect; especially teachers.

Equipped for EVERY good work - This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this passage isn’t true. Therefore, one must believe in the sufficiency of scripture if they believe in biblical inerrancy which the Roman Church claims it does.

So the word every is all encompasing and certainly teaches sufficiency.

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical. We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture. That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true. Jesus Christ himself the Word of God is the cornerstone of the Church that is built upon the revelation of the prophets and apostles from God himself. That is why the church is apostolic we have their teachings recorded in scripture. The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died. The bible is the written word of God and includes everything in it we need for faith and practice.

 

[caoimhin]

That, my friend, is what has not happend here… The original post is standing strong.

Did you respond to my post? Perhaps I missed it.

 

[Religio71]

Did you respond to my post? Perhaps I missed it.

I don’t think he’ll ever get that if my hands make me equipped for EVERY thing I build, I am not FULLY equipped to build everything, since i might also need a hammer or a screwdriver.

Here is an Eastern Orthodox’s perspective on the man made doctrine of sola scriptura:

orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

 

[DD2007]

Did you respond to my post? Perhaps I missed it.

Sorry Kevin. I didn’t because it didn’t address the power of the passage and I am on an increasingly small time budget. After tonight I will actually be offline for a few days due to company arriving from far away. So hopefully someone else can chime in for me. I see some have already done very well, thanks guys.

So, here is my response to your post:

1. You missed the strength of the all encompasing word every that is used in that passage. A work is something you do. Everything you do is a work of some kind. Good works are Godly works because only God is good.

So, if scripture prepares you to do every good work you are fully and sufficiently trained in every Godly thing you can do and that is an awsome display of God’s providence.

1. The reason Hebrews and James are scripture is this. James was written by James the brother of the Lord and was received by the church and apostles as scripture.

The apostle Paul is the most likely author of Hebrews. He didn’t sign it but that has been the tradition up until recently. Look in the header for Hebrews in your Douay Rheims Challoner version if you don’t believe me.

The other likely author is Barnabas, yet whoever wrote it, it was received by the Church and apostles as scripture.

So all that the apostles and prophets, wrote themselves, dictated to a scribe, or agreed came as inspired from God was indeed received as scripture because indeed those select people spoke for God as messengers of his word.

2 Peter 1:16-19 ESV
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

 

[josie_L]

I think you are over-generalizing from the English experience. Even there, I’m not convinced that the “revisionist” account is entirely true. I don’t think that Duffy et al do justice to the strong anticlerical and reformist sentiments of significant sectors of the lower middle classes. Duffy focuses largely on rural areas and simply dismisses the very probable links between Lollardy and the acceptance of Protestantism by certain social classes in England. However, the broader point is that in other parts of Europe–in many of the German cities for instance, or in Switzerland–you can clearly see popular sentiment in favor of the Reformation.

Furthermore, France is a country that never did become Protestant but where Protestantism was a very powerful movement for decades. What do you do with that? Sure, it was largely led by the lesser nobility. Insofar as there was a “People’s Reformation” on a broad scale anywhere in Europe, it was in Germany and it mostly went down in blood in 1525. It’s often hard to figure out what the common people actually thought. No doubt they thought many different things, and people with axes to grind pick on certain parts of the very fragmentary evidence to make their point.

I think it’s fair to say that generally (not exclusively) the Reformation was an urban phenomenon. So sure, impoverished peasants typically either didn’t care or were opposed to it. (Obviously the Revolution of 1525 is a huge exception, but many of these “peasants” were quite wealthy and some in fact miners rather than farmers, so the generalization probably still holds). The fact is that if you were at the bottom of the social scale, those above you didn’t really care what you thought (though they might care, or at least claim to care, for your welfare) until you got together in a large mob and started murdering people right and left. Sixteenth-century Europe was a hierarchical society and most social movements were led by relatively privileged people. In fact that’s true of most societies in history–maybe all of them, and maybe even ours. Social change is almost always imposed by a small group of elite folks. That’s one of the reasons I’m generally against it

Edwin

Firstly, I don’t believe I’m overgeneralizing as I had in mind not only England, but Scotland, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries wherein Protestantism became the state religion because of the monarchy/nobility (the reasons being more than obvious). French Switzerland was no different in that Calvin (due to the support of civil entities) managed to impose his theology through force, banishing Catholic priests, and forcing the people to attend Calvinistic sermons. And Luther only had so much support in Germany that he had to in light of this give away ecclessiatic control to the princes who would support him. It is my opinion that had King Henry VIII not broken off from the Catholic Church the effects of the Reformation would have been contained (and we would not have had a domino effect of countries following suit). God bless.

 

[Convert66]

DD,

I see you are still obstinant. That can be a good thing, I suppose.

First, your argument that “all scripture” makes the man of God competent for every good work doesn’t work, because the passage for “all scripture” is "pasa graphe which doesn’t mean ALL but EVERY scripture. That is, for your argument to hold you would have to argue not that ALL scripture is competent for equipping the man of God, but that ANY single, and EVERY single scripture is competent to render the man of God equipped for “every good work.” That is, by your argument, one single verse out of the entire Bible would be sufficient to make one equipped for “every good work.” This means you are not arguing sola scriptura but sola John 1:1 or sola Genesis 34:2. etc.

If that’s the case, tell me how I Chronicles 1:4 is sufficient to equip you for EVERY good work?

Also if Scripture alone makes the man of God “competent”, “complete” or sufficiently equipped for every good work, why does St. Paul use the word “artios”? In James 1:4, for instance, steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” These are stronger words than “artios” and so we would have to say that “steadfastness alone” would make the man of God equipped for every good work.

Titus 3:8 says that good deeds are “profitable”, “excellent and beneficial” but surely you wouldn’t argue “sola works” would you?

II Tim. 2:21 says that purity (cleansing from these things) makes one “ready for every good work.” "Purity alone?

Col. 4:12 says that Epaphras is praying that the Colossians may be “perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.” “Prayer alone?”

You position is untenable, DD.

All my best . . .

 

[Newbie2]

I think clarification is needed here; Protestant belief’s independent from their catholic belief becomes heresy such as the man made Sola’s theology which makes their communities independent from (the body of Jesus Christ) one another.

The individual person who unknowingly practices these heretical views are in themselves not heretical technically, they are baptised Christians journeying towards the Catholic Church which is the pillar foundation of Truth.

The CCC and Vatican Council II makes mention of this difficult interpretation of non catholic/protestant heretical teachings and the seperated baptised brethern who are born into such heretical views (teachings) of no fault of their own.

Just wanted to make caution that the heresy is in the teaching not necessarily the baptised individual who unknowingly practices them.

That’s a very good point, G. Relates well to the concept of “invincible ignorance”, methinks.

 

[caoimhin]

1. You missed the strength of the all encompasing word every that is used in that passage. A work is something you do. Everything you do is a work of some kind. Good works are Godly works because only God is good.

So, if scripture prepares you to do every good work you are fully and sufficiently trained in every Godly thing you can do and that is an awsome display of God’s providence.

I don’t think you’re seeing what I’m saying yet, as in my mechanic analogy. Saying that every scripture is given so that the man of God may be complete is not the same as saying that we are complete with Scripture alone. They are not equivalent statements. You are mentally inserting the “alone” bit due to your theological tradition, not the text itself.

1. The reason Hebrews and James are scripture is this. James was written by James the brother of the Lord and was received by the church and apostles as scripture.

The apostle Paul is the most likely author of Hebrews. He didn’t sign it but that has been the tradition up until recently. Look in the header for Hebrews in your Douay Rheims Challoner version if you don’t believe me.

The other likely author is Barnabas, yet whoever wrote it, it was received by the Church and apostles as scripture.

So all that the apostles and prophets, wrote themselves, dictated to a scribe, or agreed came as inspired from God was indeed received as scripture because indeed those select people spoke for God as messengers of his word.

Do you see what you are doing here? You are appealing to “tradition” and Church authority in determining the canon (which is right and historical BTW) but this is inconsistent with sola scriptura. It is precisely the idea of authoritative Tradition that the Reformers were rejecting in order to propose sola scriptura. This is completely inconsistent.

2 Peter 1:16-19 ESV
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

But this tells us nothing about which of those books purportedly written by an apostle is canonical and which is not. This verse is no basis for rejecting, say, the Gospel of James or the Apocalypse of Peter as canonical. It is the very authority of the Church you appeal to above, and not Scripture itself, that tells us that the Epistles of Peter are canonical and the Apocalypse of Peter is not. Appealing to Scripture begs the question of what is and isn’t Scripture.

 

[dj_dave]

No, my friend, you are very much in error here. What you are doing, if you’ll forgive my directness, is simply espousing more of the same heretical teachings which the immoral and dishonest Reformers espoused, while ignoring or rejecting the Fathers and all the approved Doctors of the Church. My humble suggestion is that you spend more time reading the holy Fathers and Doctors, and less the Reformers, if you are truly sincere about having a proper understanding of Scripture and of the true Christian faith.

Here now, is the proper exegesis (as well historical context) of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

1. “Man of God” is a technical term, used only for those with legitimate authority. The reformers and those who follow them have zero authority to interpret Scripture, to teach the Christian faith, or to correct others.
2. The term “Man of God” is not used even once, either in the Old or the New Testament, to refer to a lay person!
   God bless.

SO MUCH FOR THE “MAN OF GOD” THING…kidding, well kinda

1 Kings 13:18-22
*18 The old prophet answered, “I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the Lord: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.) 19 So the man of God returned with him and ate and drank in his house. 20 While they were sitting at the table, the word of the Lord came to the old prophet who had brought him back. 21 He cried out to the man of God who had come from Judah, “This is what the Lord says: ‘You have defied the word of the Lord and have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you. 22 You came back and ate bread and drank water in the place where he told you not to eat or drink. Therefore your body will not be buried in the tomb of your fathers.’” *

The one thing many overlook in the The Scriptures (including those soon to be written hereafter 98 C.E in John’s writings ) are in 2 Timothy 3:16 (Young’s Literal Translation)
and many other translations

1*6every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness, *

Also, Paul’s warning in 1 Cor 4:1-7…“So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?”

–just my 2 cents.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

Lets look a little closer at that passage again:

"I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may LEARN FROM US the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”

It says you may “learn [the meaning of this Scripture] FROM US,” i.e., the living apostles, NOT, you may learn it from the Scriptures alone!

 

[placido]

For sola scriptura to be true today, it must have been true from Day One of the existence of Christianity. But we all know that that was not true then and is therefore not true today.

placido

 

[MrS]

For sola scriptura to be true today, it must have been true from Day One of the existence of Christianity. But we all know that that was not true then and is therefore not true today.

placido

That about sums it up.

.

 

[caoimhin]

6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Also, as Cardinal Newman would point out here, this verse if applied that way would prove too much and provide a basis, say, for rejecting the book of Revelation which hadn’t been written yet, because Paul speaks of what is written, not what *is or shall be *written. So I don’t think that’s what God meant by this inspired text. Rather, he was stating a principle that we shouldn’t exceed the bounds of what Scripture allows, and Catholic teaching doesn’t do that. (I know; I spent years as a “Bible Christian” batting around uniquely Catholic doctrines in light of Scripture with some Catholic friends.)

Also, if we apply the above verse in a *sola scriptura *manner then we end up with a minimalist view of Christian liberty that forbids anything not specifically mentioned in Scripture. Does your home or church building have electricity? Sorry, it has to go. Your computer? Better donate it to charity. Oh, and you better trade your car in for a horse. Not sure Cash For Clunkers allows that though.

Rather, I think Paul was saying the same thing as this verse:

2 John 9 (NRSV) Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

And as more evidence that the above verse was not intended to convey the idea of sola scriptura, Catholic apologists are fond of this one (and with good reason):

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NRSV) So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

I have yet to see a *sola scriptura *adherent explain that one. I know I couldn’t.

 

[Lapey]

Please don’t think that I’m holding up my own denomination as the standard here. I have been fortunate in hearing some very good preaching in Episcopal churches. But I’ve also heard abysmally bad preaching–as bad as anything in Catholic churches and far more likely to be downright heretical. But I do think that some of the more orthodox mainline seminaries (such as Duke) are teaching their students to treat the Bible in a healthier way than you find in most places. And I’m sure that’s true in the Catholic Church as well. I’m confident that my friend Tim Gray, who now teaches at the seminary in Denver, doesn’t teach people to treat Scripture in isolation from theology.

You conclude prematurely that there is only exegetical learning taking place. Theology is also essential.

Lets keep this simple, our side conversation was begun by DD calling the Pope, or the office of the Pope, anti-Christ or anti Christian. Neither exegesis nor theology can bring one to that perspective, only prejudice.

You bring up fallen-away Catholics and why they leave, they leave not because of bad homilies; they leave because of lack of knowledge of the truth about their faith. If they knew what the truth was they would not leave, that’s fact. History doesn’t change truth my friend, people distort it, and you are asking me to do the same. We, the Church, must take responsibility for not catechizing the faithful as we should; so they would better understand the what, where, when, how, and why the priest or deacon says what they say.

There have been terrible times within the life of the Church, because of bad people. But the Church still stands for the truth. To stand outside of the Church and throw darts as DD does constantly is detestable.

The whole of Cannon Law is about the faithful. Look through it and you will see that the law is about how the Church should treat its people, the salvation of souls. I used to believe that it was a book of laws and regulations I was trapped by, but then I opened the book and began to read it. CL along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, comprise the true teachings of how the faithful should be cared for by the Church. The last cannon says it all, the salvation of souls is of utmost importance!

The fullness of grace and therefore salvation is in the truth, not in the way history portrays the truth.

This entire thread was started by a dart thrower in order to TEACH us Catholics our faith is wrong, I can’t help but remember the passage of the tax collector and the Pharisee praying the temple. There is so much more than what there appears to be, I’ll gladly be the repentant tax collector!

Yes I am in the US, actually in Louisiana; two thirds of the way through a five year formation process to ordination into the permanent Diaconate. The Deacons job through history and according to scripture has been charity first and foremost, but there are many Deacons who became Martyrs for defending the truth and the ministers of the truth, Deacons, Priests, and especially Bishops. At the top of the Magisterium being the leader amongst equals, the Holy Father and that office.

 

[Lapey]

That’s what the late medieval tradition would call the literal-historical sense. It’s important. But not the only thing.

I’m not quite sure what the “very different meaning” is. And of course much traditional messianic interpretation of Isaiah depends on ignoring the original context, or at least moving beyond it. If you limit yourself to the original context, you have no way of applying Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus. The original context is clearly talking about Ahaz and the threatened attack by Syria and Israel. (This is, by the way, the passage that caused the most controversies over “Judaizing” exegesis in the Middle Ages, at least if Beryl Smalley is to be believed.)

I am not of course defending the way Protestants use these passages (whether the historicist interpretation of traditional Protestantism or the dispensational approach more common in the past century). But the problem isn’t that they are letting these passages talk to each other. It’s that they are not doing this in the context of the broad tradition of the Church. They are using Scripture to justify division by demonizing their fellow Christians. I don’t disagree with you in attacking DD2007’s exegesis, but I disagree with *how *you are doing it. In a way, his method is more Catholic than yours.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin my brother,

The “very different meaning” is exactly what you stated. Later scriptural writings and most importantly Jesus Himself taught us how Isaiah meant so much more.

I haven’t seen any writings to apply “anti-Christ” to mean anything but what the author of 1st & 2nd John used it for within the Johanine community. It was definitely not meant to be applied to the apocalyptic writing, Revelation; which, by the way, has been totally distorted by history since it was penned by a member of the Catholic Church about the times of great persecution which was happening at that time and not the future.

We can look at many topics which have been distorted by history. There is a reason the Church “works in centuries”. It’s called discernment.

In Christ,
Gary

 

[Contarini]

For sola scriptura to be true today, it must have been true from Day One of the existence of Christianity. But we all know that that was not true then and is therefore not true today.

This shows that you don’t understand the logic behind sola scriptura. The classical Protestant argument is that all NT revelation was *eventually *written down in Scripture. Until that happened, of course “sola scriptura” was not true.

Note that this does disable many of the typical Protestant prooftexts for sola scriptura. I think that may be what is confusing you. The only way a Protestant can cite 2 Timothy in favor of sola scriptura is to argue (as at least one of my Reformed Baptist friends has suggested) is that 2 Timothy was the last book of the Bible to be written.

However, the more traditional and sophisticated argument for sola scriptura (the argument that the Protestant Reformers actually made–remember that they never used the phrase “sola scriptura” itself) is an argument for the authority of the Word of God over all human teaching. The question then becomes: where is the Word of God to be found *now. *Of course during the first century it could be found in oral teaching that had not yet been written down. And again, the Protestant Reformers frequently described preaching as the Word of God, so they recognized that the Word of God continued to have an oral component. But they argued that once the canon of NT was completed (in the sense of all the books being written, *not *in the sense of a unanimous consensus being reached on the limits of the canon), all of the Word of God was contained in Scripture, so that any preaching or teaching claiming to be the Word of God could be checked by comparison with Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The “very different meaning” is exactly what you stated. Later scriptural writings and most importantly Jesus Himself taught us how Isaiah meant so much more.

And Christian tradition. I shouldn’t have to remind a Catholic of this.

I haven’t seen any writings to apply “anti-Christ” to mean anything but what the author of 1st & 2nd John used it for within the Johanine community. It was definitely not meant to be applied to the apocalyptic writing, Revelation

So all the Church Fathers and all the medieval theologians–every Christian theologian until modern times in fact–were dead wrong on this one? The use of “antichrist” to describe the “man of sin” and the “beast” goes back at least to Irenaeus, who was writing less than a century after the author of Revelation.

Again, you’re the Catholic here. I shouldn’t have to make the case to you that Scripture needs to be read through the lens of Christian tradition. The consensus in favor of this use of the word “antichrist” is more unanimous than that in favor of the Real Presence or any of the other issues on which Catholics appeal to tradition against Protestants. I recognize that this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s right–one can argue that it was never more than a very common opinion and thus is not binding–but surely it can’t just be dismissed cavalierly? Only with the rise of historical criticism did it occur to anyone, as far as I’m aware, to separate 1 John from these other texts. And only because of anti-Catholic apocalyptic theories do you or any other Catholic come to have a strong stake in this separation. You are insisting on this for (legitimate) theological reasons, not just (as you seem to claim) exegetical ones. That’s OK by me. I’m the one who thinks that exegesis and theology can’t be separated! But I think you may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this one.

We can look at many topics which have been distorted by history. There is a reason the Church “works in centuries”. It’s called discernment.

This sounds to me like fancy language covering up the fact that many Catholics have essentially become Baptists in their approach to tradition.

Of course I think that the Church develops in its understanding of the Faith. When there are very good reasons to do so, themselves rooted in the Tradition, then of course we may need to reject a common opinion or practice (I would argue that women’s ordination is a case where this is needed). But you haven’t provided any theological reasons for throwing out this interpretation–only a dogmatic appeal to the canons of modern historical-critical exegesis. That shouldn’t be enough for a Catholic. It certainly isn’t enough for me as an Anglican.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Breathed out by God - Inspired by God authoritative, the words of God, God made this writing happen for a purpose.

Profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction, training in righteousness - This is the purpose of scripture. This is what it is good for. Teaching the truth. Rebuking false doctrines. Correcting errors, and training in righeousness. That is everything a christian would need.

That the man of God may be competent - Who scripture is meant for and for what purpose. Those who are regenerate believers in God the elect; especially teachers.

None of this is relevant to sola scriptura.

Equipped for EVERY good work - This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this passage isn’t true.

First of all, are you aware that many Catholics *do *believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture? And in the second place, your argument puts too much weight on the causal connection “so that.” You are assuming that because this is the purpose of Scripture, therefore Scripture alone must be sufficient for this purpose. That just doesn’t fly.

And furthermore, if you use this text literally to prove sola scriptura you must do one of three things:

1. Argue that 2 Timothy was the last book of the NT written, which is highly dubious
2. Reject the canonicity of any book written after 2 Timothy (which most likely would include Revelation and the Gospel and letters of John at the very least); or
3. Claim that at any given time in salvation history, whatever part of Scripture had been written down at that point was sufficient.

If you go with this third option, then you have to redefine “sufficiency” to the point that it presents no challenge whatever to Catholicism.

Therefore, one must believe in the sufficiency of scripture if they believe in biblical inerrancy which the Roman Church claims it does.

Yes, although it seems that they define it more loosely than many Protestants–at least many apparently orthodox Catholics do. I don’t necessarily have a problem with what many Catholics seem to mean by “inerrancy,” although I don’t like the term because of the kind of word games it makes one play.

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical.

But how do you know which books they wrote? How do you know that these 66 books and only those books are by prophets and apostles? And how do you define prophets and apostles anyway? If you want to go with the rabbinic Jewish definition of the “nevi’im,” you would have to throw out all the “Writings”–Daniel, Chronicles, even Psalms. Probably that’s too narrow–the NT writers refer to Daniel as a prophet, for instance. But then you can’t automatically rule out the deuterocanonical books either, once you reject the authority of the tripartite Hebrew canon.

We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.

How do you know this?

That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true.

So you accept the 66-book canon because you trust the Church? What theological basis do you have for placing such implicit trust in the witness of the early Church, against all the evidence brought by modern scholars? You even, in another post, argue for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, which was challenged in the early Church and largely rejected by the Reformers. That’s a pretty radical reliance on tradition, going beyond that of the Roman Catholics. On what is this grounded, theologically? And furthermore, why the 66-book canon if the early Church’s judgment is so beyond question? Exactly the same process that led to acceptance of Hebrews and Revelation led to the acceptance of the OT deuterocanonical books, which you reject. Yes, one can argue that the disputed NT books were accepted earlier and more unanimously. But the same kinds of arguments were made on both sides, and many of the same suspects lined up as skeptics or defenders. Your position is illogical. You have tied yourself into a corner you can’t get out of without simply appealing to blind faith or to a Mormon-style “burning in the bosom” which could be used to defend any books that happened to strike one as divinely inspired. Are you really satisfied with that?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Firstly, I don’t believe I’m overgeneralizing as I had in mind not only England, but Scotland, Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries wherein Protestantism became the state religion because of the monarchy/nobility (the reasons being more than obvious).

There were lots of reasons. With regard to Scotland–as I said, you usually find important movements being led by elites. Certainly in Scotland the monarchy was not the moving agency. Scandinavia I give you, although I’ve read (in a Catholic source, though I admit I can’t remember the author right now) the claim that Catholic missionaries in the 18th century encountered Norwegian peasants who didn’t even know that Norway had broken with Rome. That indicates that in this region at least the common people were indifferent to the Reformation rather than hostile.

French Switzerland was no different in that Calvin (due to the support of civil entities) managed to impose his theology through force, banishing Catholic priests, and forcing the people to attend Calvinistic sermons.

It’s not that simple. (Technically Geneva wasn’t part of Switzerland at the time, but that’s not really the point.) The Genevans had kicked out the bishop before Protestant preachers ever arrived. As elsewhere in Europe, the Protestants were able to build on widespread anticlerical sentiment. Of course they then used force to cement their control and to impose discipline.

And Luther only had so much support in Germany that he had to in light of this give away ecclessiatic control to the princes who would support him.

I don’t dispute that the Protestants gained a lot of support due to their willingness to hand over authority to the civil governments.

I think part of the problem here is that you are reading the whole story with anachronistic American eyes. You are assuming that a “real” religious movement is bottom-up and that because the Reformation needed the support of rulers and elites in order to prevail, therefore it somehow wasn’t really motivated by religious concerns. That’s not a valid argument. As I keep saying, just about any movement in history that has any success is led by elites and gains the support of people in power. It’s not as if the Catholic Church didn’t depend heavily on monarchs and the nobility as well. In many parts of Europe–such as France–the Reformation tended to be supported by the lesser nobility and the middle classes and opposed by the monarchy and the higher aristocracy.

It is my opinion that had King Henry VIII not broken off from the Catholic Church the effects of the Reformation would have been contained (and we would not have had a domino effect of countries following suit).

I can’t see that this opinion is well founded. By the time Henry declared independence from Rome in 1534, a number of German cities and principalities had already become Protestant. And of course England wasn’t firmly in the Protestant camp until the reign of Elizabeth–one could even argue until the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Furthermore, I think that your statement supports my accusation that you are overemphasizing England. That’s natural–I gather that you, like myself, are a native English speaker, and we tend to put more emphasis on our own cultural heritage. For me that has been counteracted by studying with an expert on the Continental Reformation who refused to let me write my dissertation on a British topic!

England just wasn’t as important in the European scene as you are assuming. It wasn’t totally insignificant, but it was very much on the periphery of Europe and its actions didn’t have the kind of impact that those of France or the Holy Roman Empire did.

Edwin