Sola Scriptura Precludes Preaching

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

deb1:

To help us better understand your version of sola scriptura can you explain how you define the term? So Sola Scriptura to you doesn’t mean bible alone, it means bible plus other material? How do you decide which other material is correct? Sorry to throw so many questions at you, I am honestly trying to understand your view.

Sola Scriptura does mean Scripture alone. What I mean by Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Moreover, it is sufficient for that task. Only the Scriptures are binding on the believer’s conscience. Councils, Synods, sermons, scholarship, etc. May be useful and should not be ignored lightly. However, only the Scriptures themselves demand our submission. For example, I believe that the London Baptist Confession is a faithful exposition of Scripture, I believe what is contained in it. However, my loyalty is to Scripture alone. I cannot base my beliefs on the LBC, but must derive them from Scripture. I cannot simply cite the LBC and expect others to submit to it. However, I can point to it and explain that I believe that it is correct insofar as I believe that it is consistent with the Scriptures.

So, do you consider Billy Grahan a heretic? I have always liked him.

No, I don’t think he’s a heretic. A friend of mine put it quite well: “Billy Graham is a great man with a great heart to see people come to the Lord, but he has BAD theology.”
I don’t require someone to agree with me in all minutae to be considered in the pale of orthodoxy.

DeFide:

No, you just think I misunderstand your flavor of Sola Scriptura.

Maybe.

Tell me, what else, besides Scripture, comprises your final authority? After you define your basis, tell us why anyone should believe your definition or refer to it as “Sola Scriptura”.

Scripture alone is the final authority. You were basically saying that if anyone does anything but just quote Scripture they are violating Sola Scriptura. This is not the case. I explained my contention with your statement in my previous post. The point is that these Protestants are not (or should not, at least) be claiming to be infallible authorities on the matter). Even if they did claim infallibility, this no more disproves Sola Scriptura than my Eucharist “argument” (about my father) disproves transubstantiation.

You should refer to “my definition” as Sola Scriptura because it is the historical Protestant position. Please allow us to define our own beliefs. Just because some Protestants violate this teaching, or have explained it poorly, or have used a distortion of it to argue against you, or whatever else, does not mean that this is not the consistent position of the Reformation and its heirs.

Nowhere in the Bible do I find the following statement: “…through proper grammatico-historical exegesis, we can know what the Bible means.”

You are imposing an inaccurate definition of Sola Scriptura here. These is pretty much axiomatic. If you understand what the passage means grammatically and how such a grammatical meaning would be understood in that historical context, then you know what the author intended to say.

Secondly, others of good will who follow this invented standard do not arrive at the same conclusions, therefore you cannot “know” what the Bible means via that method.

You are exaggerating the disagreements among Protestants. There are differences to be sure. But on areas that we consider essential, we essentially agree. There is disagreement in Rome, but that doesn’t disprove sola ecclesia.

 

[Mickey]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

There is disagreement in Rome, but that doesn’t disprove sola ecclesia.

Can you elaborate on this? (And I don’t mean disagreement among the laity–if someone is not in obedience to the Catholic doctrine, they are not truly Catholic–even though they may call themselves as such).

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Sola Scriptura does mean Scripture alone. What I mean by Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Moreover, it is sufficient for that task. Only the Scriptures are binding on the believer’s conscience. Councils, Synods, sermons, scholarship, etc. May be useful and should not be ignored lightly. However, only the Scriptures themselves demand our submission. For example, I believe that the London Baptist Confession is a faithful exposition of Scripture, I believe what is contained in it. However, my loyalty is to Scripture alone. I cannot base my beliefs on the LBC, but must derive them from Scripture. I cannot simply cite the LBC and expect others to submit to it. However, I can point to it and explain that I believe that it is correct insofar as I believe that it is consistent with the Scriptures.
…

Scripture alone is the final authority. You were basically saying that if anyone does anything but just quote Scripture they are violating Sola Scriptura. This is not the case. I explained my contention with your statement in my previous post. The point is that these Protestants are not (or should not, at least) be claiming to be infallible authorities on the matter). Even if they did claim infallibility, this no more disproves Sola Scriptura than my Eucharist “argument” (about my father) disproves transubstantiation.

You should refer to “my definition” as Sola Scriptura because it is the historical Protestant position. Please allow us to define our own beliefs. Just because some Protestants violate this teaching, or have explained it poorly, or have used a distortion of it to argue against you, or whatever else, does not mean that this is not the consistent position of the Reformation and its heirs.

You are imposing an inaccurate definition of Sola Scriptura here. These is pretty much axiomatic. If you understand what the passage means grammatically and how such a grammatical meaning would be understood in that historical context, then you know what the author intended to say.

You are exaggerating the disagreements among Protestants. There are differences to be sure. But on areas that we consider essential, we essentially agree. There is disagreement in Rome, but that doesn’t disprove sola ecclesia.

1. Your definition of Sola Scriptura isn’t in Scripture, so you should reject that definition as non-authoritative and you should not expect anyone to accept it.
2. Where in Scripture is the list of “essentials” that Sola Scriptura-ists agree on? If you find it, it will have to be a very short list.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

1. Your definition of Sola Scriptura isn’t in Scripture, so you should reject that definition as non-authoritative and you should not expect anyone to accept it.

That Scripture is sufficient for equiping the man of God for every good work is not in Scripture? 2 Tim 3:17. All the rest is inferrential from this premise.

1. Where in Scripture is the list of “essentials” that Sola Scriptura-ists agree on? If you find it, it will have to be a very short list.

In essence, anything that is anathematized (with or without the word anathema) is dealing with a central issue.
Again, I think you exagerate the differences among Protestants, they are there, but they really are not about the most important of issues (most of the time)

 

[J.W.B]

SEMPER, what of the Protestant Churches who believe in divorce and contraceptives? Are those beliefs not “essential?” What of the Protestants who believe in Baptism Regeneration? These seem to be essential to me. I am not picking a fight but I am humbly asking a serious question.

 

[john_ennis]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

That Scripture is sufficient for equiping the man of God for every good work is not in Scripture? 2 Tim 3:17. All the rest is inferrential from this premise.

In essence, anything that is anathematized (with or without the word anathema) is dealing with a central issue.
Again, I think you exagerate the differences among Protestants, they are there, but they really are not about the most important of issues (most of the time)

But Tim 3:17 refers to the OT which Paul and Timothy had available to them. Assuming Paul was not misleading Timothy, AND that your understanding of him is correct, then ALL that we need is the Old Testament.

Secondly, of course, your understanding is an interpretation. You assert that, because Scripture equips us for every good work, that must mean that God reveals all that is essential to our faith through the Bible, and nothing in any other way. Are you infallible? Is it possible you are reading too much into Paul? Just possible?

Peace.
John

 

[Fidelis]

Sola Scriptura does mean Scripture alone. What **I ** mean by Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Moreover, it is sufficient for that task. Only the Scriptures are binding on the believer’s conscience. Councils, Synods, sermons, scholarship, etc. May be useful and should not be ignored lightly. However, only the Scriptures themselves demand our submission. For example, I ** believe that the London Baptist Confession is a faithful exposition of Scripture, I ** believe what is contained in it. However, my loyalty is to Scripture alone. I ** cannot base my beliefs on the LBC, but must derive them from Scripture. I ** cannot simply cite the LBC and expect others to submit to it. However, **I ** can point to it and explain that I believe that it is correct insofar as **I ** believe that it is consistent with the Scriptures.

Sure are a lot of “I’s” in here. What happens when “I” don’t agree with “your” interpretation? Since there is only one truth, someone is right and someone is wrong. Who’s to say? Me? You?

Again, I think you exagerate the differences among Protestants, they are there, but they really are not about the most important of issues (most of the time)

What are the essentials? Where’s the list? Who decides what is essential and what isn’t? Who decides?

 

[Mickey]

john ennis:

But Tim 3:17 refers to the OT which Paul and Timothy had available to them. Assuming Paul was not misleading Timothy, AND that your understanding of him is correct, then ALL that we need is the Old Testament.

Also, Tim 3:17 says **All **Scripture… not…only Scripture.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

So, do you consider Billy Grahan a heretic? I have always liked him.

How can we say that a protestant is a heretic if he is not a Catholic. I think you can only be named as heretic if you dont believe in the Catholic teaching if you are a catholic.

 

[deb1]

viktor aleksndr:

How can we say that a protestant is a heretic if he is not a Catholic. I think you can only be named as heretic if you dont believe in the Catholic teaching if you are a catholic.

True, but Sempereformda has stated that a man named Finney? was teaching something heretical. And then he mentioned Billy Graham. that was the basis for my question.

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

That Scripture is sufficient for equiping the man of God for every good work is not in Scripture? 2 Tim 3:17. All the rest is inferrential from this premise.

Your definition is not anywhere in 2 Tim 3:17.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1. The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.
2. The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.
3. The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or “inspired” (literally, “God-breathed”), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say “Scripture”; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as “inspired.” St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be “Scripture.” It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: “How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?” obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

cont’d…

 

[DeFide]

cont’d…

1. The Greek word artios, here translated “perfect,” may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. “After all,” one may ask, “if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?”

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made “perfect.” The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the “man of God” – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God “perfect.” The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, “The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation.” Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is either the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor “perfect,” it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word “perfect” as meaning “the only necessary item” results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes one perfect: “And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.” Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for “perfect,” but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only thing a “man of God” needs in order to be perfect.

1. The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated “furnished” (other Bible versions read something like “fully equipped” or “thoroughly furnished”) is referred to by Protestants as “proof” of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the “man of God.” However, even though the man of God may be “furnished” or “thoroughly equipped,” this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be “furnished” with them.

Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is “thoroughly equipped” or “furnished” for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the “man of God” and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In one case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

I’ll be back later to respond to some rather interesting and thoughtful observations. Please be patient, I am busy and a good response to your post might take some time.

It would be nice, if I weren’t flooded with a host of other things to respond to in this thread too…so I can stay focused, but anyone is free to post what they’d like.

I just don’t want you to think I’ve ignored your post (which obviously took some time and effort)

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

Fidelis:

Sure are a lot of “I’s” in here. What happens when “I” don’t agree with “your” interpretation? Since there is only one truth, someone is right and someone is wrong. Who’s to say? Me? You?

What are the essentials? Where’s the list? Who decides what is essential and what isn’t? Who decides?

These questions are purely pragmatic. They do not even touch on the issue of whether the Bible teaches the sufficiency of Scripture. These pragmatic objections may help to encourage you and yoru RC friends (and some uncommited Protestants), but if you want this argument to be effective against someone who really believes Sola Scriptura, you are going to have to deal with the Scriptures themselves to be convincing. It’s not enough to say: there are a lot of Protestant denominations and then expect that to be a persuasive argument against the sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

DeFide:

Your definition is not anywhere in 2 Tim 3:17.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1. The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

It is true that ωφελιμος does not “mean” sufficient. But I’m not saying that verse 16 itself teaches the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s located in what we might call a sufficiency sandwich. Verse 15 says that the Sacred Writings are τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου (able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus). The Scriptures are either able or not able to make us wise for salvation. If they are able to, then they are sufficient. If they are not able, then 2 Tim 3:15 is wrong.
Verse 16 tells us that the Scripture is ωφελιμος for the various things listed (then v. 17) ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος (in order that the man of God be competent thoroughly equipped for every good work). The construction of ινα plus a subjunctive verb (especially when God is the agent) does not carry any sense of potentiality or doubt or insufficiency. The Scriptures are given ινα the man of God be equipped for every good work and are τα δυναμενα to impart saving knowledge. This is sufficiency.

1. The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

It is true that πασα can mean every (though to say that it “actually” means that is incorrect. It means “all” also. Second, πασα modifies γραφη, which is somewhat of a technical term for Scripture as a whole (cf. 2 Pet 3:15-16). The emphasis in 2 Tim 3:16 is that the entirety of the Scripture (most specifically the OT) is inspired and therefore profitable. There is no example of γραφη being used to refer to a single book of the Bible (at least none that I am aware of). Your argument here does not work because this premise is invalid.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

1. The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

It is true that the OT is primarily in view. However, in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul cites both Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as Scripture.
Also, 2 Pet 3:16 identifies Paul’s letters as Scripture. We cannot limit “Scripture” to only the Old Testament.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or “inspired” (literally, “God-breathed”), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say “Scripture”; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as “inspired.” St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be “Scripture.” It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: “How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?” obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

I am not prepared to discuss canon at this point in time. I have answered your “Old Testament” argument, and that should do for now, since we are discussing whether the Bible teaches its own sufficiency. Canonicity is something to determine after the fact. However, I should point out that there was no “infallible” ruling on the canon until the Council of Trent.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

DeFide:

1. The Greek word artios, here translated “perfect,” may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. “After all,” one may ask, “if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?”

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made “perfect.” The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the “man of God” – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God “perfect.” The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

You are reading a Roman Catholic ecclesiology into the text here. A man of God is simply a man who is possessed by God: any Christian. You cannot claim that this is an official office of clergy without making unwarranted leaps of logic. 1 Tim 6:11 does not teach that man of God is an office of clergy either. Indeed, Ephesians 4:11ff indicates that all of God’s people do the work of ministry.

I fail to see where in this text other things are presented as working in conjunction with the Scriptures.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, “The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation.” Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is either the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor “perfect,” it is the only thing which makes him so.

This argument seems to be based on the clergy distinction that you used above. Therefore, it too is unwarranted. In addition it fails to take into account the fact that the Scriptures are τα δυναμενα tto impart saving wisdom.

Also, taking this word “perfect” as meaning “the only necessary item” results in a biblical contradiction,

It also results in an exegetical blunder since αρτιος modifies the man of God and not the Scripture. But, I still contend that the Scripture is able to make a man of God αρτιος.

for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes one perfect: “And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.” Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for “perfect,” but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only thing a “man of God” needs in order to be perfect.

However, 2 Tim 3:15-17 deals with the nature of Scripture, whereas, Jas 1 deals with the effect of endurance. Also, the final term of 2 Tim 3:17 is not αρτιος, instead it is προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος (thoroughly equipped for every good work). Thus, in 2 Tim the Scriptures are able to impart saving knowledge and to provide the information needed for obedience.

James 1, however, deals with enduring faith (which comes through the Scriptures 2 Tim 3:15] James himself acknowledges this in vv.21-26). The Scriptures give us all that we need (and are, therefore, sufficient), however, it is still our responsibility to “put legs on it.” This doesn’t mean that we need another source apart from Scripture. It only means that our faith (which Scripture gives us sufficiently) needs to be of genuine quality.

The two verses deal with different issues.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

1. The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated “furnished” (other Bible versions read something like “fully equipped” or “thoroughly furnished”) is referred to by Protestants as “proof” of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the “man of God.” However, even though the man of God may be “furnished” or “thoroughly equipped,” this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be “furnished” with them.

Again, you are using an invalid ecclesiological presupposition here. Also, your use of “furnished” does not work in the context of this passage. You write that the man of God may be furnished with Scripture passages, but what he is εξηρτισμενος for is παν εργον αγαθον (every good work). The issue is not interpretation, but obedience.

Consider again a medical analogy. Picture a medical student at the beginning of internship. He might have at his disposal all the equipment necessary to perform an operation (i.e., he is “thoroughly equipped” or “furnished” for a surgical procedure), but until he spends time with the doctors, who are the resident authorities, observing their techniques, learning their skills, and practicing some procedures of his own, the surgical instruments at his disposal are essentially useless. In fact, if he does not learn how to use these instruments properly, they can actually become dangerous in his hands.

So it is with the “man of God” and the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like the surgical instruments, are life-giving only when properly used. When improperly used, the exact opposite results can occur. In one case they could bring physical ruin or even death; in the other case they could bring spiritual ruin or even spiritual death. Since the Bible admonishes us to handle rightly or rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is therefore possible to handle incorrectly or wrongly divide it – much like an untrained medical student who incorrectly wields his surgical instruments.

However, 2 Tim 3:15-17 is speaking of the man of God (a regenerate believer, who is possessed by God, and therefore commited to the Lordship of Christ.)

On the other hand, those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:15-16) are the “ignorant and unstable.” These are not “men of God.” As Peter makes it clear in that context, they are false teachers and heretics (vv. 1-13). This is also seen in 2 Tim 2:15ff.

On the other hand, though, the man of God is made αρτιος and is προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος because of the Scriptures, which are δυναμενα to give us saving wisdom.

This passage does teach the sufficiency of Scripture. Your objections were thoughtful, but I have answered them all. I don’t necessarily expect you to be satisfied with my answers, but they are still there.

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

The Scriptures are either able or not able to make us wise for salvation. If they are able to, then they are sufficient. If they are not able, then 2 Tim 3:15 is wrong.
.

I hate to break this to you, but “useful” or “profitable” is not the same as “sufficient” or “all that is needed” or “adequate”.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that “Scripture alone” is able to make us wise. Scripture, yes. Scripture alone? No.

By analogy, eating a healthy diet can help you become a great athlete, but that does not mean you can avoid training. Also, a full tank of gas can make your car able to travel all the way to the store, but that doesn’t mean that spark plugs or wheels are unneeded.

It’s not an either-or issue. 2 Tim 3:15 is correct AND “Sola Scriptura” is wrong.

 

[Fidelis]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

These questions are purely pragmatic. They do not even touch on the issue of whether the Bible teaches the sufficiency of Scripture. These pragmatic objections may help to encourage you and yoru RC friends (and some uncommited Protestants), but if you want this argument to be effective against someone who really believes Sola Scriptura, you are going to have to deal with the Scriptures themselves to be convincing. It’s not enough to say: there are a lot of Protestant denominations and then expect that to be a persuasive argument against the sufficiency of Scripture.

Actually I think the pragmatic argument is a very strong one against Sola Scriptura, and is one that Protestants asiduously avoid answering. It goes beyond just saying “there are a lot of Protestant denominations and then expect that to be a persuasive argument against the sufficiency of Scripture;” it points out the fact that, even if Sola Scriptura were taught in the Scriptures (which clearly it is not), there is the matter of definitive interpretation. Again, truth is not relative to the individual interpreter: someone has to decide.