The OT can make wise unto salvation

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

Your entire post begged the question, didn’t address the issue.

I assumed no conclusion; I simply provided background information. To beg the question is to assume the thing to be proven in the body of the proof.

LetsObeyChrist:

Could you try again? This time address my argument.

You have had many answers, and seem to ignore them all. Perhaps what is troubling you is that no Catholic will restrict himself to the truncated portion of the deposit of the faith which you set out for him?

LetsObeyChrist:

ps, the link you posted doesn’t work.

It did when I clicked on it in your quote in the reply you sent. Try again.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

pnewton:

WOW! I thought this arguemnet sounded familiar. Let me share a rather ironic story. John MacArthur, specificallly his arguement on this passage in Timothy is one of the reasons I am Catholic!

When I was trying to counter Mark Shea’s By What Authority arguement, I remembered a series John MacArthur did on the topic. All I needed on one scripture to show sola scriptura and I could remain a Baptist. I listened repeatedly to the logic he used and each time he made the substitution of slipping the word suffiecient in without justification.

I am sorry but language and the grammer doesn’t cut it for the reason I stated above (i.e. using logical substitution).

I apologize to LetsObeyChrist for implying that he said profitable=sufficient. I did not mean to misrepresent his arguement. I just do not see the progression where this scripture implies sufficiency

That Scripture is Materially and Formally sufficient is elementary my dear pnewton.

God inspired Scripture to be profitable for teaching &c…

2 Timothy 317 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Only when Scripture has all the equipment required for every good work (= Material Sufficiency) can it equip for every good work.

Only when Scripture’s instructions are comprehensible (= Formal Sufficiency) can these equip for every good work.

God through Paul says the Bible can make wise unto salvation, having fully equipped men for every good work. To accomplish this feat the Bible must be both Materially and Formally sufficient.

It is that simple.

As for Mark Shea, contrary to your experience none of the senses he makes scriptures to be make any sense to me.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

However the OT scriptures can only do this in the context of Christ (The Truth, Jn 14:6), through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So basically, you are descripturizing the NT. Allrightey.

they are made wise unto (eis, into) salvation just as happened to these Bereans:

Actually, the Bereans accepted Paul’s interpretation of Scripture as well as the Scriptures. They just compared the two and noticed it lined up. Therefore, they accepted both as authoritative.

C’mon. A guy named Paul comes up to a bunch of Jews and starts teaching the complete unnecessary-ness of being circumcised, the Mosaic Ceremonial Law is no longer applicable, the Trinity. You think they’re going to say “OK, those ideas are in the Scriptures” No, they’ll call him a heretic. That’s because those items are NOT in the OT! Those are revealed a in the NT! So Paul had to interpret the OT in the light of the NT. BOOM. It fits now. Paul’s interpretation of Scripture is required.

Should we accept your interpretation of Scripture?
Why? Where is that in the Bible that we are required to do so?

We can accept Paul’s interpretation of Scripture, but yours?

Hence the idea Scripture may be “materially sufficient” but not “formally sufficient” is bogus. Scripture is clear enough to be made wise unto salvation.

Wonderful. Using Scripture alone, we should be able to figure out which one of the tens of thousands of sola scripturist denominations have the correct interpretation of scripture. Using Scripture alone, we can answer my infamous 4 questions

Right?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

So basically, you are descripturizing the NT. Allrightey.

Actually, the Bereans accepted Paul’s interpretation of Scripture as well as the Scriptures. They just compared the two and noticed it lined up. Therefore, they accepted both as authoritative.

C’mon. A guy named Paul comes up to a bunch of Jews and starts teaching the complete unnecessary-ness of being circumcised, the Mosaic Ceremonial Law is no longer applicable, the Trinity. You think they’re going to say “OK, those ideas are in the Scriptures” No, they’ll call him a heretic. That’s because those items are NOT in the OT! Those are revealed a in the NT! So Paul had to interpret the OT in the light of the NT. BOOM. It fits now. Paul’s interpretation of Scripture is required.

Should we accept your interpretation of Scripture?

Why? Where is that in the Bible that we are required to do so?

We can accept Paul’s interpretation of Scripture, but yours?

Wonderful. Using Scripture alone, we should be able to figure out which one of the tens of thousands of sola scripturist denominations have the correct interpretation of scripture. Using Scripture alone, we can answer my infamous 4 questions

Right?

They are infamous all right but I doubt these moderators will let such endless posts go forever.

My end statment in my main post coincidently addressed their point quite well although if I recall that never satisfied you:

It may not contain all the info Catholic apologists would like to see, but it certainly does have sufficiently clear material that the man of God be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

God through Paul says so.

Paul is not just a guy, he is an apostle of the LORD Jesus Christ.

When Paul says the Bible has enough in it to make wise unto salvation, it does.

That means it not only is materially sufficient, it must also be formally sufficient, otherwise Scripture could do neither of the things God through Paul said it can do.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

They are infamous all right but I doubt these moderators will let such endless posts go forever.

Endless posts? C’mon, LOC, that’s your way of saying you cannot answer the infamous 4 questions without violating a certain man-made tradition that makes null the word of God, you hold on.

As said in my opening about the Old Testament which refutes the point of your 4 questions quite well:

It may not contain all the info Catholic apologists would like to see, but it certainly does have sufficiently clear material that the man of God be complete, fully equipped for every good work

So what you are saying is that the infamous 4 questions’s answers are NOT required to be known by Christians? Not even if they were applied to the OT?

Ps, I nor my interpretations are the issue,

It is. Because you’re trying to sell us your interpretation of scripture.

Paul’s express statement the Bible has enough in it to make wise unto salvation, is. That means it not only is materially sufficient,

See, there you go again. First you say the OT. Then the Bible (which includes the NT) is sufficient. Please make up your mind If the NT is not required unto salvation (as your interpretation, and the subject of this thread) then it can’t be scripture, pursuant to your interpretation. See, you got to descripturize the NT to hold on to a certain man-made tradition.

it must also be formally sufficient, otherwise Scripture could do neither of the things God through Paul said it can do.

Wonderful. Let’s put that to the test. If it can be made wise unto salvation, that wisdom includes the answers to the 4 questions. So answer them.

Another thing: If the scriptures WERE formally sufficient, then 100% of the Jews would be Christians WAY BACK THEN. They would have seen Christ in the OT Scriptures without any help from the Apostles and that’s it, game over.

Now, unless you’re now saying the Apostles are needed, then why?

Also, is there a reason you still haven’t answered my questions in the Sola Scriptura thread? It is interesting how you started this thread to avoid answering them.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

BobCatholic:

Also, is there a reason you still haven’t answered my questions in the Sola Scriptura thread? It is interesting how you started this thread to avoid answering them.

Good point, Bob.

We have also yet to hear from LOC what his basis is for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture at all.

Karl K. observed that it is very hard to pin down people who subscribe to sola scripture their basis for acknowledging the authority of Holy Scripture. On this showing, how right he was!

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[BobCatholic]

Gerry Hunter:

We have also yet to hear from LOC what his basis is for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture at all.

In fact, he’s basically descripturized the NT in this thread (rejecting the authority of the NT) - so desperate he is to hold on to a certain man-made tradition that makes null the word of God.

He also won’t admit he is trying to sell us his interpretation of scripture.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Strider:

I was fascinated to read in Lorraine Boettner’s book on Roman Catholicism this quote. “The largest collection of books in the world on the subject of sex is in the Vatican library.”

I think this one line from John McCarthy’s speech says it all. It would take days and volumes to correct all the errors in the speech. The only thing I can do is pray for LOC, McCarthy and all those so angry and hateful of something they don’t have a chance of comprehending with their confused misunderstanding of Scripture, Tradition and the Church.

God Bless

Now you have good material for a thread, expose MacArthur’s errors in that message.

I can’t wait to see it.

Thank’s for your prayers, we can all use more of that.

While I’m a heterosexual who has been sucessfully celibate for over 25 years, never fornicating at all, I have decided it is better I now marry. As I never made any rash vows I won’t be breaking any when I marry the right Christian girl.

So Thanks for the link I feel much profited having read MacArthur’s thoughts on celibacy. In the midst of his well researched article he noted something that I myself reflected upon:

"It is only in the marriage state that some of the purest, most disinterested and most elevated principles of our nature are called into exercise. All that concerns filial piety and parental and especially maternal affection depends on marriage for its very existence. It is in the bosom of the family that there is a constant call for acts of kindness, of self-denial, of forbearance and of love. The family, therefore, is the spirit, the best adapted for the development of all the social virtues. End quote.

In celibacy there is actually less need for self-denial and forebearance than one would at first suppose. I do what I want when I want, in Christ Jesus of course. That is the freedom we have Paul talked about (1 Cor 7:32f).

Moreover being Married doesn’t seem to have slowed the apostle Peter in his service to Christ nor MacArthur or Billy Graham for that matter. Both have ministries far surpassing anything I do for the LORD Jesus.

Scripture says it is better to be married than to burn with desires and it calls forced celibacy a doctrine of demons.

Scripture is always right.

If you are going to refute MacArthur I suggest you get cracking, you have lots to do.

I look forward to your thread.

Thanks in advance

 

[BobCatholic]

See, now you’re trying to change the topic to celibacy. Stay on topic, LOC!

BobCatholic pulls a switch and drops a giant pillow with the words “Stay On Topic LOC” on it on LOC

 

[jmm08]

Why the whole Old Testament by itself?
You know an awful lot is in Isaiah all by itself.

We see Jesus on the cross. Isaiah chapter 53.

Even a type of the “Keys given to St. Peter” are there.
Isaiah 22:22-25 talk about the “Key of the House of David”.
“…when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open…”

Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock. See Isaiah 51:1-2. “… Look to the Rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried.”

You can whittle the Bible as small as you like. But you only curse yourself if you do. I now think it best to keep the whole thing as the Roman Catholics do.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

Endless posts? C’mon, LOC, that’s your way of saying you cannot answer the infamous 4 questions without violating a certain man-made tradition that makes null the word of God, you hold on.

So what you are saying is that the infamous 4 questions’s answers are NOT required to be known by Christians? Not even if they were applied to the OT?

It is. Because you’re trying to sell us your interpretation of scripture.

See, there you go again. First you say the OT. Then the Bible (which includes the NT) is sufficient. Please make up your mind If the NT is not required unto salvation (as your interpretation, and the subject of this thread) then it can’t be scripture, pursuant to your interpretation. See, you got to descripturize the NT to hold on to a certain man-made tradition.

Wonderful. Let’s put that to the test. If it can be made wise unto salvation, that wisdom includes the answers to the 4 questions. So answer them.

Another thing: If the scriptures WERE formally sufficient, then 100% of the Jews would be Christians WAY BACK THEN. They would have seen Christ in the OT Scriptures without any help from the Apostles and that’s it, game over.

Now, unless you’re now saying the Apostles are needed, then why?

Also, is there a reason you still haven’t answered my questions in the Sola Scriptura thread? It is interesting how you started this thread to avoid answering them.

Endless posts are not my forte. My answer to your 4 questions stands. God through Paul says Scripture contains all that is necessary for HIM to consider a man of God fully equipped.

It may not have a “table of contents,” it may not have a “infallible list of doctrines,” it may not have much of the information that can be found only in the New Testament, but it does have God declaring through the apostle Paul it is able to make wise unto salvation in Christ and that it contains enough to equip the man of God completely.

Whose opinion should I believe, yours or God’s?

I know your answer and you know mine. There is little point in belaboring the issue.

Post your four questions, I will post a brief response and allow you to endless post how my answer isn’t good enough for you.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

…
PASA, literally is “every.”

ASV 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God *is *also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
Glad you didn’t say this taught sola scripture in post #4, because it doesn’t–not unless you want to confuse necessary and sufficient causes. 2 Timothy 2:21 teaches that “if a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be and instrument for moble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work” (NIV). So it looks like cleansing ourselves prepares us for any (“pan”–the neuter of “pas”–“pasa” is the feminine) good work–he gives some examples of what to cleanse ourselve from in verse 22. Another sufficient cause is God’s grace (there can be any number of sufficient causes). 2 Cor. 9:8 “God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things and at all times, having all you need, you will abound in every “pan”] good work” (NIV). Finally, Paul tell us to “Put on the full armor of God”–“the belt of truth,” breastplate of righteousness," feet “fitted with the readiness that come from the gospel of peace,” the “shield of faith,” the “helmut of salvation,” and finally the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Given your emphasis on the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture, what about the rest of the armor God has? A sword is sufficient to fight, surely, but isn’t it wise to take the rest?

When translators render this as “all” they are conveying the sense, “every” writing that is God-breathed (is) profitable for teaching etc. Which raises the question of how do we know these extra (non-OT) “God-breathed” sayings and distinguish them from other sayings? Tradition, perhaps?

This does not limit what is said to only the OT, it limits what is said to whatever is truly “of God scripture.”

Every word in its context is profitable but that is not Paul’s point, he is viewing what is contained in the books of the Bible and observes it all (in context) is beneficial for doctrine etc.

Taking it all in “renders the man of God fully equipped for every good work” = materially sufficient. Again, sufficient does not logically mean exclusive or necessary. Can the Bible alone do it all without faith, righteousness, and a whole bunch of other non-Biblical (things outside the text itself–Paul used “grapha” in verse 16) things?

The Bible could not fully equip men of God unless it had all the equipment = materially sufficient. “Fully equipped” does not mean (is not logically identical to) “sufficiently equipped.” What is sufficient is often not “full.” See “full aromor of God” above. A sword is sufficient but by itself it is not “full.”

For the Bible’s teaching to instruct and correct etc, it must be clear = formal sufficiency. First, this means that in addition to the Bible there needs to be a correct understanding. The Bible alone isn’t enough (which is part of why Paul said “for teaching” not just reading aloud) without that understanding–and a correct understanding is not always present when the Bible is, so there is no logical identity or mutual implication between them.

The logical obverse of your statement “For the Bible’s teaching to instruct…, it must be clear” is “If it is not clear, then the Bible’s teaching does not instruct…” The former (your version) makes “clear” the logically necessary condition for the Bible to work to insruct… The latter shows that “not clear” means the Bible’s teaching does not instruct or work in the way it should.

For Catholics “clear” comes from the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church (CCC 84f.)–the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church and not its traditions.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:
Greetings Mr. Brown, yours is the next post I reply to but it will be a while. I thank you in advance for your well thought out response and no doubt will enjoy addressing your argument.

Too bad this board’s software didn’t allow you to distinguish my words from yours, in its QUOTE mode.

I found if one prevents the software from putting the reply in QUOTE format then italics are not universal and these then could be used to distinguish your reply from my text.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

Endless posts are not my forte. My answer to your 4 questions stands.

Which is basically “I don’t know”

God through Paul says Scripture contains all that is necessary for HIM to consider a man of God fully equipped.

Well, since you have to descripturize the NT, I’m trying to figure out why.

It may not have a “table of contents,” it may not have a “infallible list of doctrines,”

Waitaminute. You’re saying that the OT has no infallible list of doctrines? Oh man. There goes your claim of the inerrancy of Scripture, and the material sufficiency of such.

it may not have much of the information that can be found only in the New Testament, but it does have God declaring through the apostle Paul it is able to make wise unto salvation in Christ and that it contains enough to equip the man of God completely.

Good. Then are Jews saved? Why aren’t the Jews converting en masse to Christianity?

Whose opinion should I believe, yours or God’s?

I hate to tell you this, but your interpretation of scripture is not God’s opinion. I know, it is hard to understand that

I know your answer and you know mine. There is little point in belaboring the issue.

I know your answer is “I don’t know” You don’t know my answer.

So basically you have accepted an extra-scriptural revelation you consider to be infallible.

Post your four questions, I will post a brief response and allow you to endless post how my answer isn’t good enough for you.

OK, then I’ll ask my infamous 4 questions here.

Then you’ll answer them.

Then I’ll ask you to answer the questions I posted in the “Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ thread.” since you claimed not to have enough time to get to it since you were only up to a certain part.

My infamous 4 questions are:

Using Scripture alone (either the OT or the NT which you descripturize) please tell me:

1. Where does it say that the NT is supposed to have 27 books?
2. Where does it say that the books in the NT are supposed to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,…, Revelation?
3. Where does it say which version of the books we are to accept as authoritative? There was a version of the Gospel of Matthew that had 8 chapters of text, another with 18, and a third with 28.
4. Where does it say which translation of the books we are to accept is the authoritative one?

Looking for Bible verses only.

 

[germys9]

letsobeychrist,

the bible is sufficient in proving that we need the holy eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. So, yes, lets obey Christ and eat his body and drink his blood and be in communion with the church that he started. Let’s obey Christ in being one as He and the Father are one.

 

[pnewton]

LetsObeyChrist:

That Scripture is Materially and Formally sufficient is elementary my dear pnewton.

Obviously not. This whole thread is a monument to how it is not elementary.

I really do admire JM. I think he has a very logical and detailed mind. But even the sharpest mind can’t convince me when I see a fallacy in logic, as I have posted above.

I Thank you for your posts here. They represent some of the best dialog on these forums.

 

[Ghosty]

30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."5]
34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Scripture itself states that Scripture alone is not able to teach the full message. If the Holy Spirit spoke through Scripture the way you imply, then this eunuch would have had no need for a human interpreter and teacher. Without the authority of tradition and Apostalic Succession, we are as lost as this Eunuch.

 

[Count_Chocula]

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

The verse is written to show that scripture is indeed useful. No decent Catholi will argue otherwise. The RCC agrees with this too. What the verse doesnt’ say is that by scripture itself are you complete. With it you are complete, but not with only it. You cannot add meaning to this verse.

Profitable? Yes.
Sufficient? No.

Arguing semantics will not change the meaning of the verse.

 

[chrisg93]

LOC,

While I’m a heterosexual who has been sucessfully celibate for over 25 years, never fornicating at all, I have decided it is better I now marry. As I never made any rash vows I won’t be breaking any when I marry the right Christian girl.

God bless you for goodness above. You do have love and courage.

but…

Luther and Zwelig invented Sola Scripture and you have bought into it. No Church Father ever even thought about thinking any thought about it, NEVER. Given these two truths it is impossible that SS is Biblical.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Reply to David Brown #33

PASA, literally is “every.”

ASV 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Glad you didn’t say this taught sola scripture in post #4, because it doesn’t–not unless you want to confuse necessary and sufficient causes…

Given your emphasis on the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture, what about the rest of the armor God has? A sword is sufficient to fight, surely, but isn’t it wise to take the rest?

While it might be nice to have a tank to slay one’s enemy, sword and shield are sufficient to do the job.

Belief in Christ as LORD for salvation is both necessary and sufficient (Rm 10:9), hence Paul’s caveat about the Scriptures making “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 2:15).

The OT teaches Christ therefore has all that is necessary to be saved, and is able to make wise unto salvation, is materially sufficient.

The argument “the OT lacks as the NT came later” is unsound, no necessary cause exists. To illustrate, a Host having sufficiently fed His guests all that is necessary to make them “full” ready to “burst” ladles additional servings to everyone’s plate. It does not follow this happened because they were hungry, did not receive sufficient food before.

Christ is the way and the truth (Jn 14:6). When the data of Scripture is pieced together according to that picture as in a puzzle, then Scripture makes wise unto salvation, is formally and materially sufficient to be saved.

I gleaned the terms Formal and Material sufficiency from R. Sungenis’ Not by Scripture Alone,(Queenship Publishing Co., Santa Barbara, 1997), p 181. He characterizes it as “technobabble.”

He says the Catholic Church does not deny the Scriptures are materially sufficient (have all the bricks necessary for the house), just that these need the RCC to mortar the bricks to build the house.

While distinction seems artificial to me, I won’t quibble.

Scripture must be both materially and formally sufficient if “Every scripture … is …profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.”

For R. Sungenis’ proposition to be correct the text should read

‘scripture is not profitable for teaching etc and cannot render the man of God complete, completely furnished for every good work because the church does that using scripture and other materials at its disposal.’

It doesn’t.

When translators render this as “all” they are conveying the sense, “every” writing that is God-breathed (is) profitable for teaching etc.

Which raises the question of how do we know these extra (non-OT) “God-breathed” sayings and distinguish them from other sayings? Tradition, perhaps?

Canonization began with God the Holy Spirit who bore witness to the church which books are His. The canonical lists at best “declared” what books these were.

Christ’s references to the “law and the prophets” &c might have been understood correctly by the generation that lived after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple about 586 BC. The 24(39 kjv) books are implied as being in a closed canon "in the author of IV Esdras 14:41-46 (cf. Joseph., Apion, 1:39-41)-Encyclopedia Judaica.

*This does not limit what is said to only the OT, it limits what is said to whatever is truly “of God scripture.”

Every word in its context is profitable but that is not Paul’s point, he is viewing what is contained in the books of the Bible and observes it all (in context) is beneficial for doctrine etc.*