Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I would disagree. There is no greater evidence, as Bahnsen pointed out, than the scriptures themselves. Our Lord Jesus, who referred to the writings and scriptures many times throughout the gospel never called into question the inerrant of the word of God. Yet He referenced the Greek version floating around-the very document some here are saying is in error. In fact, while talking to the crowd, our Lord Jesus most likely recited from the Aramaic version-not the Hebrew or Greek. I'm not sure. However, it wasn't the original Hebrew and He didn't seem to have a problem with "discrepancies". It should also be pointed out that some of the most questionable people of scripture (Noah, Jonah, Daniel, etc), our Lord Jesus talked about as prophets and events such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as actual occurances.
Nowhere in scripture is there an argument that any of these various translations were considered suspect or in error. Our Lord Jesus, and certainly Paul, was familiar with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. This didn't seem to trouble them in saying that "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable...".
Rather than a "Protestant invention" I would say there is more historical evidence that the Catholic Church came up with this idea to reinforced their dictates and authority. Inerrancy is a biblical concept-not a Protestant invention. I'm not familiar with any early church fathers who questioned the word of God. Bahnsen, Warfield, et al simply took the position our Lord Jesus and Paul took.
You haven't made that clear to me. HOW do you know that Jesus believed the Jonah actually went to Nineveh? He refers to the story without making any comment on its veracity. One can hold either view without destroying inerrancy of Scriptures. The Bible is not the problem, but man's interpretation of it. Jesus HIMSELF CORRECTS Jewish interpretation of said WRITTEN Scriptures over and over again... Interpretation of Scripture is NOT inerrant. God's MESSAGE is inerrant.
Regards
How do you think Paul's audience accepted this statement? What were the other possibilities to salvation? Imagine you were a Roman of God reading Paul's letter. I am sure you would have immediately said, "Oh yeah, what Paul really means is that you need faith to be saved, PLUS you have to be Baptized, PLUS you have to confess your sins to a priest, PLUS all the many other requirements of the Catholic Church for salvation." Again, you are the one who is building things in.
I have said many times that my view is that faith includes love.
[On the Perman article discussing "reward" in heaven] Christ's parables don't speak of different levels of glory in heaven, but whether a person even gains ENTRANCE to heaven. Look at Matthew 13, I believe. You'll find several "Kingdom" parables. Not one discusses your idea.
Why does it have to be mentioned in parables for the idea to be true? Perman only mentioned one parable (Minas-Luke 19) to make his point. Why is he wrong because he used other scripture in support? Maybe Jesus was focusing in His parables on the much greater issue, just getting in and never mind about any rewards. I don't think that means both can't be true.
You just got done posting me a section on how our actions get us different levels of glory in heaven, now this...What is going on?
I just think that salvation itself and rewards in heaven are completely different subjects. Salvation is eternally more important.
When I am faced with a moral decision, I don't sense an invisible hand forcing me to do one thing or the other...
Without the sense of a physical touch, haven't you ever felt "led" by God to do something? That's the hand. You have already conformed yourself to the image of Christ to "x" degree. When you act based on this, that's the hand. Sure, we think we experience free will, but it is really God acting through us.
OK. Well, I haven't seen the list yet, :) so I just try to use whatever is relevant that I can find. I can't imagine being hesitant to use any scripture, if it fit the point. In a vacuum I see all scripture as equally correct. I might choose to quote Jesus first, if I find something, but that wouldn't mean I would throw out other verses.
So in terms of belief in facts, Darwinism trumps the Bible? I don't believe the science of any day, including this day, is perfect. Today's science can't even tell us whether coffee is good for us or not. We still can't cure the common cold. Given the choice, I'm just going to stick with what's in the Bible as being fact. I don't think it can hurt me in any spiritual way. Another benefit is that I will never have to wonder about which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are errors.
I have clarified my position in discussions with Jo Kus. I think we came to at least a partial "meeting of the minds" in post 4,000.
First, what is Paul talking about? Is he defining what is necessary for salvation in 3:28, or is he primarily negating something? It should be very clear that he is doing the latter. A read from 1:18 to 3:20 is NOT a contrast between the impartiality of God and the universality of sin (thus, the false idea of total depravity - which Paul refutes in Chapter 2!). Paul is discussing the equality of retribution of the Jew AND the Greek concerning God. Not ALL sinners are guilty - but that ALL are equally EXPOSED to the wrath of God - INCLUDING JEWS, seeing that vv. 3:19-20 demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Law for salvation. Paul is merely repeating this for effect in v. 3:28 - and continues his attack on circumcision, the sacred cow of Judaism, in Chapter 4. Two points for you...
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?" 3:1
Doesn't that say enough on what Paul is talking about? Paul has just got done telling the Jews (2:28) that even pagans can be spiritually circumcised - the heart - by the Holy Spirit. NOT BY THE LAW! What is Paul alluding to?
"And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers. If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, [and] if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.Deut 30:6-10
I hope you can see there is a difference between following the Law to "earn" wages, and following the Law out of Love, being led by the Spirit. Again, Paul's theme is NOT about the universality of evilness in men, but about the equality of men in God's eyes - whether Jew or Gentile. Thus, it is not necessary for Paul to DEFINE faith at this point. He does that elsewhere, and it is NOT alone!
I have said many times that my view is that faith includes love.
When you were "regenerated" and were eternally saved and made of the elect, what love was involved?
Why does it have to be mentioned in parables for the idea to be true? Perman only mentioned one parable (Minas-Luke 19) to make his point. Why is he wrong because he used other scripture in support? Maybe Jesus was focusing in His parables on the much greater issue, just getting in and never mind about any rewards. I don't think that means both can't be true.
Again, Perman is reaching. He tries to make such things as 2 Cor 4 and Mat 5 show DIFFERENT versions of the vision of heaven. These verses merely show what A saved elect person will see - NOT "if you have 87 points of faith, you will receive a window view" or something like that. His verses do NOT describe any differences of the Beatific Vision based on good deeds - or anything. They just aren't mentioned. And the Luke 19 parable is taken out of context. God gave the first man a particular gift - and he received a reward parallel to the gift God gave him. The second man also received a smaller gift - and God rewarded him accordingly. IT was NOT based on HOW WELL the man did it! Read it more closely. Those rewarded received a proportionate amount based on what they ORIGINALLY RECEIVED! There is no judgment on "how much change" they would get! It was either all or nothing. And each parable where Christ speaks of judgment is the same manner. Nothing about some people getting a window view in their room in heaven...
I just think that salvation itself and rewards in heaven are completely different subjects.
Where does Scripture talk about different rewards in heaven? Again, this is something made up to comply with the Protestant buzz words "we are saved by faith alone". Thus, deeds done on earth are somehow relegated to your "level" you will achieve in heaven. This is an incredible leap of eigesis that is not shown in Scriptures.
Without the sense of a physical touch, haven't you ever felt "led" by God to do something?
I always feel that I can, at the moment of decision, refuse it or comply with it. I don't feel inexorably and forcibly committed to do something. Human self-consciousness refutes the idea that man has no free will.
Regards
Harley, I think that you misunderstood my point.
Here is the theory of the "original autographs": Once upon a time, God inspired someone (Moses, Ezekiel, Mark, Paul... whoever) to write a book of the Bible. They wrote it down as they were inspired.
This document, the "original autograph," is what is considered by those who follow this theory (primarily developed by Warfield and the other Princeton Reformed theologians) to be inerrant and infallible. These autographs are lost or worn out or whatever. We don't have them and we never will, but under this theory, we can attempt to reconstruct their content as best possible from existing copies of copies. Every copy, under this theory, probably contains errors, but this doesn't hurt the theory of inerrancy, since these copies aren't the original autograph.
"I would disagree. There is no greater evidence, as Bahnsen pointed out, than the scriptures themselves. Our Lord Jesus, who referred to the writings and scriptures many times throughout the gospel never called into question the inerrant of the word of God. Yet He referenced the Greek version floating around-the very document some here are saying is in error. In fact, while talking to the crowd, our Lord Jesus most likely recited from the Aramaic version-not the Hebrew or Greek. I'm not sure. However, it wasn't the original Hebrew and He didn't seem to have a problem with "discrepancies"."
You are here making a very good case why the "original autograph" theory is nonsensical.
"It should also be pointed out that some of the most questionable people of scripture (Noah, Jonah, Daniel, etc), our Lord Jesus talked about as prophets and events such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as actual occurances."
As you know, I completely agree with you on that point. Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, all speak of these things as historical facts. They don't get hung up on exact details in most cases, but they treat them as actual occurances. The concept that we can treat all of these things as "spiritual meaning" only, and dispense with their historicity, is a novelty.
There are many works of the Fathers where they take great care to demonstrate the harmony of the four Gospels, for instance. If they really didn't believe in the historicity of these documents, they wouldn't have bothered. If the theory of "spiritual meaning only" were the understanding of the Church, the Fathers would simply have said so, and wouldn't have gone to the trouble of their careful refutations of those who called the Scriptural accounts into question.
"Nowhere in scripture is there an argument that any of these various translations were considered suspect or in error. Our Lord Jesus, and certainly Paul, was familiar with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. This didn't seem to trouble them in saying that "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable..."."
Again, you are making the case against the "original autograph" theory.
"Rather than a "Protestant invention" I would say there is more historical evidence that the Catholic Church came up with this idea to reinforced their dictates and authority."
You'll have to explain that one.
"Inerrancy is a biblical concept-not a Protestant invention. I'm not familiar with any early church fathers who questioned the word of God. Bahnsen, Warfield, et al simply took the position our Lord Jesus and Paul took."
We in the Orthodox Church believe that Holy Tradition is inerrant, and that Scripture stands at the pinnacle of that body of Tradition. But ultimately, the ground-root of Tradition is not any given document, but the understanding of the Church. This understanding preceded the first setting of pen to parchment by an Apostle, and it would continue even if every single book in the world were lost. This is because fundamentally, Holy Tradition is the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the life in the Church.
FK, did Jesus use parables? A parable is a fictional story, is it not? But it gives an underlying teaching, one that has spritual connotations - and is inerrant. Does the fact that there are fictional stories in the GOSPELS bother you? So why can't the WORD inspire another story, the creation story, to teach what God wants us to know? IF science comes out with hard evidence of earth's old age, we, as God's creation who seeks God out, (who is Truth) we should NOT be embarrased to admit that Gen 1-3 MIGHT be a "parable". The bible teaches theological truths, and science teaches observable truths. We don't have to leave our brain at the door to be a Christian. If science says that the earth revolves around the sun as the cause of night and day, do we refuse to believe it because it interferes with the Fundamentalist's concept of Scriptures?
Regards
Of course he doesn't. At the same time, why would He give so many different versions of one and the same thing? God does not change.
Obviously, the Jews read the same Scripture when they read the Five Books of Moses, yet they don't see what Christians see in it. The variants are not from God, but from us fallible human beings. Variants are of human origin and represent corruption of Scripture.
"all Scripture was given by inspiration of God,"
Of course. Who else?
Why would he inspire, but not preserve?
You mentioned robots a while back, what makes you think it is up to God to preserve His gift, and not ours to do so? He inspired, He gave us the revelation; it is our gift; we need to take care of it. It is on us to preserve it, to safeguard it against corruption. But, alas, the originals have been lost! Imagine, the most precious things God gave us -- all lost. We lost them. God didn't. Now we have dozens of version of the Bible, with substantial differences that lead to different amounts of information, different kind of information, different meanings and so on.
Why would we reverence a Gospel book that is riddled with errors or lies?
First, the fathers took their time (300 years) to remove various Gnostic lies and satanic verses, separating some 200 documents from the two dozen or so genuine inspired words.
The fact that Jerome and Origen compared texts indicates that they were keenly aware that variants existed but were not sure why. Both made their personal decision as to which was more believable.
Errors kept creeping, but the idea of an invariant Scripture cam only late into Christianity (about 4th century or so), and was influenced by Judaism. Variations of the existing Scripture was simply accepted as such, which is why the Orthodox Church tot his day considers all versions of the Septuagint, for the lack of a better word -- "Septuagint." But, are they? Could we not then extend that view and say any version of the Bible is -- the Bible?
As long as the message of a variant is the same, but places and numbers and people and things have changed slightly, the spiritual truth conveyed is not altered, so it really doesn't matter if material things described happened exactly as described.
But it's not the picture but Christ to Whom we reach through His icon that is in our spiritual eyes when lwe look at His icon; we don't worship the icon, but Christ we think of when we stand in front of it; when we kiss it, we kiss Him and not the wood, or metal. If that is not spiritual i don't know what it!
Bible conveys those spiritual messages is by telling us the history of how God came to earth and became man, and what he did and said while he was here. It is also the history of how God worked in synergia with a people to produce the conditions of the "fullness of time"
Precisely! How God worked in synergia with people. Which would be equally valid if it were Papua Indians as he walked in their lands. But God, for His reasons, chose the Jews to spread His salvific message to the world, starting in the land of Israel. Nevertheless the fact that it works everywhere means that it is not dependent on any particualt location or people because it is spiritual that transcends reason and words.
[Jo kus to FK] The bible teaches theological truths, and science teaches observable truths. We don't have to leave our brain at the door to be a Christian. If science says that the earth revolves around the sun as the cause of night and day, do we refuse to believe it because it interferes with the Fundamentalist's concept of Scriptures?
Very well put, Jo. Science does not diminish spiritual truths of the Bible. Science does not diminish God. If anything science only reveals His greatness.
Because the Bible does not only reveal God's truth, but the knowledge of the world of its authors, there are factual "errors" in the Bible, such as the earth having a physical end, being flat and four-cornered; or bats being seen as birds, etc.
None of their own lack of knowledge of the world as we know it today (and none being their own fault) affect the eternal spiritual truth conveyed in the Bible. It is quite comforting to realize that the truth of God does not depend on how much we know of the world!
We should distinguish between legal constraint -- which ensures freedom and physical constraint -- which enslaves. Still if you remove law, you are left with rule of force and that means that some end up in chains.
Back to exegetics, the fundamental rule I am referring to is continuity of understanding since apostolic times. If, for example, one wants to read "all have sinned" in a way that makes Our Lady a sinner, he needs to not merely read the phrase itself, but also explain why no one for 1500 years read the passage in that way (early speculation of sinfulness of Mary were based on the verse where she did not appear to understand Christ's mission following His discovery in the temple). This tends to be the universal problem for Protestants, -- that apart from some very tendentious reading of St. Augustine, Protestant ideas have no patristic support.
You need to look at it in light of Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18): "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
In this you have Christ's promise to lend His Divine support to the acts of the Church.
Yes, from birth, but but not from conception.
Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment [of Mary's visitation] John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.
Once again, the idea of delegation of divine power is clear from the entire commission of the Apostles, and specifically, the power to bind and loose given the apostles.
Not at all, -- where are your getting this? Dogma is possible precisely because the Church possesses the Holy Tradition with which it can understand the inspired Scripture. It is with Sola Scriptura that dogma is not possible.
Well, then what is the problem with Rom. 3:23? That agrees with you and me, ALL men sin over the course of their lives. That's what I have been saying.
It is not following the Law that makes one justified, it is turning one's heart to God - this, naturally, becomes a Law onto itself. ...
I basically agree with what you are saying about the two systems. And, I don't think I would lead my argument for the sinful nature with verses like Rom. 3:23, although I would use them in support. As I have posted before, there are other verses that more clearly prove that we are born with a sinful nature.
So because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned, yet IS by the first Christians, it never happened - or it happened without permission of God!
I don't allege that I know that either is true for sure. I just know that the practice and the Catholic meaning attached to it are not supported by the Bible. Other practices and meanings are supported by the Bible. I know you say that there are plenty of writings that do support it outside of the Bible and they're fine if you want to believe in them. I just figure that I can't go wrong in sticking with the Bible. Besides, on this issue, since my daughter just had her believer's Baptism a few weeks ago, my whole family is covered either way. :)
We have an infallible teacher, the Pope. But many "catholics" believe something totally at odds with him, such as abortion. Having an infallible teacher doesn't mean people are "forced" to follow such teachings.
I appreciate that, and of course there are many Protestants who have the same false beliefs. I thought, but do not know for sure, that there were rules for those who so blatantly disobey the Church or the Pope. For example, I remember during the last Presidential cycle that there was an issue brought up that John Kerry should not be allowed to take communion because of his anti-Catholic views, which are all on record. Do you have an opinion on this type of thing?
FK: "Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown."
You've shown me no such thing. I have given you verses that describe OTHER means of fully completing the Christian that doesn't mention Scriptures. Being "useful" doesn't make something the sole source of our faith, brother. And Sola Scriptura is actually ANTI-SCRIPTURAL, ...
You have been shown, but I admit I wasn't the first. I think it was Dr. Eckleburg who first posted Sola Scriptura by A.A. Hodge. In addition to that, here is an excerpt from an article that contrasts Protestant and Catholic views: Surprised by What? A Defense of Sola Scriptura by Jake MaGee :
"I find the assertion of Hahn and Sungenis entirely puzzling in light of the apostle Paul’s clear testimony to the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; a Scripture that Protestants have always offered as definitive proof for Sola Scriptura. Let’s examine this passage in detail."
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness 16; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work 17” (NASB).
"First of all, Scriptures are described by Paul as being “inspired by God.” The phrase “inspired by God” is translated from the Greek word “theopneustos” which is literally rendered “God-breathed.” By this Paul is communicating that the very writings were breathed out of the mouth of God. Further, the authority that Scriptures do have is derived from the verity that the very words were spoken by God."
"Secondly, notice that Scriptures are “profitable.” No one in this debate disagrees about this statement. However, the text says that Scripture is profitable “for” one kind of thing “in order that” another kind of thing might be true. To put the matter formally, Scripture is profitable for x, in order that y. The variable x refers to “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” The variable y refers adequacy and equipping believers. It is the y that Protestants point to as a clear declaration in Scripture of its own sufficiency. Let’s look at verse 17 more closely."
"Paul says that Scripture can produce believers which are “adequate” and “equipped for every good work.” The TDNT defines “adequate” (artios) as “fitted, complete, perfect.” Bauer defines “adequate” as “complete, capable, proficient = able to meet all demands.” The TDNT defines “equipped” (exartizo) as “to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly, to accomplish” (1:475,80). Bauer also defines “equipped” as to “finish, complete...equip, furnish” (273)."
"These definitions point to the meaning of our English word “sufficiency.” To make this issue as clear as possible, let’s define and contrast the words “sufficiency” and “necessity.” To say that one thing is necessary for another is to say that without this condition in place the desired effect will not occur. For example, water is necessary for human life. That is, water is a condition without which human life could not exist. To say that a thing is “sufficient” is to say that this condition is all one needs. In the case of water, it is necessary but not sufficient for human life (for we need food in addition to water). If it were the case that water is both necessary and sufficient for human life, than food is irrelevant."
"Keeping all these definitions in mind, let’s restate 2 Tim 3:16-17:"
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (16); that the man of God may be complete and perfect, furnished perfectly for every good work and able to meet all demands (17).”
"The Authorized Version translates verse 17 the following way:"
“That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
"Now, if I say that Frank’s Furniture Farm is complete or adequate to furnish perfectly my house, I mean that I don’t need to go anywhere else. In other words, Frank’s Furniture Farm is sufficient, or good enough; no other store is necessary. In the same way, Paul is saying that Scripture is adequate and complete to perfectly furnish the believer to live life as God intends; nothing else needs to be added. In short, Scripture is necessary and sufficient. Contrary to Scott Hahn’s and Bob Sungenis’ assertion that “sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly,” 2 Tim 3:16 &17 is as explicit and clear in its support of Sola Scriptura as John 1:1-3 is explicit and clear about Christ’s deity."
"This is important for our discussion, for the Catholic Church says that Scripture is insufficient; something does need to be added (i.e. tradition and Church interpretation). In keeping with our definitions, Scripture is not able to meet all demands. It is through the tradition and the authority of the church that we learn what else we need in order to do good works (e.g. the sacrament of penance, confession, the Eucharist, and apostolic succession). Without this addition to Scripture, a believer cannot be furnished perfectly for every good work. As a result, Protestant believers are missing out in what God wants for them, that is, they are not fully equipped. In light of this clear exegesis that demonstrates that Scripture, by itself, is sufficient to thoroughly furnish a believer for a life pleasing to God, the Roman Catholic apologist’s claim (that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that cannot be found either explicitly or implicitly is the Bible) must not be taken seriously."
I agree. It is hardly likely that the writer of Genesis would have had any clue about quantitative physics, or that the earth was really round and rotated around the sun. God didn't need to reveal science to tell us how much He loved us and created out of nothing (well, that's not in the Protestant bible, sorry, it's in 2 Maccabees) and so forth...
Regards
"He inspired, He gave us the revelation; it is our gift; we need to take care of it. It is on us to preserve it, to safeguard it against corruption. But, alas, the originals have been lost! Imagine, the most precious things God gave us -- all lost. We lost them. God didn't."
It becomes clearer. You believe that the autographs are the only true Scriptures, and that all else is human contaminant. I'm surprised that you buy into the "autograph" approach.
Condemning the Church for losing the "originals" means that you think that the writers of Scripture knew at the time that they were writing Holy Scripture. I doubt very much that any of them had any idea of the kind.
Only after these useful writings had been circulated and copied and circulated would I imagine that the Church came to the conclusion that these were Holy Scripture. By that time, I wonder if anyone would even know which one was the autograph, or where it was, or whether it mattered.
True Scripture is what the Church has.
That's not Paul's point - as I have explained in a post you have not responded to yet. I will await your answer there.
As I have posted before, there are other verses that more clearly prove that we are born with a sinful nature.
IF man = sin, then how did Jesus = man while remaining sinless? Then Jesus is NOT = man. If the definition of "Man" = sin, then you are still in sin, as Christ didn't become the Mediator.
I just figure that I can't go wrong in sticking with the Bible.
Which would you prefer? Part of God's revelation or all of it? That's how you are "going wrong".
I remember during the last Presidential cycle that there was an issue brought up that John Kerry should not be allowed to take communion because of his anti-Catholic views, which are all on record. Do you have an opinion on this type of thing?
Yes - but it isn't very charitable. I would hope that if people such as Kerry REALLY were concerned about their faith, they actually try to live it.
Regarding Sola Scriptura, I find it a self-destroying idea. Let's take a look again. However, IF I find another "rule of faith", another means of PERFECTING man, would that ALSO destroy the idea of "Sola" in Sola Scriptura? In other words, if the Bible itself mentions another means of learning God's revelation, wouldn't I have also defeated the concept of Sola Scriptura? I have already done this with Eph 4:11-13.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints in the work of the ministry, unto [the] edifying of the body of the Christ until we all come forth in [the] unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the coming of age of the Christ: "
Clearly, the Bible ALONE is not the only means of building up the Body of Christ, to attain to perfection in man. This defeats Sola Scriptura, does it not? I don't understand why so many Catholic apologists overlook this approach, rather than the direct approach of attacking 2 Timothy. But let's look at what you have posted quickly...
I find the assertion of Hahn and Sungenis entirely puzzling in light of the apostle Paul’s clear testimony to the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; a Scripture that Protestants have always offered as definitive proof for Sola Scriptura. Let’s examine this passage in detail."
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness ; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work ” (NASB)."
I have a Greek New Testament here, and here is what is written - directly...
"All writing God-breathed and helpful to teaching, to rebuking, to straightening, to instruction as a child the in rightness, that fit might be the of the God man, to all work good having been finished." (That is a DIRECT interpretation - it naturally doesn't flow off the tongue in English).
Let us focus on the word "helpful" or "profitable". You and your author are reading it is as "essential"! Look up in your handy Greek Concordance Strong #5624, ophelimos. This word in GREEK is an adjective that means "useful", "helpful", "profitable". Used as a verb, it means "assistance" or "benefit". Nowhere in Vines or my Greek Concordance do I find opheleia or ophelimos used to mean "necessary" or "essential" or "alone". Thus, your author's argument rapidly deflates into nothingness.
Sure the Bible is useful, profitable, and is an assistance to preaching and teaching the Word. But I tell you and your authors that they still are wrong. Nowhere does the Scripture mention Scripture as being "necessary" or the "sole rule of faith". Bluntly, this concept is a tradition of men that keeps men from the entire Truth that God revealed to the Apostles. Simple as that.
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.