|
It was the first day back in the office after Christmas. On
the ride in I was thinking about how a debate could be arranged
that would be very useful in highlighting the differences between
the free grace of God offered in Scripture, and the Roman
Catholic concept of merit. I had been studying the"Apostolic
Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences" (also known
as Indulgentiarum Doctrina), and decided to send a fax to Catholic
Answers, asking if they might be interested in defending this
Roman Catholic document. So I fired up the computer and sent a
note to the attention of Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid,
and James Akin, laying out my idea and inviting their
participation. Then I moved over to the computer that is home to Pros
Apologian, our BBS, and downloaded the mail that had come in
over the holiday. I took the disk containing the file to my desk
and settled in for a few moments of reading and replying.
It wasn't long before I encountered a series of posts from a
Roman Catholic layman from California by the name of Joe
Gallegos. I have spent a great deal of time replying to Mr.
Gallegos' attempts to turn the early Fathers into Roman
Catholics. He had posted the text of an upcoming article in This
Rock magazine, the publication of Catholic Answers. As I
started to scan the article, I was amazed to read the following
paragraphs:
James White loves to argue. He's a Fundamentalist who runs an
anti-Catholic ministry, so you'd expect him to be no stranger
to controversy. But White's appetite for in-your-face confrontations
goes beyond typical anti-Catholic zealotry.
Alpha & Omega Ministries, the small organization White runs, has
carved a modest niche for itself in the fundamentalist counter-cult
market place, producing tracts and tapes attacking Oneness
Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and, of course,
Catholics. He and his followers pride themselves in their
adversarial methods of witnessing to "cultists."
At least once each year, White and his helpers descend on Salt
Lake City during the Mormon Church's bi-annual General Conference,
armed with anti-Mormon tracts. They station themselves at each
entrance to Temple Square and hand out literature telling Mormons
why they are going to hell. But leafleting is one of the tamer
methods White favors in preaching his gospel.
Barely out of his twenties, White has already garnered a wide
reputation as a debate junkie. I don't mean simply that he's
been in lots of debates--that's fine, of course; I've been in
plenty myself--I mean he craves debates. He chases after any
Catholic apologist who will take notice of him, issuing
challenges to debate, appearing almost frantic to goad someone,
anyone, into a fight.
Most telling is his penchant for crowing that so-and-so is "afraid"
to debate him. He does this in letters, on computer bulletin boards,
and implies it in the pages of his sporadically-published
newsletter, Pros Apologian. He's even sent debate challenges via
registered mail so his prey cannot claim not to have received it.
I know: I received such a letter.
And it only got worse from there. I was truly amazed. I had
not planned on writing anything about the San Diego debate I had
had with Patrick a few months earlier. I felt the tapes did all
the speaking that needed to be done, and I planned only on
advertising the debates and sending them to anyone interested in
the subject of sola scriptura. As I read the article,
which struck me as having been written in a very emotional, angry
state, I became aware that Mr. Madrid had been smarting over his
defeat in the debate ever since September, and this article was
his way of "saving face" so to speak. It did seem
rather ironic that I had just that morning faxed a debate idea to
Catholic Answers. They must have gotten quite a chuckle out of
that.
Patrick Madrid's article gives us a tremendous opportunity of
examining, in detail, the tactics and methods of the largest
Roman Catholic apologetics organization in the United States. How
accurate are their statements? Do they utilize double standards?
Do they accurately represent the statements of others? These
questions are answered fully in the following materials.
I began work on this article shortly after Catholic Answers
published their attack, but God in His providence and wisdom had
other plans. An entire year has now passed, a year taken up with
many things, including the writing of The King James Only
Controversy. As a result, I approach this article, not as a
person with a freshly wounded ego, but as one who has had time to
reflect fully upon the words of Patrick Madrid. I have done
further debates since that time (four in Austin Texas against Dr.
Robert Fastiggi), and have had the opportunity of interacting
with Karl Keating (via the Catholic Information Network echoes),
Patrick Madrid and James Akin (via America Online). I have
been able to get their reactions, or lack thereof, to the
presentation of factual errors by Patrick in the debate in
question. And I have been able to review Patrick's new book, Surprised
by Truth, and see how he has attempted to use his article, The
White Man's Burden, in that work. I also approach the
topic as one with a "thicker skin" in the sense that I
have now borne the brunt of the attacks of KJV Only advocates
across the nation. Patrick may have attempted to use his nastiest
material in his attack upon me in This Rock, but he's simply not
capable of coming up with the kind of ad hominen attack
that marks the KJV Only folks. And finally, with the help of
faithful friends like Julius Amman and Katie Baker,
I have been able to transcribe the actual debate in San Diego so
that I can quote Patrick directly in my demonstration of the
dishonesty of the men of Catholic Answers. Through the citation
of faxes, quotation of transcripts, and the use of
"front-line" articles written in debate-situations in
electronic mail, I hope the reader will get a good idea of not
only the issues at hand, but at how these topics are being argued
and presented in the battlefield of apologetics.
Slobbering Fundies
The nation has been enthralled of late by the OJ Simpson
trial. We have all watched as high-priced attorneys do their best
to sway the opinion of the jury. I have often commented that
apologists are often like attorneys. They attempt to sway the
opinion of their listeners or readers, and, all too often, they
use the same kind of less-than-honest tactics that we find in the
courtroom as well.
Sadly, Patrick Madrid would probably do well on OJ's defense
team. This is seen plainly both in the tactics he utilized in our
debate on sola scriptura in San Diego, and even more so in his
article, The White Man's Burden (October, 1993 This
Rock magazine; hereafter TWMB). I shall delve into the
debate at a later point. For now I wish to point out how
desperately Mr. Madrid wished to poison the minds of the readers
of This Rock magazine. It is obvious that he did not want to
simply address the issues, but wished to evoke in his readers'
minds a particular image, hoping, it seems, that they would give
little credence to anything I might say, all on the basis of a
presumption on their part, assisted by Mr. Madrid's less than
candid statements.
A quick glance at the opening paragraphs of TWMB
provides us with a wonderful lesson in how to portray your
opponent as a slobbering fundamentalist. Note the following
statements:
James White loves to argue. He's a Fundamentalist who runs an
anti-Catholic ministry . . . his appetite for in-your-face
confrontation goes beyond typical anti-Catholic zealotry.
What kind of picture is Mr. Madrid wishing to paint? He's
hoping his readers will think of a Jack Chick-Tony Alamo
kind of person, a "Fundamentalist" (a
term laden with negative connotations for the readers of This
Rock, that's for certain) who runs an "anti-Catholic"
ministry. The fact that Alpha and Omega Ministries is a Reformed
ministry that openly repudiates the wild accusations of Alamo and
Chick would not "sell" very well. Indeed, Madrid
nowhere mentions in his entire article that he identified me as
the "best critic of Roman Catholicism in the United States
today" only a matter of months prior to our debate in San
Diego. He admitted that I had defeated Gerry Matatics in a
debate on Sola Scriptura in November of the preceding year
as well. But again, actually admitting the truth of how Alpha and
Omega Ministries does its work would not fit Patrick's purpose in
writing this entire article. He doesn't want to have to tell his
readers that he himself has admitted in public that I have
"done my homework," nor that he is fully aware of how
A&O differs from many of those ministries he would identify
as "anti-Catholic." Indeed, even while he later admits
that we work in evangelizing many other groups, he has to
identify us as an "anti-Catholic" ministry, though, of
course, he'd hardly identify Catholic Answers as an
"anti-Protestant" ministry.
There is a sad consistency at this point in the tactics of
Catholic Answers. Gerry Matatics demonstrated this clearly in our
first debate in Long Beach, California in 1990. The topic of the
debate was supposed to be sola scriptura, but Matatics
spent the first 14 minutes of his opening statement doing nothing
but engaging in an extended effort at trying to get the Catholics
in the audience to view me as a terrible, horrible person. His
facts were wrong (he later admitted he hadn't read my books), and
he said in a later phone conversation that (paraphrasing)
"we didn't expect you to come across as you did," that
is, they didn't expect me to be scholarly and restrained in my
comments and demeanor. So it was decided to launch a
"preemptive strike," so to speak. And, of course, it
backfired. Even James Akin, a relative newcomer to Catholic
Answers, fell into the same trap in his article on my book, The
Fatal Flaw, starting the article with the obligatory attack
upon my character, an attack specifically designed again to
poison the mind of the Roman Catholic reader.
Another common trait of the men of Catholic Answers is their
pride in the size of their organization. We often hear about how
large they are, and they remind everyone of this by finding ways
of mentioning how small are those pitiful ministries such as
mine. Originally Patrick referred to Alpha and Omega Ministries
as the "small organization White runs." Well, at least
he's telling the truth at that point; we are small, both in size
as well as funding, especially when compared with Catholic
Answers. Seemingly, Mr. Madrid feels this is somehow indicative
of God's blessings or something like that (a rather ironic thing,
in light of the Roman emphasis upon poverty!). James Akin,
Patrick's compatriot at CA, also raised the "size"
issue, though in the context of what might actually be taken as a
compliment, when he wrote in the July, 1993 This Rock,
"Small as it is, Alpha and Omega distributes some of the
more soberly written anti-Catholic literature published
today." There is a fairly obvious purpose behind this
constant emphasis upon how "small" other ministries
are: such remarks tend to diminish the credibility and importance
of these groups, and this aids in the attempt to paint all such
groups with the broad brush of "Fundamentalist anti-Catholic wackos."
Madrid spent a tremendous amount of time trying to paint me as
something other than I am, and for good reason. Anyone who
actually listens to the debates would never come to the
conclusions Patrick desires, so he must start the process of
twisting me into the form he wishes for me right at the start.
His description of our ministry in Salt Lake is meant to portray
me as an unthinking fundie who is busy telling Mormons nothing
more than "you are going to hell." His incredibly
inaccurate portrayal of me as being nearly crazed in my efforts
to arrange debates is meant to picture me as an arrogant,
attention-starved soul, more to be pitied than taken seriously.
And his (again) inaccurate portrayal of my behavior at the debate
itself only continues his campaign.
Why do the men of Catholic Answers have to make their
opponents look bad? Aren't their arguments good enough by
themselves? I'll let the reader, and the listener, decide.
For the Record
We are making available the transcript of the debate, both in
electronic, and written form. Even using small type and a
three-column format the transcript takes up more than twenty
pages of print. I think it is important to establish what I had
said for the purpose of examining the re-working of the whole
debate that we encounter in TWMB. What is more, many
Protestants (and nearly every Roman Catholic I know) are
unfamiliar with the specifics of the doctrine of sola
scriptura, so I wish to place into the record first what I
said that evening in my opening statement, exactly as I said it,
taken from the transcript of the debate itself. I will then
provide some further definition through the citation of a few
sections of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. First,
my opening statement:
Good evening, it's good to be with you. I'm very thankful to the church
for allowing us to be here. I need to thank all of you San Diegans. I
understand there's a big push on to make this a very friendly city. And I
think it's very friendly of you to bring in Phoenix weather, just for me,
while I'm here. Very kind of you. Except in Phoenix all of our buildings
have air conditioners. And you need to, sort of, put those two things
together and that will make things a whole lot easier.
There have always been those who have refused to give the
Scriptures their proper place. There have always been those who
wished to add to Scripture their own authority and the unique
teachings that set them apart. Indeed, Basil of Caesarea ran into
some of the same problems long ago in replying to his opponents
who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and
authoritative. He said, "If custom is to be taken in proof
of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put
forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject
this we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let
God-inspired Scripture decide between us, and on whichever side
be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of
that side will be cast the vote of truth."
And so we gather this evening to debate the same question. Is
the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Church?
Or must we have other revelation from God? Do we need the Book of
Mormon, or the writings of the Watchtower, or Mary Baker Eddy, or
the so-called Apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome? Does the
Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of
faith for the Church?
Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion
this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura does not say.
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all
knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John
21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus
said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any
book in the world because the whole books of the world could not
contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to
function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need
to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the
menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to
function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to
teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as
"the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is
in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and
calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and
foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule
over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to
the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken.
Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the
Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts
17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing
those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles
were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their
teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the
role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola
scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that
the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to
function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for
the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found
in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in
Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be
more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible
claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the
Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any
supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as
God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon
man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent,
self-interpreting, and self- authenticating. The Christian Church
looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith
and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly
reformed thereby.
Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning
my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid. Sola Scriptura is
both a positive and a negative statement.
Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient
to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.
Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as
being necessary for the man of God. Hence, logically, I must do
the following things:
First, I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is A
rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, I must demonstrate that the Bible is sufficient to
function as the sole rule of faith for the Church, that is, I
must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the
New Testament itself, that the Bible is artios.
And, thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a
sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of
faith.
Absent the demonstration on Mr. Madrid's part of some other
rule of faith, the preceding is sufficient to establish the fact
that the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura.
"The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule
of faith for the Christian Church."
Now, some opponents of Sola Scriptura have engaged in
what can only be called cheap debating tricks in attempting to
force the defender of Scriptural sufficiency to prove a
"universal negative." That is, the less honest debater
might attempt to force me to prove the non-existence of another
rule of faith. Since I am saying that Scripture is unique in its
function as the rule of faith for the Church, some might
challenge me to demonstrate that no other rule of faith could
possibly exist. To illustrate this, I call your attention to my
pen. Yes, to my pen!
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here
and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the
universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I
could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this
in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses,
and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world
that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over
the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar
System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like
this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very
easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go
out, get a Cross Medalist pen, walk up here, hold it right next
to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!"
and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either
recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by
doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or,
he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen."
That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was
true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths
and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten
traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of
Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost
dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from
hand to hand."
Hence, I shall demonstrate that the Bible teaches its
sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church
and, if Mr. Madrid wishes to attempt to show us some other rule
of faith, I will gladly respond to such an attempt.
Now, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based upon the
inspiration of Scripture. Our primary passage this evening, (I
hope you have your Bibles with you), will be found in Paul's
second letter to Timothy. The gentlemen from Catholic Answers
have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants
cannot provide a single verse that teaches sola scriptura. Yet,
they are quite mistaken in this, though they have been corrected
a number of times in the past, and let us examine the passage to
see if this is the case. II Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture
is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man
of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good
work."
We begin by noting that Scripture is theopneustos,
"God-breathed." The term is very strong. I refer
anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to B.B.
Warfield's excellent treatment of it. That which is theopneustos
has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than
God's very speaking. "All Scripture is God-breathed."
It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to follow an error
made by John Henry Cardinal Newman, with reference to this
passage. Indeed, Karl Keating, Patrick's associate at Catholic
Answers, makes the same mistake in his book, Catholicism and
Fundamentalism. And he repeated it again only recently during
a debate on this subject in Denver during the papal visit. Newman
said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it
proves too much, for Paul is talking here only of the Old
Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary
addition. But such is not Paul's point at all. Scripture, Paul's
point is, if it is Scripture at all, is God-breathed. Paul is not
speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of
Scripture itself as originating in God. All Scripture then,
including the New Testament, is God-breathed.
Because Scripture is God-breathed, and hence represents God's
very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the
ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work
of teaching, and rebuking, and correcting, and training in
righteousness, can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture
as God-breathed. What is Paul's point?
The Church is not left without the voice of God. For when the
Church listens to Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to
her. The authority of the Church then, in teaching, and rebuking,
and instructing, is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the
contrary, from Scripture itself.
Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for, in addressing
this very passage less than fifty days ago in a debate on this
topic, he said, speaking specifically of verse 16, "I defy
you to show me where it says 'sufficient,' in your remarks you
said, when you cited II Timothy 3:16, you said, 'sufficient,' but
that is not what the Bible teaches." Of course, no one
asserts that the term, "profitable," in verse 16,
equates to "sufficiency" When his opponents referred
him to verse 17, Mr. Madrid said, "Well, 17 doesn't say
'sufficient' either! 17 says, 'that, so the one that belongs to
God may be competent and equipped for every good work.' That does
not teach sufficiency. Where does the Bible teach that it is
sufficient?" Is Mr. Madrid correct here? Well, let's see.
Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the
Church has God's voice always present with her in God-breathed
Scripture, means the man of God, specifically here, of course,
Timothy, but I doubt anyone would disagree that these comments
refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of His
body, the Church, might be complete, fully equipped for every
good work.
The first term to examine, is the adjective translated,
"complete," the Greek term, a;rtioj (artios). We note that it is related in its root
to the second term we will examine, the verb which is translated,
"fully equipped," that being the verb, evxartivzw (exartizo). Paul is here
providing us with a play on words--the verb compounding and
emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective.
Now, the term, a;rtioj, Vine tells
us means, "fitted, complete." Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich
and Danker tell us the term means, "complete, capable,
proficient." That is, as they say, "able to meet all
demands," giving the specific citation of II Timothy 3:17 as
the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Louw and
Nida's Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains,
uses the term, "qualified" as well. The great Greek
scholar, Richard Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament,
said with reference to this term, "If we ask ourselves under
what special aspects 'completeness' is contemplated in artios,
it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of
all the parts which are necessary for that 'completeness', but
involves, further, the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for
the ends which they were designed to serve. The man of God, St.
Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all
which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he
is appointed."
I pause only long enough to note that Paul here asserts that
the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and
qualified because he has available to him, always, God's inspired
Scriptures. Surely, here Paul would have to direct us to any and
all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete but,
he does not.
But, Paul was not satisfied to merely state that the man of
God may be a;rtioj,
"complete," but, he goes on to define what he means.
"Fully equipped for every good work." The term is evxartivzw, here in the
perfect-passive-participial form, the prefix, ex,
having, as Robertson noted, the perfective force. Vine tells us
that here in II Timothy, it means "to fit out, that is, to
furnish completely." Bauer, Arndt Gingrich and Danker
expressed this with the term, "equip." Hendrickson
makes reference to a related term, katarti,zw
(katartizo), and it's use at Luke 6:40, where it is
translated, "fully trained." We see here, then, that
Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely
equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean to say that
one "is fully equipped," if not to say that one is
sufficient for a task?
I have recently taken up long-distance bicycle riding, and
I've found a lovely little bike shack, a bike store where they
are able to give me everything that I need, the clothes and the
gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and the tubes,
which you need a lot--they are able to fully equip me for the
task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then, that they are
sufficient as equippers for their task? Most definitely it does! "Let
us never abandon the firm foundation of God-breathed Scripture,
the Word of God, the Bible." We further see, the
Scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work. Now, Mr.
Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to
Mary? Yet, the Scriptures nowhere teach this. Do you not believe
that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed
into Heaven? Yet, the Bible does not teach this. Do you not
believe that the man of God should teach, in the Church, that the
pope, in Rome, is infallible in his teaching office? Yet, the
Scriptures know nothing of such a concept.
We see then, that the Roman position is contradicted by that
of the Apostle. For he knew of no other rule of faith that was
necessary so that the man of God could be equipped for every good
work. No other rule of faith, that is, than the Scriptures.
But, finally, we remember Mr. Madrid's challenge to show him a
verse that teaches sufficiency. Mr. Madrid, I would like to
direct you to the Scriptural standard, "by the mouth of two
or three witnesses shall a fact be established." I first
refer you to Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon,
where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain
of evxartivzw, I quote, "To make
someone completely adequate, or sufficient for something; to make
adequate, to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified;
adequacy." They translate our passage as, "completely
qualified for every good deed." While Louw and Nida give us
two witnesses, I wish to direct you as well to the well-known
scholarly resource by Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers, titled Linguistic
Key to the Greek New Testament. Here, we find the following,
in regards to both terms, here in verse 17: "a;rtioj: fit, complete, capable, sufficient,
i.e., able to meet all demands; evxartivzw:
completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully
supplied." Hence, we see the following:
Number 1: Paul here
teaches that the Bible is A rule of faith. For he says the
Church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to
be based upon God-inspired Scriptures.
Number 2: We see that this passage teaches
the sufficiency of the Scriptures to function in this way.
Number 3: We see
that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith,
but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by
his teaching on the ability of Scripture to completely equip the
man of God.
Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
is taught plainly in this passage. Mr. Madrid must be able to
fully refute the information I have provided to you to win this
evening's debate.
Now, one might well ask, "Is this the only place where Sola
Scriptura is taught?" Most certainly not, though it is
the clearest. For example, we find this concept plainly
enunciated in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when coming into
conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Note the
words recorded in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 15: "Then some
of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from
Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition
of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat.'
Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the
sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and
mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother
must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his
father or mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have
received from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to
"honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word
of God for the sake of your tradition.'"
Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we
must follow this evening. The Jewish leaders objected to the fact
that the disciples did not follow the rigorous hand-washing
rituals of the Pharisees. They identified this as the breaking of
the "tradition of the elders." They firmly believed
that this body of tradition was authoritative, and some even
believed that it had been passed down from Moses himself (though
this surely is without warrant). But does Jesus accept this claim
of authority? Not at all! Instead, He launches a counterattack
against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the
command of God through the following of their own traditions.
Specifically, in this, with reference to the Corban rule. The
Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of
Scripture and finds it wanting.
In the same way, we, too, must hold any tradition up to the
light of Scripture, for no tradition is on the same level of
authority as Scripture. Traditions are not God-breathed and,
hence, are subject to examination on the part of the higher
authority of Scripture. Even though the Jews believed their
traditions to have authority, they are held responsible for
recognizing that God speaks to them in Scripture, not in their
traditions.
The same is true tonight. While Rome may claim divine
authority for her supposedly sacred traditions, and even
subjugate Scripture, so as to make it a part of Sacred Tradition,
needing other aspects such as the supposedly Apostolic unwritten
traditions, and the authority of the magisterium of the Church,
the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will hold
such traditions up to the light of Scripture, knowing how fearful
it is to be found guilty of nullifying the Word of God for the
sake of merely human traditions.
And so, my friends, I present to you the wonderful doctrine of
the sufficiency of God's inspired Scriptures. As a follower of
Jesus Christ, and a minister in His Church, I gladly proclaim to
you the glorious grace of God in giving to the Church the
Scriptures, so that we can always be assured of hearing God's
voice speaking to us. We need not wonder about supposedly
authoritative traditions whose origins are obscure, and whose
teachings are suspect. Instead, we have the certainty of holding
in our hands the same Scriptures that our Lord Jesus described as
the very speaking of the Father Himself. This is the firm ground
upon which the Church can stand in an uncertain and threatening
world. This is the rule of faith that constantly calls the Church
to Christ's likeness. Let us never abandon the firm foundation of
God-breathed Scripture, the Word of God, the Bible. Thank you.
Thus we have my opening statement. Below I provide a couple of
sections from Chapter 1 of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
Our Presbyterian readers will recognize that with a few
exceptions, the Baptist Confession follows the Westminster
Confession at this point:
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule
of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of
nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the
goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they
not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is
necessary unto salvation (paragraph 1).
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church,
but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof;
therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God
(paragraph 4).
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either
expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy
Scriptures: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the
Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of
such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of
the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to
be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to
be observed (paragraph 6).
And note especially paragraph 7:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed
and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some
place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient
understanding of them.
Strawmanicus Maximus
The single "debating trick" most often used by human
beings is the infamous "straw man argument." It derives
its name from the fact that it is relatively easy to beat up a
straw man. Since he's not real, he can't defend himself, but you
sure can stir up a cloud of dust as you rip him to shreds! You
might even look like you are really fighting a real man as you go
toe-to-toe with the straw man. But in reality, you are
accomplishing nothing.
And so it is in debates. It is probably the most common
accusation you can throw at your opponent: "You are
attacking a straw man!" You can even use that line when you
are the one who is actually engaging in that very activity! It is
a very useful tactic.
If you are going to accuse someone of attacking a straw man,
you need to be able to prove your assertion. I firmly assert that
Patrick Madrid, following in the footsteps of Karl Keating and
entire generations of Roman apologists, attacked a straw man in
our debate. Now, I obviously have to prove my point. I invite the
reader to read closely to see if I really accomplish my task.
First and foremost we must note a few of the specifics of the
debate over sola scriptura. Mr. Madrid alleged in his article
that I attempted to "shift the burden of proof" off of
myself and onto him. He is referring to my statements regarding
the fact that Sola Scriptura is really a
"two-part" doctrine. That is, it has a positive aspect,
that being the assertion that the Bible is sufficient to function
as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. But it also
has a negative aspect that is seen in the use of the term
"sole" in the preceding sentence. That is, sola
scriptura denies the existence of any other infallible rule of
faith outside of Scripture. The distinction between the positive
and the negative aspects of the doctrine is extremely important.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition is, just like
sola scriptura, two-fold in nature. There is the negative
assertion that Scripture is not sufficient in and of itself, and
there is the positive assertion that there is another infallible
rule of faith. Now, modern Roman Catholics differ over the
specifics of how this all works out, but most often you find them
asserting that "Sacred Tradition" is made up of the
written tradition (Scripture) and the oral tradition. The two
must be taken together to have all that God intends for the
church, according to Rome. Hence, Protestants have only part of
"Sacred Tradition." We must recognize, however, that
Rome is making a positive assertion about the existence of
something. Rome claims that this "oral tradition"
exists, and that it has been passed down from the time of the
Apostles till today, and that via the "teaching
Magisterium" of the Roman Church.
Over the years the men of Catholic Answers have done their
best to force all their opponents onto a dead-end street,
logically speaking. What I mean is this: they continually ask,
"Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?" Yet, when
passages are brought forward, as I did in my debate with Mr.
Madrid, the real intention of the debater is seen, for the
response is, "But that doesn't exclude other rules of faith,
other sources of truth." What is really going on is the
Protestant is being asked to defend a "universal
negative." He is being asked to show how the Bible denies
the existence of the "other rule of faith" that the men
of Catholic Answers are, by default, claiming to exist. They have
been quite successful at making the Protestant look rather
clueless at this point.
We all recognize that when the Mormons claim that the Book of
Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ," we are
on solid ground in challenging them to prove their assertion.
Yet, for some reason, the Roman Catholic apologists of today are
dead set against doing what they must do to win the day: they
must undertake to prove the existence of their infallible (I say,
inspired!) "oral tradition." After all, they are the
ones asserting that it exists, hence, they logically must prove
their point. Instead, they wish to make the Protestant disprove
the possible existence of their "other rule of faith"!
This was the point behind my pen analogy. It would be illogical,
and unfair, to ask me to prove that there is no such thing as
another pen identical to my own in the universe. And, it would be
easy to prove me wrong if I were to make that assertion: just
pick up another pen like mine and show it to the audience. That
is what I was inviting Mr. Madrid to do: show us another
"infallible rule of faith." He came up with exactly one
example in response: the canon of the NT. We will discuss later
why this effort failed.
Straw Man Number One: Patrick Madrid attempted to redefine the
doctrine of Sola Scriptura in our debate. I will honestly
admit that I could have done a better job in pointing this out
and insisting he get with the program, and I promise that should
I get the chance again, I will be more aggressive in demanding an
accurate portrayal on his part. He undertook to make Sola
Scriptura something it is not in a number of ways, but we
will first look at his use of the "material/formal"
distinction argument.
Patrick Madrid began by saying that Roman Catholics can affirm
what he entitled "material sufficiency." That is, in
his words, "It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic
position allows for what we call, 'the material sufficiency of
Scripture.' This means that Scripture contains everything
necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found
there, implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there." It
is important to note that what Patrick means can be seen by
reading, for example, his article on how Mary is paralleled by
the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and how such
passages as "Blessed art thou" and the angel's greeting
of "Hail, most favored one!" actually teach such
doctrines as the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption
of Mary.
Does Rome really affirm such a doctrine? That depends on which
Roman Catholic you ask. Gerry Matatics affirmed his belief in an
inspired "oral tradition" in our debate in Omaha, and
surely that is what the Council of Trent taught as well. Note the
emphasized portions of Trent's decree:
It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are
contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions,
which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself,
or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have
come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it
receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all
the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is
author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith
or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or
by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in
unbroken succession.
Trent obviously taught that the oral traditions were equally
inspired with the Bible. Roman Catholics have asserted for
centuries that the oral traditions contain truths other than
those found in Scripture. This is obviously how such doctrines as
Papal Infallibility were viewed as little as a century ago. No
one can seriously believe that the Lord's prayer for Peter means
the bishop of Rome is infallible. Such a belief is utterly absent
from the history of the Church for over a millennia. The doctrine
must be based upon "tradition," and that tradition must
transcend what is found in the Bible.
But with reference to Madrid's position, why have an
"oral tradition" if, in fact, what is contained in the
oral tradition is nothing but what is found in the Bible to begin
with? Seemingly he believes we simply get greater clarity with
this "tradition," but nothing new. Such is surely not
the historic position, though one will find many Roman Catholic
theologians adopting such a stance today. His position was quite
useful to him in the debate: if you don't affirm the existence of
an inspired oral tradition, you don't have to defend the concept!
And that is exactly what he did. Note his words, "Our
position is that everything that is in oral tradition, is in
Sacred Scripture, it's in written tradition. Everything."
That wasn't Trent's position, that's for certain.
But over against "material sufficiency" Patrick
placed "formal sufficiency." This, he said, is what
Protestants seek to defend. Now, as the reader may know, such
terminology is foreign to the vast majority of us. And, I will
assert, the use of such terminology by Mr. Madrid is foreign to
all of us, since it is not what we believe in the first place.
But what does "formal sufficiency" mean for Mr. Madrid?
Again we read his own words, "Formal sufficiency means that
Scripture contains all necessary Christian truth, and (and this
is a very important "and") that Scripture's meaning is
so clear that the Church and Tradition are not necessary to
arrive at an accurate interpretation of the meaning of
Scripture."
Now you may well be surprised to discover, as a Protestant,
that that is what you have believed all along, but that was Mr.
Madrid's definition. What does Patrick mean by "so
clear"? Remember, he is asserting that this is the
Protestant position, this is the definition of Sola Scriptura
that must be defended. The term that he used later, as we shall
see, is "perspicuous." This is a term that has been
used by Protestant scholars to describe Scripture. Yet, how did
Mr. Madrid define the term? How did he use it to create a straw
man? Let's note his own words. He first took advantage of the
fact that I am a Baptist and I was debating at a Presbyterian
church. Focusing upon our differences regarding infant baptism,
Madrid said,
But, if the evidence is inconclusive on this, or any other
doctrine, then Scripture is manifestly not sufficient to give us
a conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches. In
fact, Scripture itself denies that its doctrines are always clear
to all readers. In II Peter 3:15,16 we read, "Our dear
brother, Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of
these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
understand, which the ignorant and the unstable people distort,
as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction." So,
we see, here, that the Bible warns us that its doctrines can be
misunderstood, they can be unclear, and they can be distorted.
Note what is being said. If there can be any disagreement
among believers as to what the Bible says, then, of course, Sola
Scriptura must be untrue, since, according to his definition,
the doctrine means that no such disagreements could arise, since
the Bible would be "so clear" about such things. To use
his own words, the Bible must be able to give us "a
conclusive interpretation of everything that it teaches." If
biblical doctrines can be unclear, or if they can be
misunderstood and distorted, according to Patrick Madrid, Sola
Scriptura is thereby disproven.
Am I reading too much into Madrid's words? Not at all. Note
his words in TWMB:
For Sola Scriptura to be true,
Scripture must be sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes
and quandaries. But it's not sufficient to settle this
dispute or others which cause the fragmentation and confusion
within Protestantism. White failed (or refused) to grasp the
implications of this fact.
Therefore, we are being told that for Sola Scriptura to
be true there can be no doctrinal disputes, no causes for
division among those who cling to the Scriptures as their final
authority. This is the definition that Mr. Madrid insisted I had
to defend that warm evening in San Diego. But, is that what Sola
Scriptura means?
Of course not. Anyone who read the citations I provided from
the Baptist Confession knows that it was plainly stated that
there are difficult passages in the Scripture that "are not
alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all." This
absurd idea that "perspicuity" means "such
transparent clarity as to banish all possibly
misunderstanding" is a glowing testimonial to Mr. Madrid's
ability to create a straw man. What is more, I have confronted
Mr. Madrid about this very fact. I posted the following materials
on America Online in late 1994. Though Patrick read the posts,
and even promised to respond, he has, to date, refused to do so.
I think there is a good reason why he hasn't. Here's what I
wrote:
Subj: CA and Misrepresentation #1
Date: 94-12-07 10:33:42 EST
From: Orthopodeo
An Example of How Catholic Answers Misrepresents the Issues
When one is engaged in debate and argument, a sure sign of
impending victory is the use of misrepresentation by one's
opponent. Surely when one can no longer respond to the real
position espoused by another, one runs to the
"straw-man," hoping (and often succeeding in the
attempt) that the audience will not "see" that you
have, in fact, abandoned the field of battle.
"For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture must be sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes and quandaries."
--Patrick Madrid
Patrick Madrid of Catholic Answers gives us an excellent
example of this tactic in his comments in a debate which took
place in September of 1993. It would seem axiomatic that if one
is going to debate an issue, one will be thoroughly familiar with
the official pronouncements of the faith of the person you are to
debate against. Mr. Madrid knew, of course, that I am a Reformed
Baptist, and hence would hold to the definitions provided by the
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which, on the topic of the
Scriptures, is word-for-word the same as the Westminster
Confession of Faith. We read specifically in chapter 1, section
7:
VII. All things in scripture are not alike plain in
themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are
necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are
so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or
other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use
of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding
of them.
This statement plainly indicates that all things in Scripture
are not simply found on the surface. Not everyone can look at the
same passage and see the exact same things. The fundamentals, the
central doctrines, those that are "necessary...for
salvation," that both the learned and unlearned, IN A DUE
USE OF THE ORDINARY MEANS, can ATTAIN unto a sufficient
understanding of them. Obviously, anyone familiar with the
Reformed position knows that it does not teach that everything in
Scripture is simple, and that there is no need for study, growth,
etc. and etc.
Keeping this in mind, we go to the debate. Mr. Madrid and the
folks at Catholic Answers have, repeatedly over the years,
challenged their opponents to show them ONE VERSE that teaches
the concept of sola scriptura. I intended to give them that
verse, and more. In the process I presented to Mr. Madrid a few
Greek terms and their meanings. Mr. Madrid was obviously at a
loss to respond to that material. In his second rebuttal period
he made the following comments:
"He says that I can't refute the Greek translations. Well
of course! I didn't bring a Greek library with me tonight. I
didn't bring all sorts of linguistic apparatuses to throw at you
to try to build my case based on what this scholar or that
scholar might say. I brought the Bible. I believe in going by
what God's Word says. And Mr. White's position, you have to
remember, is, he wants to have it both ways. He's telling you on
one hand, Scripture's sufficient. Well that means that Scripture
is perspicuous (slapping hands together), that you can look at it
and see what it means. And that you can tell what the Bible
means. Mr. White is then saying, well, not in this case. Because
in this case you need Greek lexicons, and you need this scholar
to prove what this word means, and that scholar to prove what
that means. If Mr. White is going to be consistent he has to
argue for the perspicuity of Scripture. If its sufficient
formally for all doctrine it must be able to on the face of it
tell us what it means. I don't believe Mr. White can prove that,
especially in the area of baptismal regeneration."
I think it is important to look closely at what Mr. Madrid has
said. According to the Vice President of Catholic Answers, the
"largest Catholic apologetics organization in North
America," when Protestants speak of the Scriptures being
"perspicuous," or when he uses the term "formal
sufficiency" (a distinction he introduced, not I), we have
to prove that the Scripture "must be able to ON THE FACE OF
IT to tell us what it means." If there are disputes between
exegetes about ANYTHING, seemingly, then sola scriptura,
according to Mr. Madrid, is disproven. We also see that he wants
to create a contradiction between my study of the Scriptures in
their original language and a belief in sola scriptura! This
statement truly amazed me, though I had little chance to respond
to it. The obvious harmony that exists between the REAL doctrine
of Sola Scriptura and the study of the Scriptures in Greek
and Hebrew, aside from being directly stated in the confessions
of the historic Protestant churches, is so obvious in the
writings of any Protestant theologian or scholar that it defies
the imagination as to understand how Mr. Madrid could be so
poorly informed of the beliefs of those he is opposing. We need
to remember that Mr. Madrid in his article "The White Man's
Burden," which was written about this debate, did not mind
identifying me as merely an "anti-Catholic," so if we
return the favor and identify Mr. Madrid as an
"anti-Protestant," it seems Mr. Madrid might wish to
familiarize himself with the actual Protestant position.
One might say, "Well, we say things in debates when we
are put on the spot that we might not say when given time for
reflection." Such is quite true, I well know. But is this
misrepresentation of the Protestant position a mere mistake that
Mr. Madrid would not repeat in a different situation? It seems
not. When given more than sufficient time to reflect and
consider, while writing "The White Man's Burden," Mr.
Madrid demonstrated that he was still just as in error about what
Sola Scriptura means as he was the night of the debate. We
read on page 15,
"For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture must be
sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes and quandaries. But
it's not sufficient to settle *this* dispute or others which
cause the fragmentation and confusion within Protestantism. White
failed (or refused) to grasp the implications of this fact."
Aside from the fact that this argument proves his own
"teaching magisterium" to be "formally
insufficient" as well, Madrid is again seen to be slashing
away wildly at a straw man, seemingly hoping that the resultant
cloud of dust and hay will allow him to get away with his ploy.
There are a number of disputes and quandaries that God has not
seen fit to settle. If Mr. Madrid had actually read fully my
work, _Answers to Catholic Claims_, he would well know that I had
said that the Bible is not an EXHAUSTIVE deposit of all of divine
truth. I pointed out that it does not tell us what color
Matthew's eyes were, for example, nor does it need to. It does
not tell us about clerical garb--it gives us guidelines, but not
specifics. No one ever claimed that the Bible can resolve the
dispute over what color to make the new pews in the new church
building. To say otherwise is to demonstrate yet once again that
one cannot deal with the doctrine *as it is believed.*
Mr. Madrid has indicated that he is writing a book on sola
scriptura. I can only hope that he will take the time to learn
what the doctrine actually is before the work is completed, as
his debating, and his writing, to this point has demonstrated a
woeful lack of understanding of the position he so vociferously
denies.
The absurdity of the definition of "formal
sufficiency" used by Madrid is well illustrated by another
post from America Online, this in response to James Akin,
Madrid's compatriot at Catholic Answers (a man who was busily
writing notes to Mr. Madrid during our debate in San Diego).
James Akin of Catholic Answers wrote:
Catholic apologists often appeal to the doctrinal chaos
that reigns in Protestant circles--even conservative,
Evangelical Protestant circles--as evidence for the
unworkability to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura,
and hence of Protestantism itself.
On one point I certainly agree with Mr. Akin: Catholic
apologist often DO use this argument. But is it a valid argument?
Let's examine it.
First, and very briefly, it seems to me to be an inconsistent
argument; that is, it refutes the position of the one using it.
It presupposes the idea that if (in the case of Protestantism)
the Scriptures are meant to be the sole infallible rule of faith
for the Church, then it must follow that the Scriptures will
produce an external, visible unity of doctrine on all fronts. As
Patrick Madrid put it, Presbyterians and Baptists would not be in
disagreement about infant baptism *if* the Bible were able to
function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. I say this is
an inconsistent argument because the solution offered to us by
Rome--namely, the teaching Magisterium of the Roman Church,
replete with oral tradition and papal infallibility--has not
brought about the desired unity amongst Roman Catholics. I have
personally spoken with and corresponded with Roman
Catholics--individuals actively involved in their parishes,
regular attendees at Mass, etc., who have held to a WIDE range of
beliefs on a WIDE range of topics. One need only read the pages
of "This Rock" magazine to know that you have conflicts
with traditionalists over every conceivable topic, from the Latin
Mass to modernism in Rome. I've been witness to debates between
Catholics on canon laws and excommunications and Father Feeney
and other items that rival any debates I've seen amongst
Protestants. And I haven't even gotten to the liberals in the
Roman fold! Obviously I don't need to do that, as the point is
made. If Sola Scriptura is disproven by the resultant
disagreements amongst people outside of Rome, then Roman claims
regarding the Magisterium are equally disproven by the very same
argument.
But my main reason for addressing the common argument made by
Roman apologists is that it reveals something important about
Rome's view of man himself. Dr. Cornelius Van Til often commented
on the errors of Rome regarding their view of man, and how these
errors impacted every aspect of their theology, and he was quite
right. We see an illustration right here. Rome's semi-Pelagianism
(I am talking to a Roman Catholic right now in another venue who
makes Pelagius look like a raving Calvinist) leads her to
overlook what seems to me to be a very fundamental issue. Let me
give you an illustration: Let's say James Akin writes the PERFECT
textbook on logic. It is completely perspicuous: it is fully
illustrated, completely consistent, and it provides answers to
all the tough questions in plain, understandable terminology. It
covers all the bases. Now, would it follow, then, that every
person who consulted this textbook would agree with every other
person who consulted this textbook on matters of logic? Well, of
course not. Some folks might just read one chapter, and not the
rest. Others might read too quickly, and not really listen to Mr.
Akin's fine explanations. Others might have read other
less-well-written textbooks, and they might import their
understandings into Mr. Akin's words, resulting in
misunderstandings. Most often, people might just lack the mental
capacity to follow all the arguments, no matter how well they are
expressed, and end up clueless about the entire subject, despite
having read the entire work.
Now the question I have to ask is this: is there something
wrong with Mr. Akin's textbook if it does not produce complete
unanimity on questions logical? Is the problem in the *textbook*
or in the people *using* the textbook? In the real world it is
often a combination of both: a lack of clarity on the part of the
textbook and a problem in understanding on the part of the
reader. But if the perfect textbook existed, would it result in
absolute unanimity of opinion? No, because any textbook must be
read, interpreted, and understood.
Let's say the Bible *is* perspicuous, in the sense that
Westminster said, that is, that "those things which are
necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are
so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or
other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use
of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of
them." Does it follow, then, that there must be a unanimity
of opinion on, say, infant baptism? Does the above even say that
there will be a unanimity of opinion on the very items that
"are necessary to be known, believed and observed for
salvation"? No, obviously, it does not. And why? Because
people--sinful people, people with agendas, people who want to
find something in the Bible that isn't really there--people
approach Scripture, and no matter how perfect Scripture is,
people remain people
Now, Roman apologists may well say, "See, you've proven
our point! You need an infallible interpreter to tell you what
the Bible says because you are a sinful person, and hence you
need a sinless, perfect guide to tell you what to believe!"
Aside from the fact that such a concept itself is absent from
Scripture, and is in fact countermanded by Scripture (did not the
Lord Jesus hold men accountable for what GOD said to THEM in
SCRIPTURE?), we need to observe that Rome is not solving the
problem of fallible people. Once Rome "speaks" the
fallible person must still interpret the supposed infallible
interpretation. The element of error remains, no matter how much
Rome might wish to think it has been removed. Indeed, beyond the
problem of interpreting the infallible interpreter, you still
have the fallible decision of following *Rome's* absolute
authority rather than, say, Brooklyn's, or Salt Lake's, or
Mecca's, or whoever's. That remains a *fallible* decision, and
hence the longing for that "infallible fuzzy" that
comes from turning your responsibilities over to an
"infallible guide" remains as unfulfilled as ever.
Finally, the argument put forth (plainly seen in the arguments
used by Karl Keating in _Catholicism and Fundamentalism_) is even
more pernicious, in that it attacks the sufficiency of Scripture
itself. We are seemingly told that the Holy Spirit did such a
poor job in producing Scripture that while the Psalmist thought
it was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path, he (the
Psalmist) was in fact quite deluded, and was treading very
dangerously. Instead of the glorious words of God spoken of in
Psalm 119, we are told that such basic truths as the nature of
God, including the deity of Christ or the personality of the Holy
Spirit, *cannot* be derived solely from Scripture, but require
external witnesses. And why are we told this? Well, it is alleged
that arguments can be made *against* these doctrines on the basis
of Scripture passages. Of course, one could argue against
ANYTHING if one is willing to sacrifice context, language,
consistency, etc. But are we really to believe the Bible is so
self-contradictory and unclear that we cannot arrive at the truth
through a whole-hearted effort at honestly examining the biblical
evidence? That seems to be what those across the Tiber are trying
to tell us. But it is obvious that just because the Scriptures
can be *misused* it does not follow that they are *insufficient*
to lead one to the truth. Such is a flawed argument (no matter
how often it is repeated). The *real* reason Rome tells us the
Bible is insufficient is so that we can be convinced to abandon
the God-given standard of Scripture while embracing Rome's
ultimate authority.
Why has Patrick Madrid failed to respond to the demonstration
of his misrepresentation of sola scriptura? I believe it is
because he has no way of responding to the simple demonstration
of the fact that the main argument used by Catholic Answers
against this great truth is simply fallacious. To admit this
would not only mean he plainly lost the debate (who can claim to
win a debate when he has to misrepresent the doctrine under
discussion?) but it would require him to admit that the arguments
used by Catholic Answers for years have been nothing but smoke
and mirrors. Such is a difficult thing to admit.
The demonstration of the use of a straw man argument by Mr.
Madrid tells us about the perspective of Catholic Answers. The
fact that the head of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, was willing
to defend Madrid's "redefinition" of Sola Scriptura
is even more revealing. Shortly after the debate was over a
friend of mine, Doug Palmer, noted the "redefinition"
tactic on the part of Patrick Madrid. Being a scholastic debate
judge, Doug engaged Karl Keating in a discussion of the topic on
the Catholic Information Network. I finally jumped in, and the
following post appeared in February of 1994. The lines that begin
with "JW>" indicate my words to which Karl is
replying.
JW>Buzz. Sorry, Karl,
but any one JW>who has listened to the debate JW>knows
that Patrick did not deal JW>with MY affirmative
JW>proposition, because he used a JW>definition of Sola
Scriptura that JW>*I* did not present.
Assume this is an
accurate statement and that Pat used a definition different
from yours. So what? He wasn't debating James White's
definition. He was debating what he (and I and many others)
consider to be the real-world definition of Sola Scriptura
as found among "Bible Christians."
Please note that the
resolution of the debate didn't define sola scriptura. That
was up to the debaters. If they wanted to use slightly
different definitions, they had a right to do so.
Whether or not your
definition agreed with Pat's (and I don't think they were far
apart at all), the debate wasn't about fixing a definition.
It was mainly about arguing whether particular verses
supported sola scriptura. THAT argument can be carried out
even if the debaters differ a bit on their definitions.
By the way, Pat wasn't
supposed to deal with YOUR affirmative proposition, but with
the affirmative proposition found in the resolution, and
that's what he did. Debate propositions are framed in the
resolution itself, not in the first speaker's opening
statement.
Karl
Try to imagine how Mr. Keating would respond if the roles were
reversed. Let's say that I debated Mr. Keating on the Immaculate
Conception, and, after his opening statements, decided to present
my own definition of the doctrine. Or let's say we were debating
Papal Infallibility and I said to Mr. Keating, "Now, I
believe this doctrine means that Popes are supposed to be
sinless, so how do you explain Alexander VI or John XII?"
Would Mr. Keating feel it was "OK" for me to redefine
his doctrines and then insist that he defend my redefinitions? Of
course not. He would rightly protest that to be fair I must
accurately and honestly portray the Roman doctrines as they are
defined by Rome. Yet, seemingly, the men of Catholic Answers do
not extend this treatment to others. Here, the President of
Catholic Answers seemingly says, "Hey, sure, Patrick used a
different definition, but so what? Who said he had to debate your
definition?" A fascinating admission indeed!
And so we see the first glaring example of the straw man form
of argumentation. Patrick Madrid used a definition of Sola
Scriptura that is contradictory to the doctrine as it is
stated by Protestants themselves. For any person who feels a
debate must be weighed by how well each person interacts with the
issues themselves, Mr. Madrid must be disqualified from the
start.
Straw Man Number Two:
Madrid's second attempt at misdirection is related to the
first. As the reader may have noted in my opening statements, I
presented the concept of a bicycle shop and its sufficiency to
equip me to ride a bicycle. For some reason Patrick, to this day,
has failed to grasp the significance of what I was trying to say.
A number of people from all sorts of different backgrounds have
listened to my analogy and understood it easily. But Patrick
continues to think he has somehow rebutted what I had to say.
Note his words:
In the debate White used the analogy of a bike shop that
contains everything necessary to equip a bike enthusiast for
riding. Comparing the bike shop to the Bible, the shop could be
called "sufficient" for a bike ride. He seemed fairly
giddy with confidence until I pointed out that although the shop
might provide all the equipment, it presupposed the customer knew
how to ride a bike, this being analogous to knowing how to use
Scripture correctly. Bike shops can equip customers with all the
necessary paraphernalia, but they can't teach them how to ride.
The problem with Patrick's response is that it utterly misses
the point I made. First, I did not say the bike shop was
"sufficient for a bike ride." I said that the shop I
frequent is able to provide to me all the things necessary for me
to function as a cyclist: helmets, gloves, tires, etc. The point,
obviously, is that I do not have to go to two different bike
shops to get what I need. Since the one is able to equip me
fully, then it is obviously sufficient in the task of equipping
the bicyclist for the task of riding. The analogy is that since
Paul says the Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God
for his work as the man of God, there is no need for a second
source of "equipping," that being the Roman concept of
oral tradition. In the context in which I presented it, the
analogy is perfectly valid. For Patrick's rebuttal to be valid I
would have to believe that the Bible alone "saves" men
and makes them Christians, an absurd idea since, of course, I
believe it is God who saves men by the work of Christ, the
ministry of the Holy Spirit, etc., all of which is revealed to us
in Scripture. Secondly, it is not a matter of the proper use of
Scripture as Patrick attempts to tell us, but rather the
sufficiency of Scripture itself. This goes back to the previous
point of the "perspicuity of Scripture" and Madrid's
false representation that Protestants don't believe Scripture can
be misused.
Patrick attempted to push his confused rebuttal of my analogy
even after I pointed out his error. To use his words,
White responded that since 2 Timothy 3:17 specifies that
the man of God is made fully equipped, this implies the man
of God will know how to use Scripture correctly. White's
equanimity disappeared [can Mr. Madrid relate anything I say
without taking a shot? The original had read, "His
smugness disappeared. . . ."] when I asked how he
decides who is "a man of God" and who isn't. I used
the controversy within Protestantism over infant baptism to
provide a graphic illustration of how White's argument that
"the man of God knows how to use Scripture
correctly" begs the question.
The begging of the question is obviously being done by Mr.
Madrid. The issue is not who is, and who is not, a man of God,
but the sufficiency of the Scripture to equip the man of God for
the work of the ministry. Madrid is admitting, though he seems
oblivious of the fact, that he, not I, was straying from the
topic of the debate, and that due to his misrepresentation of the
doctrine at hand. The issue is not who is the man of God? or is
it possible for even a man of God to misuse, or misunderstand,
Scripture? The issue will always be, Does the Bible need
supplementary revelation outside of itself to equip the man of
God? Madrid's attempt to drag the debate off into infant baptism
and the like was nothing more than a smokescreen based upon his
own misunderstanding of sola scriptura.
Straw Man Number Three: If a person listens to the debate and
then reads Mr. Madrid's article, they will be surprised to
discover how his recollection differs from the reality. This can
be seen most clearly in Patrick's rearrangement of the topics as
they were covered in the debate. Seemingly trying to get a few
more digs out of a limited amount of material, the actual order
in which information was presented ends up almost backwards in
the final product found in TWMB. Most striking is the fact
that Madrid makes it appear in his article that I presented my
case for sola scriptura on the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only
after Madrid brilliantly destroyed all my other arguments. Note
his words on page 15 of TWMB:
But James White is a resourceful fellow. He dug deeper
into his bag of tricks, coming up with what he hoped would be
the show-stopping argument. He told the audience that since
the passage says Scripture will make the man of God
"competent" (artios) and "thoroughly
furnished" (exartizo), it implies the
sufficiency of Scripture. But this argument fails.
How Patrick is able to read my mind, I have no idea. He surely
does not undertake the task with much success, at any rate. The
reader will note that I did not "dig deeper into" any
"bag of tricks," but instead had made this part of my
opening statement. Madrid purposefully misleads his readers by
implying that I had to go to this argument since my previous
arguments had been refuted, which is simply not the case at all.
It is in his frantic attempt to overturn the plain meaning of
this passage he makes the statement, already cited, that
"For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture must be
sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes and quandaries."
We have already seen how far from the truth such a statement is.
At this point Madrid attempted to rescue his scholarly
reputation, which had been fairly badly damaged in the debate,
given that he was utterly incapable of interacting with the
information I presented in the debate itself. By doing his
homework "after the fact," he comes up with allegations
that I, in fact, am the one who made the errors regarding the
lexical meanings of terms. But in the process he made an
elementary blunder. Note his words,
But, as I pointed out, the lexicons he cited listed
"sufficient" as a third or fourth translation of
artios and exartizo. None listed "sufficient" as
the primary or even secondary meaning. This is an important
point. Lexicons list meanings beginning with the most common
and ending with the least common.
Two items. First, if Patrick knew what those lexicons actually
said, why didn't he bring this out? Reason: he didn't know. He
was simply going on his recollection of my own words. Second, it
must be that Mr. Madrid does not have a lot of experience looking
items up in a Greek lexicon. Meanings are listed normally under
grammatical forms, not "primary" or
"secondary" meanings. One of the lexicons I cited is
based upon semantic domains, which lists words in groups with
related meanings, again making Madrid's statement, drawn,
obviously, from looking up terms in English dictionaries or the
like, meaningless. How did he actually respond to my words? By
dismissing them as the mere opinions of those dreaded Protestant
scholars who, as we know, all have a hidden agenda against Rome!
Note his statement:
I am not going to debate what this Protestant Greek
scholar may or may not have said. First of all, they're
Protestant, so they're naturally going to give a spin to
something that a Catholic scholar might see something
different in. Now Mr. White might respond by saying that,
"Well, Greek is Greek, Mr. Madrid, you can't argue on
the basis of ideology or politics." I'm going to save
that for some future point, simply because we don't have the
time to go into what the Catholic scholars say on that issue.
So I'm not going to go into that now.
Patrick could not "go into that now" since he was
incapable of doing so. He was unprepared for the materials I
presented.
Paul and Timothy
A fellow Roman apologist. Robert
Sungenis, has undertaken to
defend Patrick's position, again in America Online. Sungenis
joined Madrid as a fellow debater at the CURE debate in early
March, 1995, and he joined Scott Butler in a debate against Rob
Zins and myself at Boston College in April, 1995. Since I went
over many of the issues Madrid raised in TWMB, I shall
allow my response to do "double duty." Using a
publicly-posted message also provides a good example of how the
"give and take" of debate takes place. Materials
indented and in smaller type refer to a previous post by Robert
Sungenis to which I am replying.
As I understand your argument, since the man of God is
sufficiently equipped for every good work, then this presumes
that the Scripture is the sufficient source from which he
attains this sufficiency. I will respond on that basis.
If I may contextualize your comments. Representatives of Catholics
Answers have asked, for many years, for just *one* verse
that teaches sola scriptura. Of course, one might well say
that they could hardly ever admit that one verse teaches the
doctrine, for this would be the end of Roman Catholicism as
they define it. But when I debated Patrick Madrid in
September of 1993, it had been clearly decided that the
subject would be "Does the Bible Teach Sola scriptura?" Patrick had specifically asked that we not
debate patristic sources. And so I determined to provide
Patrick with that verse.
My argument was rather simple: if the Bible asserts that
1) it is A rule of faith; 2) it is SUFFICIENT to function as
the rule of faith; and absent the proof on the part of Mr.
Madrid of some other infallible rule of faith, my position
would be established. I pointed out the impossibility of
proving universal negatives, that is, I refused to allow
Patrick to do what the folks at CA have done many times
before--by focusing in upon the negative, rather than the
positive, aspect of the doctrine. What is more, I defined the
doctrine as it has been defined by historic statements of
faith. Unfortunately, Patrick decided he liked HIS definition
better than mine.
Anyway, regarding the passage under discussion, I have
asserted that the passage teaches Sola Scriptura in
this way: first, it asserts the unique nature of Scripture.
Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed. Nothing else is ever
said to be theopneustos in Scripture. The passage
contextually is all about the Scriptures. Paul said that the
Scriptures are able (ta dunamena--an interesting use of the
participle at this point) to make Timothy wise unto salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus (which makes one wonder about
Karl's recent attempt to keep the Scriptures from having
"abilities,"--yet the Scriptures are here
personalized as being able to make one wise). It is right on
the heels of this amazing statement that we find verses 16
through 17. Right after saying that the Scriptures are able
to make one wise unto salvation, we are told that they are
also able to equip the man of God for the work of the
ministry. Not just *part* of the ministry, but for a
full-orbed ministry of teaching, rebuking, correcting, and
training in righteousness.
Now, while I did not have time to develop things in the
debate, I wish to point out that here you have the assertion
that the Scriptures are profitable for teaching,
"didaskalian." This term is quite important to
Paul. He uses it in Romans 15:4, "For everything that
was written in the past was written TO TEACH US, so that
through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we
might have hope." It is also used in Titus 2:10,
"not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they
may adorn THE DOCTRINE of God our Savior in all things."
This is, of course, the normal term for "doctrine."
See its use in Eph. 4:14, Col 2:22, 1 Timothy 4:6, and 2
Timothy 4:3. The Scriptures, we are told, are God-breathed
AND THEREFORE are profitable for teaching, that is, for
presenting the doctrines of the Christian faith. I point out
that we are never told that anything else is profitable for
doctrine, are we? One might ask, then, where we find such
concepts as the Bodily Assumption of Mary in Scripture, and
yet it is defined as "didaskalia" by Rome, is it
not?
The same is to be said of the other terms Paul uses
here--each describes a phase of the work of the minister of
God. Why is this important? Because of what comes next:
"in order that (hina) the man of God might be complete (artios), thoroughly furnished (sufficient) for EVERY (pan)
good work." The phrase "good work" must be
defined in the context that precedes it: teaching, rebuking,
etc. The man of God is complete BECAUSE OF the nature of
Scripture. That is the significance of the hina clause, as
you well know, Bob. I'm sure they taught Greek rather
thoroughly at Westminster, right? The hina clause shows us
that the God-breathed nature of Scripture results in the
sufficiency of the man of God in his work in the ministry in
the Church of Jesus Christ.
It was on this basis that I asked Mr. Madrid if he thought
teaching that the Pope is infallible is a "good
work." If it is a good work, then Paul taught that the
Scriptures were sufficient to equip the man of God to teach
that doctrine. Yet, we find no Popes in Scripture, and we
surely find no reference to their infallibility. So, how can
this be explained?
Of course, I did not present only this passage. I
presented Matthew 15:1-9 as well. But the debate never turned
to that passage--it focused upon 2 Timothy. Now, I return to
your response:
First, I am sure you are aware that artios and exartao
are not clearly understood as meaning "sufficient,"
especially in the absolutistic way in which I think you are
defining trying to define it. Bauer, Liddell and Scott, Arndt
and Gingrich, and others do not include sufficiency in their
definitions. As I understand there are a few lexicons that do
give sufficiency as the definition. Please let me know who
they are.
I was under the impression that you had listened to the
debate. Possibly I was in error. I gave the references when I
presented the information. Again the background: in Denver
Patrick Madrid had demanded to be shown a single verse that
says the Scriptures are "sufficient." He repeated
the charge over and over again. It seems rather inconsistent
to then complain when shown the very thing you have been
asking to see! Be that as it may....Louw and Nida define the
term exartizo, "to make someone completely adequate or
sufficient for something--to make adequate, to furnish
completely, to cause to be fully qualified, adequacy."
And Reinecker and Rogers have, "artios, fit, complete,
capable, sufficient; i.e., able to meet all demands...exartizo, completely outfitted, fully furnished,
fully equipped, fully supplied." Patrick had
specifically denied that the term *sufficient* could be used
in the passage at hand in Denver.
But my rebuttal is not so much concerned with the
definition of artios or exartao as the presumptuous links you
are making between the man of God and the Scripture. Let me
explain. The link I see between the S(criptures) and the man
of God is the four disciplines of "teaching, reproof,
correction, and training in righteousness. These four
disciplines are what make the man of God artios or exartao,
not the S themselves, although they play a part in the
result.
According to _Surprised by Truth_, you once prided
yourself on being called "Bible Bob." Well, if that
is the case, then I would have to point out that the passage
we are looking at defies your attempt to remove the nature of
Scripture from the result of their nature, that being the
sufficiency of the man of God. Scripture is modified by what
two terms in 1 Timothy 3:16? By theopneustos and ophelimos.
Ophelimos is followed by pros, introducing a clause
explaining for what the Scriptures are profitable. This is
followed by the hina clause of verse 17. Now, are you trying
to say that the hina clause is somehow to be separated from
the main statement of the preceding sentence, and is, in
fact, giving us the result of ONLY the four
"disciplines"? Surely you can see that since both
theopneustos AND ophelimos are modifying graphe, you cannot
avoid the fact that it is Scripture, the same Scripture that
was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation, that is in
Paul's mind when he speaks of the sufficiency of the man of
God and his being equipped for every good work.
If you try to establish the meaning and extent of S by
using the possibility that the man of God is artios and exartao, then you must also understand the extent of S if the
man of God fails to become artios or exartao.
It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe
into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention.
Paul's point is plain: the man of God can be artios and
exartizo only through the work of the graphe. The idea that a
man of God may not use the Scriptures aright, or may have sin
in his life, or any other such thing, is, quite honestly, a
rather poor dodge, though it was certainly part and parcel of
Patrick's response in San Diego.
Allow me to illustrate this by again referring to my
bicycle shop story. I referred to a bicycle shop that is able
to equip me thoroughly for the task of riding a bike. I
pointed out that I did not need to go to another bicycle shop
so as to ride my bike. The one bicycle shop was *sufficient*
to *equip* me for the task of riding my bike. Now, I think
the illustration is very plain. Yet, Patrick seemed to
completely miss the point. His response was, "But can
that bicycle shop teach you to ride?" Which, of course,
is not the point. Only bicyclists go into the bicycle shop to
be equipped to ride a bicycle. The point is not that
Protestants believe the Bible exists alone, in a vacuum. We
are not insisting that the Holy Spirit is unnecessary, or
that there is no Church. We are not saying that we do not
learn things from the preceding generations, or from each
other. All of that is a rather pitiful straw man. We are
saying that when it comes to doing the work of the man of
God, he has a sufficient and infallible rule of faith that is
God-breathed, and therefore certain. He does not have to go
from one insufficient rule of faith to the next insufficient
rule of faith. He has one, sufficient, rule of faith. Just as
I only have to go to one bicycle shop, so the man of God need
only go to one infallible and sufficient rule of faith.
Now lets say I decide I'm not going to take my bicycle in
for maintenance anymore. I ignore the clicks and clacks that
start to develop, and, eventually, my bike breaks down. Is
that the bicycle shop's fault? Does my foolishness indicate
an INSUFFICIENCY in the bicycle shop? Of course not. So if
men of God disagree with one another, and hold to traditions
of men rather than the fullness of God's truth in Scripture,
does this indicate an INSUFFICIENCY in Scripture? Of course
not! Such is the common reply of Catholic apologists,
however. Not only is the argument in error in that it makes
the Scripture liable for my own sinful disregard of its
teachings, but it is a self-refuting argument, for it is
obvious (and Patrick has admitted as much in conversations
with me) that there are wide differences amongst those who
call themselves Roman Catholics today. Does this mean that
the Teaching Magisterium is somehow IN-SUFFICIENT as well?
Only if one uses the absurd and silly definition of
"perspicuous" that Patrick used in our debate can
one come up with that kind of argument.
No, Bob, you need to look again at what you were taught at
Westminster. What did the Confession say again? "that
not only the learned, but the unlearned, IN A DUE USE OF THE
ORDINARY MEANS, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of
them." Patrick's argument ignored the doctrine *as it is
defined and believed by Protestants," and hence, I
submit, he lost the debate.
If the main component of your definition fails, then
this reflects directly on the subordinate component, that is,
S. In other words: if you say a sufficient man equals a
sufficient S, then it must also be true that an insufficient
man equals an insufficient S. This syllogism is demanded by
the premise that you set up.
I think we can see that your argument is utterly without
merit. I hope you are able to see this as well, Bob. It fails
for the following obvious reasons:
It operates on a false representation of Sola
Scriptura (i.e., one that involves an absurd idea of
"perspecuity" and one that ignores the
"use of the ordinary means").
It ignores the fact that Protestants recognize growth in
grace, the interference of sinful attitudes, traditions,
etc.
It erroneously assumes that failure on the part of a man
to follow the truth as found in Scripture somehow means
the Scriptures are insufficient to teach him that truth.
Obviously, if this were the case, your argument would
disprove the sufficiency of the Teaching Magisterium on
the exact same grounds. An argument that refutes your own
position is not a good argument, Bob.
I believe a better way to see the links in 2 Tim. 3:17
is to understand, as I said in the last post, that the four
disciplines are what make the man of God artios or exartao.
If he fails in becoming artios or exartao then he has not
been exercised by the four disciplines.
A very ingenious way of looking at it, but again, I
believe it fails the test of the text itself. First, the
phrase "man of God" appears only one other time,
and that is in 1 Timothy 6:11, "But you, O man of God,
flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, patience, gentleness." This is Paul directly
addressing Timothy. Hence, we must see that it is the man of
God who is the doer of the "four disciplines," that
is, the man of God is teaching, reproving, correcting, and
instructing in righteousness. This is further demanded
contextually by the fact that obviously the four disciplines
are "good works," for which the man of God is
thoroughly equipped, and that by Scripture. And beyond this,
what is the basis of teaching, if not Scripture? What is the
basis of reproof, if again, not Scripture? Hence, your
interpretation cannot be supported by the text itself.
The Scripture is static in the sense that its words do
not change, and therefore it cannot be held responsible for
the failure of the man of God to become artios and exartao.
But the four disciplines are not static. They increase or
decrease in effectiveness depending on how they are taken in
by the man of God. Of course, the Scriptures are inspired and
thus the man of God can have complete confidence that what he
reads there is absolutely true. Hence, the S is
"profitable" (Greek: ophimilos) to stir him to
exercise these four disciplines.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, this is misunderstanding
of the passage. Not only this, but the passage nowhere says
the Scripture stirs the man of God up by teaching him,
rebuking him, etc.; instead, the Scriptures, because they are
God-breathed, are profitable FOR teaching (who teaches, if
not the man of God?), for rebuking (who rebukes, if not the
man of God?), for correction (who corrects, if not the man of
God?) and training in righteousness (who trains, if not the
man of God?). The man of God draws from the Scriptures so as
to teach in accordance with sound doctrine, and the point is,
HE NEED NOT DRAW FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE SO AS TO BE ABLE TO
TEACH SOUND DOCTRINE.
But whether the man DOES exercise the disciplines is
not dependent so much on S, but on his own makeup as a man of
God. He must ask himself the question every day: do I want to
be artios and exartao today? Well, if he does, the S are a
"profitable" source to gain the disciplines
necessary to become artios or exartao.
While all of that may be true, it misses Paul's point, and
defies the context and form of the passage, as explained
above. And, I repeat, the failure of a man of God to use the
equipment provided by God in the "ordinary means"
does not in any way speak to an insufficiency in the
Scriptures, but to the character of the man. To say
otherwise, as Patrick did in our debate, is to completely
miss the entire point.
Considering the argument I am raising that the four
disciplines are what make a man artios or exartao, (the (S)cripture) being profitable or useful in exercising these
four disciplines), if, on the other hand, Paul had said
"the S are inspired and sufficient" or "the S
are inspired and perfect or complete for teaching,
reproof...in order that the man of God may be artios and exartao," then I believe one could make at least a
reasonable case that S would be the only necessary source.
But Paul choose "profitable," a rather fractional
and incomplete word to convey sufficiency.
Fractional and incomplete? Only if you are seeking to find
a nearly creedal statement of something that is already
plainly a part of the belief structure of the Apostle and
Timothy, that being the sufficiency of Scripture itself. The
fact remains that the man of God, who is called, as Timothy
is called, to teach (passages already cited), to reprove,
correct, etc., is equipped for this work by the God-breathed
Scriptures. This does not mean that the man of God does not
need the Spirit of God; this does not mean that the man of
God will ignore the godly lives of his predecessors, or will
never learn anything from the writings of the early Fathers
or other great men of the faith. It also does not mean that
the man of God will not study Greek and Hebrew, church
history, OT and NT backgrounds, and any host of other things.
Anyone who says Sola Scriptura denies these things is
engaging in little more than smoke blowing. What it does mean
is that when the man of God is called upon to teach sound
doctrine, he has a sure, sufficient, and infallible rule of
faith in Scripture. He does not need to wonder what is, and
what is not, "inspired tradition." He does not need
to be concerned about whether the words of this church leader
or that are to be taken as equally authoritative with
Scripture. And he does not need to inquire of the current
theological opinion of the majority, either. Thanks be to God
men like Athanasius did not bow to majority opinion, for as
Basil said, "Let inspired Scripture decide between
us."
I believe the reason he chose a weaker word like
"profitable" is that S is not the only source that
will exercise the four disciplines of teaching, reproof, etc.
The passage is not giving a dissertation on epistemology as
much as it is giving the means to help in making a man artios
and exartao. In support of this, in the context Paul lists
several sources to which Timothy can turn to help him become
the perfect man he wants to be.
Of course, I believe I have demonstrated that you have
gone off course already, and that the context of the passage
indicates that it is the man of God who is doing the
teaching, etc. Indeed, I wonder if you would comment on Karl
Keating's recent post, in which he indicated that since the
Scriptures are not personal, we should not speak of them as
being "infallible," since they cannot "take
action." If teaching, rebuking, correcting, and
instructing, are not actions, what are they?
For example, in 2 Tim 2:21 Paul specifies one of the
primary ingredients needed to make a "useful" man
of God, namely, the cleansing away of bad influences and
behavior. Paul says, "if a man cleanses himself from the
latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made
holy, useful to the Master `prepared to do every good work.'
Notice that the end result of 2 Tm 2:21 is the same as that
found in 2 Tm 3:17, that is, to make a "fit" or
"useful" man so that he is `prepared to do every
good work.'
The problem here lies in the confusion of the *source* of
the man of God's ability to engage in the work of the
ministry in the church (which is the topic of 3:14-17), and
here, which is the subject of sanctification in the person's
life. Note closely Paul's words: "If a man cleanses
himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble
purposes," literally, a vessel unto honor. Note Paul is
addressing personal behavior here, as is made plain in the
next phrase, "made holy," that is, sanctified. We
are talking about the process of sanctification in the life
of the man of God, but we are not talking about the source
from which he draws so as to teach, reprove, rebuke, etc.
Paul goes on, "useful to the Master and prepared to do
any good work." The term "prepared" is not
artios or exartizo. It is a term that differs markedly in its
semantic domain: hetoimazo, which specifically speaks of
making preparations, of becoming prepared and ready. This is
right in line with the context: Paul is talking about a man
purifying himself, denying godlessness and walking in a godly
fashion. This is just what hetoimazo refers to. But in
chapter 3 he speaks of sufficiency and capability because he
is not talking about something the man himself does, but of
the perfection of the source from which the man of God draws:
the God-breathed Scriptures.*
*Unfortunately, Mr. Sungenis did not allow
this rebuttal of his use of 2 Timothy 2:21 to hinder him from
presenting the very same passage in the CURE debate a few
months later, though he never rebutted this information when
it was presented to him.
Trying to keep Timothy strong against the those who
have a form of godliness, Paul continues in 2 Tm 3:10 and
says, "You, however, know all about my teaching, my way
of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
persecutions, sufferings." Hence, one of the other
sources upon which Timothy can draw to become the fit man of
God is Paul's teaching and way of life.
Surely this is hardly a denial of sola
scriptura, Bob.
Also, Paul says, "But as for you, continue in
what you have learned and become convinced of, because you
know those from whom you learned it (2 Tm 3:14).
Again, this in no way denies either Sola Scriptura
or the defense I have made of it in this series of posts. If
you feel it does, please indicate how.
In referring to what Timothy has "become
convinced of," Paul is calling upon Timothy's thinking
and reasoning abilities to help him become the fit man of God
prepared for every good work.
Which is, of course, perfectly in line with the doctrine
of sola scriptura. You made mention in your conversion story
of reading Van Til. Surely you are not going to say that
Reformed people would assert that man's thinking and man's
reasoning is a denial of the supremacy of the Scriptures, are
you?
Paul also refers to "those from whom you learned
it." In using the plural, Paul is referring to all the
teachers Timothy has had. They have taught him to be the
things he needs to know to be the perfect man of God he
wishes to be, prepared to do every good work.
Yes, so? Surely again you are not suggesting, are you,
that this in some way violates sola scriptura?? I would be
most disappointed if you were to attempt to erect that straw
man. To be relevant to your denial of sola scriptura, you
would have to be able to demonstrate that what he was taught
by his mother and grandmother went *beyond* the Scriptures,
*outside* of the Scriptures, and *supplemented* the
Scriptures. Of course, you can't prove that, since Paul goes
on to say that those very Scriptures are able to make Timothy
wise unto salvation by faith in Christ Jesus.
Finally, Paul speaks of the "holy
Scriptures" which he has known since a child which are
able to lead one to "faith in Christ." This is also
one of Timothy's "profitable" sources to make him
the man he wants to be.
Contextually, of course, Paul nowhere says, "Now
Timothy, you, as the man of God, when you teach doctrine,
when y |
