The Sufficiency Of Scripture

[Joolye]

I have found an article on the internet about the Sufficiency of Scripture, and I will quote some parts from it for you guys to think about.

The Reformation was the time of definition for this doctrine in a clearer way than the Church had ever seen. The crisis of confidence in the Catholic Church’s authority was resolved by the Catholics at the Council of Trent (meeting from 1545 to 1563) by their decision to express the superior authority of the Church over the text of Scripture by adding several books of the Apocrypha to the Hebrew Old Testament.

The Protestants’ answer to this was to point out that we have the authority of Jesus himself for the canon (or list) of the OT books, for the Gospels themselves show that Jesus accepted the canon of the Pharisees without question, and only appealed to the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible. The Greek books called the Apocrypha have never been considered by the Jews to be on the same level as their Hebrew Scriptures. How odd that Trent did not dare to add to the New Testament! History provides no evidence at all of any attempt by the Early Church to add to the OT.

The question in the Reformation was not whether to abolish tradition or not, but which particular traditions to abolish as being inconsistent with the Bible. They therefore gave up bowing to images, claiming to convert the Lord’s Supper into the very body and blood of Christ, and forbidding nuns to marry. The Baptists gave up infant baptism too, claiming it was not to be found in the Bible.

The Question was not about the usefulness of traditions, but about their authority and necessity. The Catholics taught that many doctrines and practices are necessary for salvation which, not appearing in the Bible, are defined as being "of the Faith" by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. The Protestants answered that there was no infallibility to be had outside the Bible, as the history of Church Councils and traditions made clear enough.

The Proof of all this is in the Bible itself. St. Paul himself insists that all human traditions must conform to the texts of his own letters, thus showing what the final test for Truth was for the Apostles themselves. And in the classic passage on the Bible’s inspiration, Paul says that the Holy Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in right living. He then explains why this is so; they are able to make the "man of God" (that is, the bishop Timothy in particular,) fully furnished and completely equipped for every good work (2Tim 3:16).

At this point, the Protestant asks the Catholic to explain what spiritual furniture, and what necessary equipment, would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What good work is unprovided for? Surely this text is the most clear and comprehensive statement of the full Sufficiency of Scripture that any Protestant heart could desire. And no text contradicts it (2 Tim 2:13).

Conclusion: No doctrine and no practice not sanctioned by the Bible, no matter how useful in itself, or how hallowed by age, can bind the regenerate conscience as being necessary for salvation.

Okay, I've read your arguments about the Lord's Supper and where you get that from in Scripture, so please don't bombard me with your defense of it. I have already read your defense of that.

[Winchester]

I'd type a rebuttal, but I'm laughing too hard.

Seriously, I'll respond, but I need my sources to quote.

The Catholic Church was using the Septuagint for 11 Centuries, but no one raised a cry.

The Hebrew canon was formally accepted as the only legitimate canon in AD90. Since when does the Church follow the decision of a group of Rabbis as binding on Christianity: after Christ's death?

Jesus did quote from the Greek texts, although it takes a little work to find the proof of that.

Here's an essay by yours truly: Winnie Bible debunk

[Uncle Gus]

Well, I gave it a shot, and good effort, I was almost all the way through the first paragraph before I found the first error.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The question in the Reformation was not whether to abolish tradition or not, but which particular traditions to abolish as being inconsistent with the Bible. They therefore gave up bowing to images, claiming to convert the Lord’s Supper into the very body and blood of Christ, and forbidding nuns to marry. The Baptists gave up infant baptism too, claiming it was not to be found in the Bible.

The Question was not about the usefulness of traditions, but about their authority and necessity. The Catholics taught that many doctrines and practices are necessary for salvation which, not appearing in the Bible, are defined as being "of the Faith" by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. The Protestants answered that there was no infallibility to be had outside the Bible, as the history of Church Councils and traditions made clear enough.

We can see that this is an unreliable source because of its false portrayal of "Catholic" teachings. We do not worship images. We also do not "claim" to convert the Lord’s Supper into the very body and blood of Christ, we do. It is very clear in John 6. If this source thinks that Early Church councils contradict Church teaching, they gravely misunderstand both of them. I urge you all to read this:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

[Uncle Gus]

Actually, I'll go one further than that, dude, and say that we don't claim to convert the Lord's Supper into the very Body and Blood of Christ, and nor do we actually do it. Christ does it, nobody else has the power.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

You know what I meant . Of course the priest doesn't do it with his "power".

Edited November 2, 2003 by thedude

[Uncle Gus]

*Uncle Gus puts on his "Mr. Pedant" cap*

But seriously, we can't take this knowledge for granted. Even though I knew what you meant, and I imagine most other people do too, there are many people who read this phorum who do not know the difference, and that small mistake might cause someone to fall into error. Must be careful!

So yeah, I wasn't just trying to pick at you, I was thinking more of preventing error. :)

Edited November 2, 2003 by Uncle Gus

[jbliss145]

It's important to remember that the Catholic Church does not RESTRICT God to the Bible alone. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come to teach us EVERYTHING. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit quit teaching the day the Bible was finished.

"For Catholics, the Bible is the Book of the Church. This is a significant statement because for many other Christians the opposite is true: they belong to a church of the Book."

Send Out Your Spirit, p. 69

The importance of the absolute Apostolic Authority of the Church is simply beyond measure. We are so blessed.

God Bless,

Joe

[foundsheep]

Amen Joe!

[jasJis]

From another forum. This refutes the first paragraph of Freaky's post that claims books were "added" by the Council of Trent. Plus it's a little bible history for the rest of us.

Originally posted by Monkey the Catechuemen in another thread

Some Myths about the Deuterocanon

In this post we will examine several myths that are used to discredit the Deuterocanon. We will see how these myths, if applied consistently, would also discredit the Protocanon. I will address each myth in further detail in future posts.

1. The Deuterocanonical Books are not part of the Hebrew Bible. This statement is a half-truth. The Deuterocanon is not part of the Bible used by most Jews today. Some Jews, such as the Ethiopians, do include them. To say that the Jews have a single, universally agreed upon canon is not being honest. If we consider the situation at the time of Christ, it becomes clear that Hebrews did not have an idea of a fixed, closed canon like we do. In Christ's time, the Pharisees accepted (roughly) the same books as the Protestant Old Testament. Based on this fact, some people claim that all Jews accepted this same canon. They did not. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah. The Samaritans accepted the Torah and Joshua. The Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews accepted the LXX, which included the Deuterocanon. It is unclear which books the Essenes accepted, but it is certain that they read the Deuterocanon. When one claims they use the same Old Testament as the Jews, we must be careful to ask, "Which Jews?" and "Why that particular sect?". Since the Jews did not agree on one particular canon at the time of Jesus, it is clear that Christians cannot base their belief on which Old Testament books are Scripture based on Jewish beliefs.

2. The Deuterocanon is not Scripture because it was not written in Hebrew. It is true that some of the Deuterocanon was written in Aramaic and Greek. Some of it was written in Hebrew. That being said, we must ask ourselves, "So what?". Is there any basis for the claim that Scripture can only be written in Hebrew? No. In fact, we know that the New Testament was written in Greek and possibly Aramaic. Perhaps it is just the Old Testament that must be written in Hebrew. If that is true, then we have a problem. Parts of Esther and Daniel were written in Aramaic, yet they are still considered Scripture. If we consistently apply this criterium to all of the books of the Bible, we have to reject much more than the Deuterocaon.

3. We know which books are Scripture because Jesus and the Apostles quoted them. Again, if we apply this logic in a consistent manor, we have problems. Should we include all the books that were quoted by the Apostles? If so, we need to include the Book of Enoch, since Jude quotes it. (You are aware that the Jews of Ethiopia have always considered this book as Scripture, aren't you?) We should probably include the Assumption of Moses and the Ascension of Isaiah as well. (I will say more on this in another post.) We should also include the works of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander, because Paul quotes them. If we continue in a consistent manor and only keep those books that are quoted by Jesus or the Apostles, we have to throw out the books of Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Judges, Ezra, and Nehemiah. None of these books are quoted in the New Testament. If we allow for allusions rather than direct quotations, we see that Jesus and the Apostles make frequent reference to the Deuterocanon. In short, we can not rely on quotations to determine if a book is canonical.

4. The Deuterocanon contains geographical and historical errors The Deutercanon contradicts its own histories. Some of the books do contain such errors. Is this important? No. They are not history books or geography books. Can the Protocanon hold stand up to this same test? No. Both Daniel and Esther contain historical errors. There are other books which may contain historical errors as well. For instance, ask yourself. "How did Judas Ischariot die?".

5. The Deuterocanon teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, and magic. In short, they do not. Some of the characters may behave immorally, but that does not mean that books teach such practices. Does the Protocanon stand up to this accusation? Answer honestly. How did Samson die (Judges 16:30)? What technique did Jacob use to breed his flocks (Genesis 30:37-42)? How did Joshua's spies escape capture in Jericho (Joshua 2:1-6)? Do we need to throw out these books and others as well?

6. The Deuterocanonical books deny they are Scripture. Two books, Sirach and 2 Maccabees, have passages that may seem to disavowal inspiration. What they actually are is an example of the writer being humble. Again, lets see how this applies to other accepted books. In 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul explicitly denies that this section is inspired. Yet, we still accept it as Scripture, whether Paul knew he was inspired or not. Luke tells us that he wrote his Gospel because it seemed good to him. If we use such comments to discredit the Deuterocanon, we must also discredit the Gospel According to Luke.

One of the primary reasons given for reject the Apocrypha is that the Council of Jamnia rejected it. This is a dubious reason. The Council of Jamnia met around the end of the first century (around AD 90, I think). It was a council of Jewish (NOT CHRISTIAN) Rabbinical Pharisees. It is not clear whether this council actually closed the Jewish canon, but it is certain that they discussed which books should be included and which should be excluded. In addition to rejecting the Deuterocanon, this Council also rejected the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Given that fact, how can we trust them to decide which books belong in the Old Testament?

They set up four criteria for determining the authenticity of a book. Let's examine them closely to see if we can determine how they made their decision.

1. The content of the book had to agree with the Law (Torah). This requirement makes some. All of the Jewish factions (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Greek, Ethiopian, Samaritan, etc.) agreed that the Torah was inspired. Anything that contradicted it could not be inspired. However, this criterion does not eliminate any of the Deutercanonical Books. None of them contradict the Torah.

2. It was believed by some Jews that the era of Divine Inspiration ended at the time of Ezra (about 450 B.C.). To be inspired, the book had to be written before that time. As Christians, we know that the Holy Spirit continued to inspire writers after Ezra. We call some of that inspiration the New Testament. Perhaps God took a break between Testaments? The succession of Prophets, including Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, and the others, had ended. However, there were still prophets in Israel. Christ tells us that the prophets continued until John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13). The prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-38) was 84 years old. Since the Holy Spirit was still active during this "inter-Testament" time, why should we believe that He stopped inspiring Scripture?

Is there any Scriptural basis for the "400 years of silence"? Is it prophesied at any time in the Old Testament? Is there any verse in the New Testament that says that this period had ended? It is true that the Pharisees believed in the "400 years of silence". However, that is not all they the believed. They believed that this silence continued through the time of Christ, through the time of the Apostles, and continues on today. They used this idea of "silence" to deny Christ. The "silence" they used to deny the Deuterocanon was also used to deny the New Testament. Does that seem like a trustworthy amd reliable method to recognize God's Word?

Since this criterion seems wrong, we must ask ourselves why the Council decided on it. Think about what had happened in Palestine since the time of Ezra. The great kingdom of David and Solomon were distant memories. Alexander the Great had conquered the Israelites. The Roman occupation followed, culminating in the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. (Remember, this temple had been rebuilt at the time of Ezra.) Nothing good was happening. The Jewish leaders were still waiting for a Messiah to reestablish the earthly kingdom of David. They refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. They had to deny the writings of the Jesus’s followers. They had to deny the Messiah whose kingdom was not of this world. Why not set the date of the last Scripture at the last time things looked good for an earthly Jewish nation?

We should carefully consider the political aspects of the Council denying the Deutercanon. This Council met soon after a failed Jewish revolt. That revolt brought fierce vengeance from Rome. The Romans destroyed the Temple and killed every Jew that remained in Jerusalem. The Sadducees' sect was all but eliminated. The Council of Jamnia was trying to preserve Jewish culture. The Books of the Maccabbees, part of the Deutercanon, tell of a successful Jewish uprising against their Greek-Syrian occupiers. The Council had to deny this revolt to appease Rome. They had to show Rome that the Jews could live peacefully under Roman occupation or be destroyed. It was necessary that they denounce the Maccabbean Revolt. As such, it was necessary that they eliminate the Books of the Maccabbees from the canon. Is this a reasonable way to recognize God's Word, accepting those books that the pagans do not find offensive and rejecting the rest?

We know that the entire OT prepares the way for Christ. As the time of Ezra approached, the prophets were speaking of the coming of the Messiah. Why would God be silent for 400 years just before the most important event in the history of the world? Wouldn’t He continue to guide His people until the Messiah arrived?

3. The text had to be written in Hebrew. Again, as Christians, we know that God inspired writers in Greek and Aramaic. Why would the council insist on Hebrew? Again, they were waiting for the reestablishment of an earthly kingdom. They insisted on Hebrew was nationalistic. Look at the nationalistic movements in history. Insisting on a common mother tongue is a hallmark of each one. This insistence on Hebrew was an attempt to preserve the Jewish culture. It was also an attempt to maintain the political power of the Jewish leaders in the face of Roman oppression. It was also an attempt to deny the writings of Christians.

All that being said, we might ask, "Why would God switch from Hebrew to Greek?" Of course, I can not answer this. God does what he wants. I will offer a possibility. One important message of the NT is that the Gospel is for all people, Jews and Gentiles. Most of the Gentiles in the eastern Mediterranean spoke Greek. This is one of the reasons the NT was largely written in Greek. What about the books between Ezra and the NT? Why might they be in Greek? We know that the entire OT prepares for the way for Christ. Many Jewish Christians (including Peter) had a difficult time accepting that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well. Might it be possible that God began to inspire writers in Greek before the coming of Christ in order to prepare the Jews to accept Gentiles?

4. The book had to be written in Palestine. Once again, as Christians, we know that God inspired Paul and Peter to write Scripture while they were not in Palestine. Why did the Jewish council insist on this condition? Again, it is a matter of nationalism. They were trying to hold their powerbase in Palestine. Again, it denies the new Christian writings of a Messiah whose kingdom is not of this world.

--------------------------

The Council of Jamnia consisted of Jewish leaders who denied Christ. The very criteria they established to test Scripture was established to deny the Messiah. The council did not understand the Kingdom of God. They did not understand prophesies. They did not understand Christ. Given this, it seems ridiculous to depend on this council to decide which books were inspired by God and which were not.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus knew and used the books you think we "added". So did the Apostles and Eary Church.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., council of Jamnia in 200 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council who rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Edited November 3, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Anna]

The deformers de-formed the Church founded by Christ.

They de-formed the Bible by removing seven books and changing words.

And now, they're de-forming history to try to make it look like the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical books during the Council of Trent.

The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454. You can view digitized copies of the Gutenberg Bible online via a few museum resources. One such source is http://prodigi.bl.uk/gutenbg/search.asp

Another is http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/perm...6_177v178r.html

Interestingly, these books, printed 100 years before the Council of Trent, contain the deuterocanonical books, which Martin Luther deleted and declared "apocrypha," or "uninspired."

He set himself up as his own infallible pope, declaring which books were inspired and which weren't. He took a hatchet to the books that differed with his views. Then he tells his followers to rely on the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) !!! What a con man.

Edited November 3, 2003 by Anna

[willguy]

The Reformation was the time of definition for this doctrine in a clearer way than the Church had ever seen.

<sarcasm>Yes, and that's why Protestant denominations agree on everything more than Catholics and why there is so much less confusion in Protestantism.</sarcasm>

Honestly, I basically stopped reading at that sentance. Anything that claims to define something clearer should, by common sense, have more order. I would like to see someone try and prove that there is more order in Protestantism than Catholicism.

[BLAZEr]

The Proof of all this is in the Bible itself. St. Paul himself insists that all human traditions must conform to the texts of his own letters, thus showing what the final test for Truth was for the Apostles themselves. And in the classic passage on the Bible’s inspiration, Paul says that the Holy Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in right living. He then explains why this is so; they are able to make the "man of God" (that is, the bishop Timothy in particular,) fully furnished and completely equipped for every good work (2Tim 3:16).

At this point, the Protestant asks the Catholic to explain what spiritual furniture, and what necessary equipment, would be omitted from the competence of the Bible to supply? What good work is unprovided for? Surely this text is the most clear and comprehensive statement of the full Sufficiency of Scripture that any Protestant heart could desire. And no text contradicts it (2 Tim 2:13).

Ummmm . . . 1 Timothy 3:15 . . . what's the "pillar and foundation of Truth"??? The bible? The 'word' of God? The scriptures? The letters?

No, wise man . . . the pillar and foundation is the Church!

And then theres 1 Cor 11:2

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

      It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15).  Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith. It is hardy necessary to remark that this passage furnishes no proof of the inspiration of the several books of Sacred Scripture, even of those admitted to be such . . . For we are not told . . . what the Books or portions of inspired Scripture are.

Edited November 3, 2003 by BLAZEr

[Anna]

It's interesting that protestants like to use 2 Timothy 3:16 to shore up their belief in Sola Scriptura, but it falls apart if they read the verses before it:

14

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

15

and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This affirms, once again, that it is the Church who has teaching authority; the individual doesn't read Scriptures and interpret them for himself. The Church is the sole authority who interprets the Sacred Scriptures with infallibility, and teaches it to the faithful from their infancy.

Therefore, yes, the Holy Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in right living...so long as you keep in mind from whom They came, and Who teaches them infallibly, without error, misinterpretation, or contradiction!