“Ping me when you get an answer to this one”
The word translated ‘all’ in the NASB means “each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything”. So an expanded translation would be “(each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything) Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness...
I would also suggest you read White’s entire debate...a paragraph I cut out for space reads, “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.”
No need to thank me - you are welcome.
“I would also love to know why, in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, Luther dismissed the Epistle of St. James as the “gospel of straw”
Actually, he wrote that COMPARED TO ROMANS, James is like straw. Since Luther advocated memorization of the entire book of Romans, this isn’t much of a slam.
And no, Luther removed no books from the canon. He questioned the canon, as any Catholic scholar of the day was free to do - as did Erasmus - but his translation included the entire New Testament.
You haven't actually answered the question.
Actually, he wrote that COMPARED TO ROMANS, James is like straw. Since Luther advocated memorization of the entire book of Romans, this isn’t much of a slam.
So, ALL Scripture is inspired by God, but SOME Scripture is more profitable than other? And what about the Revelation of St. John?
And no, Luther removed no books from the canon. He questioned the canon, as any Catholic scholar of the day was free to do - as did Erasmus - but his translation included the entire New Testament.
Did it include the entire Old Testament or are you saying he included the ENTIRE Apocrypha?
Who is supposed to believe this counterhistorical spin?
Sez who?
It's actually not bad, but it's not a dead cert. Yet the section you quote presents it as a "duh!" or as somehow self-evident.
I can see a certain, to me artificial, internal consistency: "If we assume Scripture to be this way, we will find it is indeed this way." But then the proposition itself is removed from debate and instead the entire "system" and the proposition's place in the system is what needs to be examines.
Anyway, it now seems that the suggestion that with or without his contemplating that later Christians would consider those very words to be "Scripture", by the term γραφη in the phrase πασα γραφη Paul is saying this is a characteristic (a definition?) of Scripture.
So his advice to Timothy comes down to, "We don't know what actual books are Scripture, but if we ever figure that out, and you run across one of 'em, you can bet it's real good." I'm finding the interpretation of diminishing persuasiveness.
But stipulate it. Of course, the next question in this ancient dance is: who gets to say what's Scripture and what ain't, and by what authority, AND is that determintation God-breathed?
So the fundamental dispute about the Spirit's activity in the Church is just kicked back a step, I'm guessing.
BTW, I read a little Koine Greek. I know the adjective πας.