But in order to be logically consistent (and to give a not-previously-disposed person a reason to accept it), you'd at least have to show how Scripture unambiguously teaches that idea...
I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I do strive for focus, and this I think is the critical piece. It is axiomatic that the word of God is superior to all other authorities. It would function as the word of God even if it never offered a formal statement of it's own sufficiency. The supremacy of it's authority is inherent in it's simply being the word of God. God spoke from heaven audibly and said "This is My beloved Son, hear Him." The apostles, at that moment, are not having epistemological problems. They know this is God speaking. They believe it because they have the gift of faith, not because the divine voice throws a self-certifying proof text at them. They believe it because the word of God always accomplishes the purpose unto which He sends it.
And when Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, He does not say, "Wait, I've got to look up something in the rabbinical writings, be with you in a second." He beat back every temptation by relying on God's word alone. When tempted with hunger, He declares, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of ... the rabbis plus God? Oh wait! No, He He
doesn't say that. He says, what do we need to live on? The word of God. That, all by itself, is a declaration of sufficiency. If you want to live spiritually, you must feed on the word of God. Bread for the body, and Scripture for the soul.
So here and in many other places, your artificial requirement for a formal declaration of sufficiency is met with example after example of the sufficiency of God's word in action. Another example:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
(John 20:29-31)
And this gets us much closer to a formal statement of sufficiency. Many things could have been included in John's Gospel, but were left out with intentionality, because those things that were written were sufficient to do what? To produce faith in Jesus Christ, and through said faith, life in His name. So if something was left out, it was because the Holy Spirit deemed it unnecessary to the stated purpose. Impliedly then, whatever is left in, is sufficient for the intended purpose, producing faith in Christ.
This is reinforced in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. In these debates it is easy to skip past verse 15 and jump right into the debate over "profitable" in verse 16, but that would be an error:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:15)
This is the ascription of a certain kind of power to the Scriptures. It is a qualitative assessment. It describes their nature. Underlying "able" is the word for power, dunamai, the power of the word of God, the sword of the Spirit, which can do what? Make one wise up to the point of salvation through faith in Jesus. So setting aside all the more difficult questions, cloning, etc., we see here an unambiguous declaration that Scripture, unmixed with anything else, has the power to lead one to faith in Jesus, and if such a one has faith, he also has the Holy Spirit, given as a guarantee of his eternal life to come, and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin? Even the most modern, technologically advanced sin? Of course not.
Which is exactly why Paul goes on to discuss the full range of benefits of the word of God to the believer:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
No need to argue about the word "profitable." That is not where the argument for sufficiency rests, and that is not how Sola Scriptura is typically argued. Paul has backloaded the sufficiency argument, such that the emphasis all comes at the end, embedded in the word "perfect" (artios), which describes the result of relying on the word of God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. "artios" carries the idea of completeness, sufficiency, and "thoroughly furnished" is actually a derivative of artios, a doubling down of the completeness, saying the man (or woman) of God, in drawing on the God-breathed Scriptures, will be sufficient for absolutely everything required of the Christian life. Paul is practically shouting it from the rooftops. The God-breathed Scriptures make one totally, absolutely prepared to live a life pleasing to God. By a reasonable inference, secondary materials might be useful, but are not
necessary to achieve that sufficiency.
But as I said before, a formal
statement of sufficiency could be left out, and the
fact of sufficiency would still be true, which is why the examples matter. If we would follow Jesus, our touchstone of essential truth must be the same as His, and that is every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Peace,
SR
[paladinan]
But in order to be logically consistent (and to give a not-previously-disposed person a reason to accept it), you'd at least have to show how Scripture unambiguously teaches that idea...
[SR]
I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I do strive for focus, and this I think is the critical piece.
:) No worries, FRiend. In any friendly discussion, I'm not at all picky about people replying to every last jot and tittle of my posts. The only time I get a bit annoyed with that is when I'm conversing with commenters who get testy and irritable and demanding of answers which I've already given (present company excepted), or who ignore salient points merely in order to beat their favorite rhetorical "drum". In short: no harm, no foul.
It is axiomatic that the word of God is superior to all other authorities.
I think I know what you mean (I assume you mean any authorities other than God, Himself?)... but that still leaves some problems:
1) By "Word of God", are you restricting the term to the WRITTEN Word of God (i.e. the Scriptures)? Scripture itself applies the term "Word of God" (Gk: "Logos") to Jesus Christ, Himself; and every last bit of self-revelation by God through Jesus Christ can be called the "Word of God" (whether written, or oral--cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). And just to anticipate an objection (which has already been raised by others on this thread): if anyone wishes to assert that the praiseworthy and mandatory (cf. 2 Thes 3:6) "traditions" referenced by St. Paul were somehow identical to, or contained entirely within, Sacred Scripture, they *would* need to PROVE that fact decisively (from Scripture alone, as is their paradigm), and not simply claim it.
2) The CONTENTS of even the WRITTEN Word of God are in dispute between us (since I assume you don't use the 73-book Bible which is used by Catholics, most Eastern Orthodox, and assorted others); and logic demands that this issue CANNOT be settled by "Scripture alone", since the "entire Bible" could not be consulted before the "entire Bible" was compiled.
3) You'd have to show where Scripture CLAIMS to be "superior to all other authorities"; it isn't enough simply to assert it, or to claim that it's self-evident.
It would function as the word of God even if it never offered a formal statement of it's own sufficiency.
But that begs at least three immediate questions: what is the function of the Word of God (yes, I know 2 Tim 3:16-17, but is that comprehensive and sufficiently clear? Where in Scripture does it tell us?), and for what is it "sufficient", and why should anyone take seriously any claim of superiority/sufficiency it makes for ITSELF? (Yes, you're speaking to someone who already knows that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, Written Word of God... but that's a convenience, not a proof; I accept the authority of the Scriptures for rather different reasons than I think you do, since I am one in heart with St. Augustine, who said, "I would not accept the Gospels themselves, had not the Catholic Church recommended them to me.")
The supremacy of it's authority is inherent in it's simply being the word of God.
See above; there are many logical questions which need to be addressed, on this point.
God spoke from heaven audibly and said "This is My beloved Son, hear Him." The apostles, at that moment, are not having epistemological problems.
They're also not reading the Bible, I'd gently point out. :)
They know this is God speaking. They believe it because they have the gift of faith, not because the divine voice throws a self-certifying proof text at them.
Right... but I'm not questioning the Divinity of Jesus Christ! I'm pointing out, among other things, that there were numerous books which were vying for inclusion in the Scriptures--some of which contained nothing against the Faith (e.g. Book of Jubilees, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.), but which were not actual Scripture... while other books are largely less than emotionally-inspiring or earth-moving (e.g. Jude, 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Philemon, etc.), but there WERE included; it's clear that "interior feeling" simply can't be the final arbiter of "Scripture vs. non-Scripture".
They believe it because the word of God always accomplishes the purpose unto which He sends it.
I think I understand the sentiment behind your idea... but that wouldn't help, in this case, for two reasons: (a) it's too vague to prove that "the 66-book Protestant Bible is not only the complete Word of God, but it's superior to all other authorities", and (b) Sts. Peter, James, and John are obviously NOT believing Jesus and the Father "because the Bible told them so", at the Transfiguration... so it doesn't apply to your case.
And when Jesus is tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, He does not say, "Wait, I've got to look up something in the rabbinical writings, be with you in a second."
:) Right. But since I'm not arguing for the "supreme authority of the Talmud and the Mishnah", that isn't germane to my point.
He beat back every temptation by relying on God's word alone.
He beat back three temptations by quoting the OT, yes... but this is a far cry from saying that "the 66-book Protestant Bible is above all other authoritites". It certainly shows that Scripture is USEFUL... but it doesn't come close to proving that it's supreme, much less that it's to be used as the SOLE authority. (Think of the many times Jesus cast out demons, in Scripture; in how many of them did the Gospels portray Him as quoting Scripture? That's one isolated example.)
When tempted with hunger, He declares, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of ... the rabbis plus God? Oh wait! No, He He doesn't say that. He says, what do we need to live on? The word of God.
That's not quite what He says. "But he answered, "It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4) Among other things, you'd need to show that the 66-book Protestant Bible contained "every word that proceeded from the Mouth of God"... and even Scripture disowns that idea (cf. John 21:25).
That, all by itself, is a declaration of sufficiency. If you want to live spiritually, you must feed on the word of God. Bread for the body, and Scripture for the soul.
That's poetic (and I agree with the sentiments, if not your exact understanding of the terms); but not only is this not any sort of demonstration of "sufficiency" (and again, that needs to be defined clearly, and its parameters specified) of the 66-book Protestant Bible, it doesn't even prove the "sufficiency" of ALL the Scriptures... much less show that it is designed to be used ALONE.
So here and in many other places, your artificial requirement for a formal declaration of sufficiency is met with example after example of the sufficiency of God's word in action.
Back up. First of all, it's hardly an artificial requirement: if someone claims that "Scripture alone is sufficient" (see above for the maifold problems with that idea), then logic demands that the idea be proven beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. not simply "lead" someone who was emotionally disposed toward the idea in the first place, due to upbringing, etc.). I didn't invent the Law of Non-Contradiction (and the other requirements of a sound and valid argument); they predated me. No argument--no matter how emotionally appealing, and no matter how resonant with our personal histories and preferences--can dodge the responsibility of being proven (beyond all doubt, in the case of a priori arguments, or beyond all reasonable doubt, in the case of a posteriori arguments such as this). And no self-contradiction, even an emotionally enticing one, can be accepted as true.
Second of all, I'm afraid you haven't shown anything even approximating a proof of your idea. You've shown examples of where Scripture is authoritative (but I believed that already); you've not proven your main thesis (that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the highest authority, is completely sufficient [and that needs a great deal of clarification], and is designed to be used ALONE.
Another example: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:29-31)
And this gets us much closer to a formal statement of sufficiency. Many things could have been included in John's Gospel, but were left out with intentionality, because those things that were written were sufficient to do what? To produce faith in Jesus Christ, and through said faith, life in His name.
Again: hold on. Where does it have the word "sufficient", anywhere? If I say that "I filled up your car with gas, that you might drive home," it doesn't logically imply that nothing else (e.g. oil in the engine, sufficient skill at driving, knowledge of how to get home, sufficiently charged battery, etc.) is needed. It proves NECESSITY (perhaps--someone might even argue against that, with some merit), not SUFFICIENCY. This is only the first of numerous problems (many of which were cited before); for example: St. John was writing this about HIS GOSPEL. Does this prove the "sufficiency" of the Gospel of St. John? If so, then it's proven far too much... because the rest of the Bible would then be proven superfluous, by the standard you're using, here.
So if something was left out, it was because the Holy Spirit deemed it unnecessary to the stated purpose.
I'd gently note that the stated purpose never claims "sufficiency"; also, A -> B does not logically imply "not A" -> "not B".
Impliedly then, whatever is left in, is sufficient for the intended purpose, producing faith in Christ.
See above.
This is reinforced in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. In these debates it is easy to skip past verse 15 and jump right into the debate over "profitable" in verse 16, but that would be an error:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:15)
This is the ascription of a certain kind of power to the Scriptures.
It is (and no faithful Catholic would ever deny that). But again: despite any sentimental comfort, or even despite frustrations which might arise from seeing a debating opponent not get enthusiastic about what's dear to us, we can't afford to let our hearts run away with our heads, when arguing logical points. "A certain type of power" is very vague, and it doesn't come close to the requirements for proving "sola Scriptura"; in general, even 1,000,000 enthusiastic endorsements of the heart do not equal even one tiny, cold, unattractive logical fact. This citation (2 Tim 3) has many of the same difficulties mentioned above: it never insists on EXCLUSIVE power of the Scriptures to do these good things, it never says that Scripture is designed to do these things ALONE, and it doesn't specify the CONTENT of the Scriptures (which certainly seem to be the Old Testament, given the context--and I assume you're not trying to prove "sola Tanakh"--the "Old Testament Alone"), among other issues.
So setting aside all the more difficult questions, cloning, etc., we see here an unambiguous declaration that Scripture, unmixed with anything else, has the power to lead one to faith in Jesus, and if such a one has faith, he also has the Holy Spirit, given as a guarantee of his eternal life to come, and if one has the Holy Spirit, do you really think God would let such a person rest easy in sin? Even the most modern, technologically advanced sin? Of course not.
Well... again, I sympathize with your sentiments, but do you see what you've done? Through a lack of well-defined terms, a presence of numerous suppressed premises (some of which are false--e.g. the assumption that "Holy Scriptures" must be identical with the 66-book Protestant Bible, which didn't yet exist in its entirety at the writing of 2 Timothy, etc.), and a lack of conclusions which demonstrably and clearly flow from their conclusions (e.g. saying that "[x] succeeded in doing [y]" does not logically imply that "[x] succeeded in doing [y] ALONE", especially since you also include other factors, yourself--e.g. faith, the activity of the Holy Spirit, etc.; and it does not logically imply that "a lack of [x] will certainly entail a lack of [y]", etc.), your argument is not yet valid . You would need to address the aforementioned points, methodically, in order for logic (which is no respecter of enthusiasms) to grant your argument validity.
Paul has backloaded the sufficiency argument, such that the emphasis all comes at the end, embedded in the word "perfect" (artios), which describes the result of relying on the word of God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.
There's a disagreement, already: the word "artios" can be translated as "perfect", but it's usually rendered "equipped"... whereas the word "teleios", for example, is more commonly rendered "perfect" (in line with the etymology of the English word "perfect" --> Latin: "per factum", meaning "already made/complete/brought to its end)... and the Epistle of St. James uses that word to describe "steadfastness":
"And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect (Gk: teleioi = "perfect") and complete (Gk: holokleroi = "completely equipped"), lacking in nothing (Gk: medeni leipomenoi = "lacking not even one thing"). (James 1:4)
That's a FAR stronger statement than 2 Timothy 3:17, and it's applied to
steadfastness. Say what you like about steadfastness and its likely connections to faith and Scripture: it's simply a fact that "Scripture" and "steadfastness" are not identical, and that "faith" and "steadfastness" (though more closely related) are not identical. So either your reliance upon the idea of "perfectly equipped" proves two much (i.e. it proves that two distinct ideas--Scripture, and steadfastness--are both SOLELY sufficient for salvific purposes... which is logically absurd), or it proves that the Protestant understanding of 2 Timothy 3 needs to be altered.
But as I said before, a formal statement of sufficiency could be left out, and the fact of sufficiency would still be true, which is why the examples matter.
Given the current definition of "sola Scriptura", I don't see how you could maintain that. If you do NOT hold to sola Scriptura, then I could see some "wiggle room" for your idea, here... but not before then. "Sola Scriptura" is, among other things, a logical claim... and as such, it needs to obey logical rules in order to be considered valid. I haven't seen that happen, yet.
If we would follow Jesus, our touchstone of essential truth must be the same as His, and that is every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
That is absolutely true! But our issue is to find the content and the parameters of that "essential truth", especially since people of good will, all of whom appeal to Christ for authorization, disagree on that very thing.