Cross Ex Four

The Sufficiency of Scripture and 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I have ten minutes to cross-examine you. Right. First of all, can we agree, Mr. White, that there is, in fact, no verse in the Scriptures that states that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith in practice?

You might want to say, well, there's verses that say other things, but can we agree that there is no verse that does state that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith in practice? The only way to agree with that statement is if you put it this way.

The only places in Scripture that address the rule of faith in practice identify it as Scripture. But do they state that Scripture is the only rule of faith in practice? Since that's the only rule of faith in practice they present, yes.

Can you give me a verse which states that Scripture is the only rule of faith in practice? I gave it to you just a few moments ago in 2 Timothy 3, verses 16 through 17, where the man of God who does the work of the ministry in the Church of God is thoroughly and completely equipped for, and this is what a rule of faith is, Jerry, for his ministry in the Church by that which is theanoustos.

Excuse me. No, I want you to quote Scripture, Mr. White. For every good work, it says. For every good work. Does it say for every doctrine? No. Okay, thank you. Is doctrine a good work? I'm sorry, I can't ask questions.

But I would believe doctrine. Now, well, Mr. White, if you're going to reinterpret good work and use it in the most encyclopedic, exhaustive fashion, then I don't see why Protestants spend so much time attacking Catholics for their emphasis upon good works.

Can I provide you with an answer to that? No. That was a question, and I want to answer that question. If you're asking questions, that was a question. That was a rhetorical question. But I'm going to give you a rhetorical answer, and that is Paul says, reprove and doctrine in verse 16.

So he defines what those words are. Of course that's a good work, too. Teaching and reproving is a good work. But does that verse teach Scripture alone in the use of those words? That is the only rule of faith that's given to us, yes.

You're not answering the question, Mr. White. No, if you want the word only, no, it's not there. Okay, thank you. Just like it does not say the Book of Mormon. Excuse me, Mr. White, thank you for the admission.

Let's move on. Does that passage say that Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith in practice? Most definitely, most definitely. Those terms are very, very plain and demonstrating. Do those terms exist?

And, in fact, if you'd like, I can provide you with quotations from that good man that we just mentioned where he uses the very same terms, exartizo and catartizo, to describe the self-sufficiency of Scripture, who is Athanasius.

I just gave you a book that not only provides you with the Greek, but also translations thereof, where over and over again, writing to the Egyptian bishops, Athanasius says, but since Holy Scripture is, of all things, most sufficient for us, therefore commend him for these things, so on and so forth.

And he uses the same terms Paul uses. Okay, thank you, Mr. White. Last year, you used Greek to confuse this audience, and I'm going to take you to task for that. Please do not do it again this year, because I'm not going to let you get away with it.

The passage here says that... Was that a question? Excuse me, yes, it is. The Scripture says that... The Scripture you're quoting says Scripture is inspired and profitable for various things, teaching, reproof, correction, training, righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Where does it say that Scripture is sufficient? You're taking references to the man of God, and you're applying them backwards to Scripture. Does this passage, does St. Paul say that Scripture is sufficient?

Yes or no, Mr. White? Just a simple yes or no. Well, when you ask a complex question, why do you want a simple yes or no? If you stop beating your wife, that's not a valid question. This is a valid question, Mr. White, and you know it.

Jerry, have you read what I have written on this subject in my book? I haven't read this book, because you just gave it to me. No, how about this one? I have on the other ones. All right, so I specifically did not, I say in my book that it is the Scripture that makes the man of God sufficient for his work.

Did I not say that? Yes, of course. Okay, so why say that I'm confusing someone when that's not the assertions I've made in my own published work? Is the word sufficient in this passage by St. Paul applied to Scripture?

To the man of God, because of Scripture. But the Scripture is not said to be sufficient, is it, Mr. White? If you want to use that kind of argument, I will leave you to it. That's exactly the kind of argument I want to use, Mr. White, because you're saying we should not believe something unless it's taught in Scripture.

The Scripture itself does not say in this passage that Scripture is sufficient, does it, Mr. White? It's just the man of God. No, it doesn't. It says that Scripture is sufficient. I'm going to finish that.

Let's move on, Mr. White. No, I'm going to finish the answer. Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God for teaching, doctrine, and for reproof. Mr. White, did the people, did the people, okay, please, you're cutting into my time.

Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura, the hearers of our Lord, yes or no, Mr. White? I have said over and over and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of inscription.

So your answer is no. That is exactly what my answer is. Thank you. It is no. Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White, yes or no? No. Thank you. Did the successors to the apostles, Mr. White, practice sola scriptura, only believing, did Timothy only believe what Paul had written him?

What do you mean? Successors. Did he practice? The first generations who were alive during the period of inscription. Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, you are asking every question of a straw man.

I said in my opening statement, it speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture. Thank you, Mr. White. So I'm glad to affirm everything you said. Very good. So, Mr. White, you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura.

I asserted it. His hearers do not, the apostles do not, and their successors do not. And yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons that you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology.

Exactly. Let me finish. Let me answer your question. I'm simply getting a clarification from you. No, you're making an assertion in the form of a clarification. In your final statement, you'll have a chance to show why we should depart from that rule of faith that the people of our Lord say and the apostles say.

That is not a clarification. I did not say it was a rule of faith. I don't believe the Mormons are receiving Revelation today either. I suggest that they not try to think that they are living in a time when Revelation is being given.

But that's not the issue, Mr. White. Oh, it is the issue. No, we both agree that Revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Exactly. So what's the rule of faith for when we see Revelation or when we're not receiving Revelation?

What's the rule of faith? The rule of faith is both when we're receiving Revelation and after Revelation is completed. Because a rule of faith is a constant condition in the church. Let me ask you, Mr. White, this simple question.

Is there anywhere in the Bible itself an inspired table of contents? No, there's not. Thank you. So we have no, since only what is taught in Scripture according to what you've been claiming tonight is something that we can be infallibly sure of.

That's right. Then we cannot be infallibly sure that we have the right books in our Bible by your own logic. Is that correct? Actually, if you care to read the section on the canon of Scripture in the book, there's an excellent discussion of that.

But would you answer that question? I'm trying to do so, sir. Discussing the canon of Scripture, in fact, that would be a good topic for a debate sometime in the future, too. However, this canon of Scripture, there's two types.

There's that which God creates by inspiration, which is infallible and known to him infallibly, obviously. And there is the canon of Scripture, which we know, which is a fact of revelation, which we then have to have knowledge of.

But it's not infallible. No, my knowledge of it's not infallible. No, I'm not asking that. The canon is, but my knowledge is not infallible. Mr. White, in your Bible, there is a table of contents, is there not?

Yes. Is that table of contents theopneustos? No. And therefore, according to your own logic, you cannot be infallibly sure that that table of contents is absolutely trustworthy. Yes or no? No. I can have just as much assurance that you have that it's absolutely trustworthy.

Thank you. But you admit, therefore, that that is itself not infallible. No, of course not. No. No, I'm sorry. I was agreeing with your statement. You misunderstood what I said. Right. No, but what you're saying is that the table of contents, the list that we have of the 27 books of the New Testament….

What I'm saying is the exact same thing Sproul says in here. Thank you for the admission. He says…. And that Gerstner had said before…. Sproul says we have a fallible collection of infallible books. And what does that mean, Jerry?

Well, I'll tell you what it means in my closing statement. But for now, I'm asking you questions. I'm not answering yours. Mr. White, I have 10 minutes to ask you questions. And I'm answering your questions.

No, you're asking me what does that mean, and that's…. Well, if you want, just leave it hanging so that no one knows what it means. That's fine with you. You've got a closing statement, and you're cutting into mine.

But I'm trying to finish your question. You just made a statement about my knowledge of the canon, my knowledge of that divine revelation. You're repeating yourself. You've already stated that. Mr. White, do you agree that the Catholic claims that he has an infallible knowledge of the contents of the Bible because the Church has infallibly declared that?

Yes, he claims that. So your statement a minute ago that you and I are forced to have the exact same levels of certainty is not a correct representation. Not at all. It's perfectly correct. Because you have chosen to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome, and your choice was a fallible choice.

And therefore, anything that follows after that can have no more certainty than the fallible choice you made to sign over your responsibility to another authority that can then answer all the tough questions for you.

But haven't you done the same thing? But your decision to follow Rome was a fallible choice. Just as your decision to follow the Bible is a fallible choice, to be honest. The decision is a fallible one.

That's all I'm asking him to reiterate. The Bible's not infallible. Jerry, I do not claim infallibility. Thank you. It is a fallible decision. I have decided to follow what is theanoustos, and I ask you the same question.

You do the same. I agree.