To all lovers of Holy Scripture: God\u2019s inspired, infallible Word and revelation. May its infinite wisdom and knowledge fill you up and satisfy your grace-originated yearnings for truth, spiritual wholeness, and union with our Lord and Savior.<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Introduction <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Bible is a complex, lengthy collection of 73 books. My aim \u2013 simple in concept but far more difficult in organization and execution \u2014 is to make it easier to quickly find biblical answers to theological questions that are of perennial importance. I presuppose the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and this book is for Christians who accept those notions.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n This effort is more \u201ccatechetical\u201d (<\/span>what\u00a0<\/i>we Catholics believe) than \u201capologetical\u201d (<\/span>why\u00a0<\/i>we believe it); though to some extent it is the latter, too, insofar as \u201cbiblical prooftexts\u201d constitute data in favor of one position over another. Apologetics appears in the way I select and categorize the topics. More often than not, these are what are called \u201cCatholic distinctives\u201d: topics that are regarded as \u201ccontroversial\u201d by non-Catholic Christians. I make no pretense to \u201cproving\u201d Catholic doctrines herein. I\u2019m merely providing a quick reference source and food for thought.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
One of my specialties as a Catholic apologist is \u201cbiblical evidence for Catholicism\u201d (the name of my blog). The idea for the present volume came to me in a flash. I was trying to conceive of a fresh way to present \u201cbiblical evidence\u201d not only for Catholicism but for Christian theology in general. It\u2019s sort of a summation of the best of the hundreds of examples of \u201cbiblical evidence\u201d that I\u2019ve presented in my 40 books (as of this writing).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The notion that arose in my mind was to simply provide
Bible passages<\/i> (usually one verse; sometimes a few together) that would be (in my humble opinion, anyway) the very best <\/i>\u201canswers\u201d to a large number of one-sentence questions.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
The format might remind one of the popular TV game show
Jeopardy<\/i>, where the contestants are given a piece of information and have to come up with a question that it is the \u201canswer\u201d to. While compiling it, I looked at Bible passages and devised questions that the passages \u201canswered\u201d.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I readily confess that the questions themselves introduce an element of subjectivity: my own conception of both the questions and the \u201cbest\u201d Bible passages that could be construed as an \u201canswer\u201d to them. That was the fun aspect of the project, and what makes this book different and unusual.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I think somewhere in the back of my mind, I was also perhaps vaguely recalling, particularly,
The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism<\/i> (New York: Doubleday Image, 1981), by my mentor, the late great Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. He divided his book into major categories, then subcategories, and finally into 1,701 individual questions. His answers were relatively simple \u201ccatechetical\u201d replies that present the basic Catholic teachings or \u201canswers.\u201d<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Likewise, my book consists of 18 broad categories (Roman numerals), and 200 numbered subcategories, under which the
1,001<\/span> particular questions are found, with each answer being a Bible passage. The numerical format is simple. It is the section number (of 200), followed by a dash and then the number of the individual question in the section (e.g., 32-13). I suppose one could also add the larger category number, leading to a (St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019) Summa Theologica<\/i>-like reference: III, 32-13.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
All questions presuppose that the answer will come from the Bible; hence, no need to keep repeating over and over, \u201cWhere in the Bible . . . ?\u201d or \u201cWhat does Scripture teach about . . .?,\u201d etc. I shall try to keep the questions as simple and direct (and on one specific topic) as I possibly can.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
One objection that will certainly be aimed at this volume, is that it is mere \u201cprooftexting\u201d: a word that has a largely negative connotation of \u201cciting Scripture in isolation and out of context to bolster positions already held on other grounds.\u201d My reply to that charge, however, is as follows:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
1) All systematic theology (indeed, even papal encyclicals or conciliar documents) entail citation of Bible verses (usually single ones, as in this book): and these can always be quibbled with by someone, because in citing a passage, it is presupposed that it has relevance to the topic at hand (and sometimes there can be honest disagreement about that).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2) Works that are trying to simplify theology as much as possible for the masses (including catechisms or like-minded literature) will tend to be of this \u201csummary\u201d nature. The question is whether simplification is a good thing overall or a bad thing. I think there is no question that it\u2019s
good<\/i>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
There is always time to go more into depth on issues, as a student or inquirer progresses in theological understanding. In my own collection of 40 books, I devote entire volumes to individual topics (for example, Eucharist, soteriology, Mary, the communion of saints). I\u2019ve written two entire books and lengthy sections of several others, just on the topic of the falsity of
sola Scriptura<\/i> (\u201cScripture is the only infallible authority\u201d). One can always consult those or other similar books, articles, etc., too.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
3) A \u201cprooftext\u201d can be cited properly or improperly, and that is a discussion in and of itself. An improper citation would be something taken out of context or interpreted wrongly, with regard to other relevant passages on the same topic, or historic and\/or Church teaching (a heterodox or non-orthodox interpretation). That has to be \u2014 or could be \u2014 argued, which is beyond the purview of this particular book. Of course, I claim that I have done it properly and in line with the teachings of Holy Mother Church.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
4) Here is an example of improper \u201cprooftexting.\u201d Protestants (especially evangelicals) notoriously, and almost ubiquitously, cite the following passage as a supposed \u201cproof\u201d of
sola Scriptura<\/i>:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
2 Timothy 3:16\u00a0<\/b>(KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
It\u2019s a long discussion, but in summary (and I\u2019ve written more on this general topic than any other), nowhere in this passage do we find a notion that
only<\/i> Scripture is infallible or that it is the sole<\/i> theological norm or standard for doctrine (the exclusive claim). Scripture itself also plainly asserts the authoritative, binding nature of apostolic tradition and the Church (as I document in this very book and several others).*<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Therefore, the Catholic argues that to use this passage as an alleged \u201cproof\u201d of
sola Scriptura<\/i> is \u201cprooftexting\u201d in the very worst sense of the word: it is yanked out of the context of the entire Bible and what it teaches on the topic of the rule of faith, and it violates historic orthodoxy: what was taught all along, up until Protestantism in the 16th century introduced something far different. Things are read into the passage that simply aren\u2019t there, and we call this, \u201ceisegesis\u201d (reading in<\/i> things rather than getting things out<\/i> of Bible passages: \u201cexegesis\u201d).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Now, in this volume, I submit that I have
properly<\/i> cited 2 Timothy 3:16, because I do so in line with historic Christian, apostolic teaching, and not in contradiction to what the Bible teaches in other passages. I don\u2019t read anything into it that isn\u2019t present. Thus, it is classified as follows:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I. Bible and Tradition (Authority)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
4. Infallible Authority of Holy Scripture<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
4-6. Is Scripture inspired, or \u201cGod-breathed\u201d?<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The passage clearly teaches inspiration of Scripture: a thing that all serious Christians readily agree with. But it does
not <\/i> teach sola Scriptura<\/i>: a notion that is improperly eisegeted into it, out of a prior bias and predisposition formed by Protestant premises.<\/div>\n ![\"Cover](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2013\/10\/Cover-555-x-835.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n