![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/BanzoliLucas.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Lucas\u2019 article, \u201c2\u00aa Tim\u00f3teo 3:14-17 e a Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a> [2nd Timothy 3:14-17 and Sola Scriptura (Abridged Version)<\/span><\/em>] (9-11-12).<\/p>\n One of the strongest passages in favor of the biblical Christian principle of Sola Scriptura is found in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, where Paul says:<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 3:14-17<\/strong> (RSV) But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it [15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here Paul attests and confirms the complete sufficiency of the Scriptures, for he says that the Holy Letters:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026are able [dunamai<\/em>] to instruct you for salvation\u201d (v.15)<\/span><\/p>\n Paul here employs the Greek word dunamai<\/em>, which denotes power. He is saying that Scripture is powerful enough to make man wise for salvation. \u201cSage\u201d here is the translation of the Greek word sophizo<\/em>, which means:<\/p>\n 4679 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 sophizo of 4680; TDNT \u2013 7:527,1056; v 1) to make wise, teach. 2) to become wise, to have understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n No Catholic has any problem with any<\/em> of that. We (overwhelmingly) believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture (all that is necessary for salvation is found in Holy Scripture, either explicitly, implicitly (in kernel or primitively developed form), or by direct deduction from other passages. I just engaged in a lengthy exchange about this with Brazilian Portugese apologist Pedro Fran\u00e7a Gai\u00e3o<\/a>, entitled, \u201cMaterial Sufficiency of Scripture & Anti-Catholic Sophistry\u201d<\/a> (5-23-22). So far (after a week, he has chosen not to counter-reply, and to instead participate in a series of insults and ad hominem attacks against Catholics. Apparently, he\u2019s not confident enough to defend his theological positions. \u2018Tis a pity.<\/p>\n Secondly, before we go further, we must carefully define exactly what sola Scriptura is. Lucas doesn\u2019t seem to do that anywhere in this paper, yet it\u2019s crucial to do so, because there are so many misunderstandings on both sides of the debate. Here is the standard definition:<\/p>\n Reformed Baptist apologist James White (already mentioned by Fr. James in his video) defines\u00a0sola Scriptur<\/em>a as I have myself defined it for 31 years as a Catholic:<\/p>\n The doctrine of\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are<\/span> sufficient to function as the\u00a0regula fidei<\/em>, the\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy<\/i><\/a>, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; the original was all italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison concurs:<\/p>\n Scripture . . . is the only<\/span> inspired and inherently\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm.\u00a0(The Shape of Sola Scriptura<\/i><\/a>, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So does the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler:<\/p>\n What Protestants mean by\u00a0sola scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is that the Bible alone is<\/span> the\u00a0infallible\u00a0<\/span>written authority for faith and morals. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i><\/a>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper agrees as well:<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0. . . recognizes that there are many\u00a0authorities<\/em>, but Scripture is the sole\u00a0infallible<\/em>\u00a0authority<\/span>, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. (\u201cAn Explanation of\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c<\/a>,\u00a0 3-11-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As does Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund:<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only\u00a0infallible<\/span>\u00a0rule for theology. (\u201cSola Scriptura DEFENDED\u201d,<\/a>\u00a012-15-20).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n London Baptist Confession of Faith<\/em><\/a> (1689): The Holy Scripture is the only<\/span> sufficient, certain, and infallible<\/span> rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, . . . [very first sentence].<\/p>\n Since Scripture is the only infallible norm<\/em> for theology, then it follows that the Church (including the papacy and ecumenical councils) and tradition (including apostolic succession) can never<\/em> be infallible. This proposed exclusivity<\/em> of infallible authority in the Bible is what the proponents of sola Scriptura<\/em> cannot prove (and have not ever<\/em> proven) from Holy Scripture itself. Yet it is essential in its definition, and this is their burden to establish, in order to prevent their view from becoming self-defeating.<\/p>\n Failing to prove these things, they then do a sort of sleight of hand and act as if proving material sufficiency of the Bible (which Catholics agree with) in Scripture is proving sola Scriptura<\/em>. It\u2019s not<\/em>. They are two different things. So what we see is an endless parade of Protestants proving material sufficiency of Scripture and casually assuming that this is the same thing as sola Scriptura<\/em>. It\u2019s a pathetic, pitiful display.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is almost always considered the quintessential proof of sola Scriptura<\/em>, and Lucas acts no differently.\u00a0 But it doesn\u2019t prove any such thing, as I will show. Even Reformed Baptist pastor and five-point Calvinist Gavin Ortlund admitted that it doesn\u2019t, in his video, \u201cSola Scriptura DEFENDED\u201d<\/a> (12-15-20):<\/p>\n I\u2019d also admit that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, and John 10:35 don\u2019t in themselves get you to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, . . . [between 13:55-16:05 on the tape].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper takes this lack of biblical proof even further in his video, \u201cA Defense of\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c<\/a> (3-12-19):<\/p>\n I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don\u2019t think we\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0to. We\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>. There\u2019s nothing in \u2014 you can\u2019t find \u2014 in any of Paul\u2019s letters, for example, . . . \u201cby the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.\u201d It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.\u201d\u00a0[1:39-2:14]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestants don\u2019t have to find one<\/em> text, but anything<\/em>; several texts taken together<\/em>, through deductive logic, that teaches such a thing. They can\u2019t, and because they can\u2019t, we see a remarkable, mind-boggling concession like this: a prominent Lutheran pastor and theologian admitting that the Bible doesn\u2019t teach the central tenet of their rule of faith: the Bible as the only<\/strong> infallible<\/em> authority. This being the case, he throws in the towel and claims that there is no necessity to even look for<\/em> such (nonexistent) proofs. Protestants are determined to believe in this principle, even though it\u2019s clearly not in the Bible<\/em>. That makes it (plainly) a self-defeating belief. One of the two \u201cpillars of the Reformation\u201d: as Protestants call them (the other being sola fide<\/em>: faith alone) isn\u2019t in the Bible (nor do I think their other pillar is, either). It\u2019s an extrabiblical tradition of men. But they seem not to care<\/em> about this.<\/p>\n So Pastor Cooper, in light of this, does what Protestants always<\/em> do: he says Scripture is uniquely inspired (of course it is; no one disagrees), and finds material sufficiency in the Bible and plays the illogical game of acting as if this is sufficient to in effect support sola Scriptura<\/em> and the Protestant rule of faith and to refute the Catholic \u201cthree-legged\u201d rule of faith (Bible-Church-Tradition). One can\u2019t disprove a competing point of view by producing \u201cevidence\u201d for things that the other side already believes<\/em>. But that\u2019s the route Pastor Cooper decided to take:<\/p>\n I think, more so, what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed<\/em>. 2 Timothy 3:16 is kind of the famous text that says this . . .\u00a0[2:15-2:35]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Amazing, but not surprising<\/em> to me (one who has been debating this issue for 31 years). Once closely scrutinized, Protestants really isn\u2019t \u201ctotally biblical\u201d at all. In fact, it\u2019s far less Bible-based than Catholicism is. The present issue is a prime and classic example of that. And these two influential Protestant pastors on YouTube (nice and sincere and good and admirable Christian examples both, as men) spectacularly help to prove my point. See my full replies on this issue, to Gavin<\/a> and Jordan<\/a>.<\/p>\n I will now proceed to show that Lucas plays the very same game: he proves material sufficiency (that we agree<\/em> with) but not sola Scriptura<\/em> from Scripture. And this was his best chance for proving sola Scriptur<\/em>a, according to widespread Protestant proclamation that 2 Timothy 3:16 is the very best<\/em> proof of that false and novel doctrine. If there is one passage that they always bring up, it\u2019s this one.<\/p>\n In other words, Holy Scripture is powerful {dunamai<\/em>} to make a man wise, understanding {sophizo<\/em>} so that he may be saved {soteria<\/em>}. If the Scriptures were not sufficient for salvation, Paul would not have said that they were powerful in making man wise for salvation. They would be incomplete, insufficient, without oral tradition. Therefore, they would not be powerful enough, or at most it would make the man of God wise for many things, but not for salvation, in case the Scriptures were insufficient for salvation, as Catholics preach. Then Paul says: \u201c\u2026all Scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos<\/em>]\u201d (v.16)<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, of course<\/em> Scripture is sufficient in that way. Praise God! But it\u2019s not the topic at hand. If Lucas wants to defend material sufficiency rather than sola Scriptura<\/em>, he ought to indicate that in his title and an introduction. Instead, we get the same old tired routine.<\/p>\n \u201cDivinely inspired\u201d is the translation of \u201ctheopneustos\u201d, which means: <\/span><\/p>\n 2315 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 theopneustos<\/em> of 2316 <\/span><\/p>\n and a supposed derivative of 4154; TDNT \u2013 6:453,876; adj <\/span><\/p>\n 1) inspired by God. <\/span><\/p>\n 1a) the content of the scriptures. Therefore, Paul points to Scripture as being divinely inspired (theopneustos<\/em>) of God, not an extra-biblical oral tradition. And he continues: \u201c\u2026and profitable for teaching [didaskalia<\/em>]\u201d (v.16)<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the Bible is inspired. DUH! Christianity 0101. After stating the obvious, and a thing that no serious, educated trinitarian Christian disagrees with, he then throws in the obligatory misrepresentation of the Catholic and Orthodox positions. Neither contends for an \u201cinspired\u201d Church or tradition: only an infallible<\/strong><\/em> Church and tradition (and that, under very particular specified conditions). This is the real<\/em><\/strong> debate. Is anything besides<\/em> Scripture an infallible authority? Protestants say no. Catholics, Orthodox, and the Bible say yes.<\/p>\n \u201cTeach\u201d here is the translation of the Greek term \u201cdidaskalia\u201d, which means: <\/span><\/p>\n 1319 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 didaskalia <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n from 1320; TDNT \u2013 2:160,161; n f <\/span><\/p>\n 1) teaching, instruction. <\/span><\/p>\n 2) teaching. <\/span><\/p>\n 2a) that which is taught, doctrine. <\/span><\/p>\n 2b) teachings, precepts.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, Christians learn from the Bible. I\u2019ve been intensely studying it and massively using it in my writings for these past 45 years. Again: DUH! What else<\/em> is new?<\/span><\/p>\n Paul is pointing out the sufficiency of Scripture for the indoctrination of man for salvation. He had just pointed out the point of wisdom from the Scriptures for salvation (v.15), and now he points out that these very Scriptures are what constitute the Christian\u2019s indoctrination (v.16), the teaching, the instruction, the precepts of genuine faith. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, material sufficiency . . .<\/p>\n Again, the oral tradition is left out of the way and the Scriptures alone are pointed out as being the center of human indoctrination with a view to salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n This passage is specifically about the Bible. It doesn\u2019t follow that everything it doesn\u2019t mention<\/strong> is excluded<\/strong><\/em>. I\u2019ll prove that from another of Paul\u2019s inspired writings shortly.<\/p>\n And Paul goes on to say: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026for the rebuke [elegchos<\/em>]\u201d (v.16) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cRebuke\u201d (or \u201creprove\u201d) is the equivalent of the Greek \u201celegchos\u201d, which means: <\/span><\/p>\n 1650 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 elegchos <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n from 1651; TDNT \u2013 2:476,221; no <\/span><\/p>\n 1) verification, by which something is proved or tested. <\/span><\/p>\n 2) conviction. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, Paul points to Scripture as the material by which something is tested and verified to be true or false. The verification of the plausibility of any doctrine must pass through the sieve of Scripture, which Paul points out as being the \u201celegchos\u201d of the Christian faith, that is, the means by which we verify (test, prove) whether the doctrine taught by someone proceeds or not. .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Yes, Scripture must be agreed with, in any proposed tenet of theology. No one disagrees. If something is contrary to Scripture: not harmonious with it, it\u2019s false.<\/p>\n Catholics cannot say the same thing, for they care little or nothing whether a given doctrine is biblical or unbiblical, since their scapegoat (also known as oral tradition) serves as the basis for all non-biblical teachings. Biblical from them. <\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. As I just said (repetition is a good teacher): \u201cScripture must be agreed with, in any proposed tenet of theology. . . . If something is contrary to Scripture: not harmonious with it, it\u2019s false.\u201d This is Catholic teaching, and always has been. There are truths not included<\/em> in the Bible, but they must never ever<\/em><\/strong> contradict<\/em> the Bible, like the extrabiblical tradition of men and falsehood sola Scriptura<\/em> does.<\/span><\/p>\n In my apologetics, I defend absolutely every<\/em> Catholic doctrine and belief as in harmony with Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n And Paul continues: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026for correction [epanorthosis<\/em>]\u201d (v.16) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCorrection\u201d here comes from the Greek word \u201cepanorthosis\u201d, which means: <\/span><\/p>\n 1882 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 epanorthosis <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n from a compound of 1909 and 461; TDNT \u2013 5:450,727; n f <\/span><\/p>\n 1) restoration to a correct state. <\/span><\/p>\n 2) correction, improvement of life or character.<\/span><\/p>\n Scripture, being inspired revelation, can obviously correct false doctrine. That\u2019s exactly what I do with regard to sola Scriptura<\/em>. I utilize Scripture in order to correct the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/em>. Hence my books: 100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a> (2012) [now also available in Portugese<\/a>] and Pillars of\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura:\u00a0Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for \u201cBible Alone\u201d<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2012).<\/p>\n Therefore, the improvement of our character in our Christian life, with a view to restoration to a right state, comes from the Holy Scriptures and not from any other writing or tradition. <\/span><\/p>\n The Bible simply never says that. Lucas is (like so many Protestant defenses of sola Scriptura<\/em>) assuming<\/em> without any evidence that what the Bible asserts about itself in this one passage somehow excludes<\/em> anything other than itself. It does not.<\/p>\n It is the Scriptures that have the power to restore man to the image and likeness of God. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, they do have that power. Amen!<\/p>\n And Paul goes further and says: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026for instruction in righteousness\u201d (v.16) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cInstruction in justice\u201d is, in Greek, \u201cpaideia ho in dikaiosune\u201d. The first word means an \u201cinstruction which points to growth in virtue\u201d (Strong\u2019s Concordance, 3809), and the second means: <\/span><\/p>\n 1343 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7 dikaiosune<\/em> <\/span><\/p>\n from 1342; TDNT \u2013 2:192,168; n f <\/span><\/p>\n 1) in a broad sense: state of what is as it should be, justice, a condition acceptable to God. <\/span><\/p>\n 1a) doctrine dealing with the way in which man can reach a state approved by God. <\/span><\/p>\n 1b) integrity; virtue; purity of life; justice; right thinking, feeling and acting. <\/span><\/p>\n 2) in a restricted sense, justice or virtue that gives to each his due.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course it does all that, too. No Christian in their right mind denies this. It has absolutely nothing<\/strong><\/em> to do with whether sola Scriptura<\/em> is true<\/em> and