Fully Equipped: Answering an Objection - Sola Scriptura, Pt 9

In my previous blog, I focused on 2 Tim 3:16 and provided strong reasons why this verse is a valid proof text for Sola Scriptura. In this blog I am going to provide a defense for another often sighted objection. But to do that, I am going to have to get into some word meanings again, because their objection does that, just in an invalid manner.

Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist, has, in his writings and debates, objected to the Protestant understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture that is taught in 2 Tim 3:15-17. This blog will primarily focus on 2 Tim 3:17, where Sungenis has continued his disagreement with Sola Scriptura in this verse by making these three points:

1. He has called attention to the similarities between 2 Tim 3:17 and 2 Tim 2:21
2. He has tried to equate the Greek words ‘exartizo’ and ‘etoimazō’ or ‘hetoimazō’ [1]
3. He has noted that the phrase, ‘every good work’ is found in 6 places in the NT, in an attempt to prove that Scripture does not teach its sufficiency to ‘prepare’ one for ‘every good work.’

The Rebuttal

Robert Sungenis’ first point is to draw attention to the similarities he sees between 2 Tim 3:17 and 2 Tim 2:21. So, if you just read some English translations for these verses you might be fooled into thinking they really are saying the same thing. So, here are the two verses from the ESV:

that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:17 ESV)

Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (2 Tim 2:21 ESV)

Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. (2 Tim 2:21 NASB)

Sungenis sees the word ‘equipped’ and ‘prepared’ as having the same general meaning, which would then equate the two verses. In his book, Not by Scripture Alone, Sungenis said,

If we were to use the concept of ‘sufficiency’ that the Protestants force into 2 Tim 3:17, we could claim, in light of the similar language in 2 Tim 2:21, that refraining from bad influences and behavior is all that is needed to make a man useful for every good work.” [2]

So I guess if you were reading the Living Bible or not really paying attention to what you were reading, then you might see a similarity between the two verses. But in reality this is just a false analogy in an attempt to make people think that these two verses are talking about the same thing, when they clearly are not. Why? Because there is a difference between ‘equipped’ and ‘ready’ or ‘prepared’ for every good work.

As I wrote in my previous blog, God-Breathed Scriptures, Protestants are not forcing any meaning into the text,

The Greek word for ‘equipped’ is ‘exartizo’ which means ‘thoroughly furnished’. So if we allow the Scriptures to teach, reprove, correct and train us in righteousness, then we will be made complete and we will then be ‘thoroughly furnished and equipped’ for every good work.

But that is not what we see in 2 Tim 2:21. The Greek word for ‘prepared’ in this verse is ‘hetoimazō’ which means ‘to make ready or prepare.’ [3] And in the case of this verse, a better rendering might have been, ‘having been made ready or prepared for every good work,’ not that there is that much difference between this and the actual renderings of the NASB and ESV above. As a matter of fact, if Paul had wanted to equate 2:21 with 3:17, then he could have used the word, ‘katartizō’, which means ‘to furnish completely.’ [4] But he did not. So, we are left with a significant difference between ‘fully equipped’ and ‘make ready’. If you are going to equate two different words, then their meanings and context have to be similar, and they are not.

Here is the context problem of his argument and why the context of 2:21 is nothing like 3:17. In 3:17, we see how Scripture equips the believer, while in 2:21 the reference, as I quoted Sungenis above, is to a believer not only refraining from bad behavior but cleansing one’s self, because without this cleansing, a believer cannot be useful to God in an unholy state. A believer cannot be running around constantly sinning and expect to be useful to God. Remember, 3:16 is about the ‘breathed out’ action of God, which makes Scripture the product of the creative breath of God, which then fully and completely equips the believer. But 2:21 is worded differently. First, the focus is on the individual, not God. Second, the sense is that when believers cleanse themselves they put themselves positionally in a place where God can use them, and if they fail to cleanse themselves, He cannot. In 3:16-17, the focus is on the inspired Scriptures and the work that it does in believers to make them complete and fully equipped.

That said, there is an aspect of what Sungenis has said that makes some sense, but his purpose for saying it is to undermine the role of Scripture as the source for what equips or prepares a believer for every good work. He cites 6 verses which reference the phrase, ‘every good work or deed’ (2 Tim 2:21; Col 1:10; 2 Th 2:17; 1 Tim 5:10; 2 Cor 9:8; Tit 1:16; 3:1) to make his point. But each reference actually proves the opposite. In every case, as believers, we cannot ‘be prepared’, or ‘bear fruit’, or ‘be strengthened’, or ‘be devoted’, or ‘have an abundance’, or ‘be obedient and ready’ for every good work without the Scriptures in our lives changing us. Also, ironically, as believers, we wouldn’t even know these things are what God wants in our lives if these verses were not in Scripture already, and telling us that this is what God wants in our lives. In other words, you cannot use Scripture to disprove the sufficiency of Scripture!

And if that wasn’t enough already, we have the testimony of history from both Chrysostom and Augustine. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407), an early church father and archbishop of Constantinople,  wrote,

Let us not neglect the possession of the sacred books… but these books, when carefully preserved, afford great benefit to those who possess them. As also where royal arms are stored, though no one should use them, they afford great security to those who dwell there; since neither thieves nor burglars, nor any other evil-doers, dare attack the place. In the same way, where the inspired books are, from thence all satanical influence is banished, and a great consolation of right principles comes to those who live there; yea, even the very sight of these books by itself make us slow to commit iniquity … And if carefully reading also follows, the soul, as if initiated in sacred mysteries, is purified and made better, while holding converse with God through the Scriptures. [5] [emphasis added]

And this from Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430), who was an early Latin church father and theologian,

I beseech you all, in the same way as you take pleasure in the word of God, so to express that pleasure in the lives you lead. Let God’s word please you not only in your ears but in your hearts too; not only in your hearts but also also in your lives, so that you may be God’s household, acceptable in his eyes and fit for every good work (2 Tim 2:21). [6] [emphasis added]

Both Augustine and Chrysostom were referencing 2 Tim 2:21, and both pointed out the importance of Scripture and how they change us when we read them and apply them to our lives. Both were talking about how a person was supposed to use Scripture to prepare and equip themselves for God’s use.

Scripture’s Witness to Itself

Above, I’ve just shown you how Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, attempted to equate two words that have different meanings, all to minimize the clear teaching that the ‘God-breathed’ Scriptures are what makes the believer complete and fully equipped for the work that God has prepared for us long before we were ever born. (Eph 2:10; 1:4; Rom 8:29; Mat 25:34; John 17:24; Rev 13:8; Jer 1:5; Isa 49:1, 5; Gal 1:15-16) The reason that a Protestant can so boldly say this, is that it is Scripture that is its own witness to its own inspiration. What that means is that Scripture does not need any human sanction or authentication to validate what it is. Scripture self-authenticates itself.

Now, how do we know that? Every time we read something like this in the Old Testament, “thus says the Lord”, or “the word of the Lord came to me”, or “God said”, this is an example of the self authenticating nature of Scripture. We take the words of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, David and the rest of the Old Testament prophets for what they are, God speaking to His people through these men of God. And this occurs well over 2100 times! God was never shy about declaring His word both audibly and in recorded form, like tablets or scrolls.

We also recognize Scripture for how it affects the human heart. Everywhere the Gospel is preached people’s lives are dramatically changed. Scripture illuminates the soul, changing people from the inside out. Scripture gives people joy, peace and comfort, as well as guidance and direction. It brings conviction, repentance and restoration. And we understand its divine origin through the fulfilled prophecies that were written down hundreds and even thousands of years before they occurred.

In response to this, there are Catholic apologists who maintain that Augustine made the Church the authoritative source for believing the Gospel, when he wrote the following,

But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” [7]

First, ‘if’ Augustine was actually saying that the Church had a higher authority than the Scriptures, I’d need some serious convincing to put the words of a mere ‘man’ over the Word of God through any of the Apostles, even if we grant (and I do grant) that Augustine was a brilliant and Godly man. I would also like to know who, how and when Augustine was given complete authority to change fundamental core beliefs of all of Christendom in the 5th century, but decided 5 to 10 centuries after he died. So, he had more authority than Jesus or the Apostles? No, absolutely not. But what we see is that this statement was taken out of context from this portion of Augustine’s writings and out of context from his overall writings on the subject of Scripture.

And we know this to be true because when Augustine’s statement was used against the reformers, John Calvin (1509-1564), a theologian, pastor and reformer, explained the actual context to his Catholic apologists,

Augustine is not, therefore, teaching that the faith of godly men is founded on the authority of the church; nor does he hold the view that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it. He is simply teaching that there would be no certainty of the gospel for unbelievers to win them to Christ if the consensus of the church did not impel [force] them. And this he [Augustine] clearly confirms a little later, saying: ‘When I praise what I believe, and laugh at what you believe, how do you think we are to judge, or what are we to do? Should we not forsake those who invite us to a knowledge of things certain and then bid us believe things uncertain? Must we follow those who invite us first to believe what we are not yet strong enough to see, that strengthened by this very faith, we may become worthy to comprehend what we believe [Col 1:4-11, 23] – with God himself, not men, now inwardly strengthening and illuminating our mind?’ [8] [emphasis added]

In other words, if you force people to ‘believe’ in Christ, then how does God, through the Gospel, draw a person to Christ when the position of the Church is to force or compel people to accept a belief they would otherwise reject? If you are forcing people to ‘believe’, then Jesus had nothing to do with their conversion, and that goes against the entire New Testament.

William Whitaker (1548-1595), a theologian and president of St. John’s College, shed additional light on the true meaning of Augustine’s statement when he wrote this in reply to the same assertion by Thomas Stapleton (1535-1598), a Catholic priest and would-be apologist,

I answer, in the first place, it would be repugnant to Augustine himself to make him say that, now that he was a believer and a catholic, he would not believe the gospel, save only upon the authority of the church; since he himself in the fourteenth chapter of this book says that we, when we believe and are become strong in faith, understand what we believe not now by the help of men, but by God himself internally confirming and illuminating our minds. The faithful, therefore, do not believe merely on account of the church's authority. Secondly, I say that this is also repugnant to reason itself. For all the faithful are endowed with the Holy Spirit. Now his authority is greater than that of the church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that they are kept in the true faith by his [the Holy Spirit] rather than by the church's authority. [9] [emphasis added]

In other words, 1) it is not by the ‘help’ of men (i.e., the church) that we believe but by God Himself, and 2) it is the Holy Spirit that fills the believer, and it is by His authority that we are kept in true saving faith, not by the church’s authority.

And in response to Stapleton’s assertion that “the church delivers the rule of faith [i.e., Scripture], it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule” [10], Whitaker replied, “The church does indeed deliver that rule [i.e. Scripture], not as its author, but as its witness, and as admonisher, and a minister.” [11].

This is what Scripture means when it speaks of the Church as ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). The Church's role is to be a support to the truth by faithfully holding forth the message and authority of the written Scriptures. It [the church] is not independent of, or above Scripture, but beneath it. [12] [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, by the time of the middle ages the Catholic Church had all but usurped the authority of Scripture. But once Luther had uncovered and stood upon ‘salvation by faith’, and Erasmus had produced a new edition of the Greek New Testament allowing theologians to switch from Latin back to the original Greek, and people like John Calvin (and others) started reading the church fathers and seeing that Scripture’s rightful place had been usurped by Catholic Church dogma, it makes perfect sense why the Protestant Reformation occurred. And it also makes perfect sense why the Council of Trent reacted as it did to anathematize virtually everything the Reformation stood for, even enshrining beliefs that are completely antithetical to clear biblical teachings in Scripture, like faith and salvation. The reformation stood on the following:

• the place of Scripture – Scripture alone – Sola Scriptura
• the place of Christ in our salvation – Christ alone – Solus Christus
• the place of faith for our salvation – Faith alone – Sola Fide
• the place of God’s grace in the believer’s life – Grace alone – Sola Gratia
• and finally that it is all for the glory of God – Glory to God alone – Soli Deo Gloria

These are the beliefs that were restored to the Church, which is one of the reasons why the Council of Trent ‘canonized’ the beliefs that had become enshrined in the middle ages and stood as the exact opposite of what Protestants had made their stand upon.

No Private Judgment Allowed

Something that might surprise you is that the Roman Catholic Church has no ‘official’ magisterial (i.e., Church approved) interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17. As a matter of fact, there are very few Scripture verses that have an ‘official’ Church approved interpretation. And going even further, the Catholic Church goes so far as to condemn what they would call ‘private interpretation’, or what I did in the previous blog as well as above in this one. So for me, I have so many anathemas against me right now, what’s one more?

The late Raymond Brown (1928-1998), a Catholic priest and biblical scholar, brought some illumination, even if his presentation was a bit obscured, to what most Catholics are completely unaware of, when he wrote the following,

Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. [13]

And since Brown wrote this a bit awkwardly to understand, David King helps clarify what Brown was actually saying, “Informing us of what Scripture does not mean is a far cry from telling us what it does mean!” [14] So, there is virtually no certainty provided for the meaning of any New Testament Scripture provided by the Roman Catholic Church.

This, in effect, means that people like Robert Sungenis are violating official church dogma by attempting to provide a biblically interpreted response to Protestants. Now, I’m not arguing that Sungenis should be prevented from doing this; quite the contrary. I personally think that he should have this right, since the Catholic Church doesn’t even attempt to defend its own dogmas, unless, of course, you believe that pronouncing anathemas is providing a defense. If there is actually a response that proves the Protestants are wrong, I personally want to know that. I don’t ever want to be found believing something contrary to clear Scriptural teachings. But Sungenis’ situation is much different than mine, because as a Catholic he is prohibited by his own Church from doing the very thing he has been doing for decades!

Now, think about what Sungenis is doing; is he not in open ‘rebellion’ against the teachings of his own ‘Church’? That, of course, is not my position on his efforts. I actually think what he is doing is commendable, even if I think it is unfruitful for his cause. But what is disappointing and confusing is that he doesn’t see that he condemns Protestants for doing the very thing he is doing, all while his own Church condemns him for doing what he’s doing! And worse, he knows that what he’s doing is condemned by his own Church! That is more than just a little hypocritical and rebellious on his part, is it not?

But let’s disregard that point for the moment, since I don’t believe the position of the Catholic Church is a valid one to take. Why? Because if there is no understanding of Scripture, then there really is no reason to read Scripture, which one has to begin to think might be the very point being made by the Catholic Church’s position. That is mere speculation on my part, but it does reinforce the perspective that ‘we’, as believers, cannot understand the plain meaning of Scripture, and with virtually no help from the Catholic Church, there really is no point in drawing out the meanings of God-breathed Scripture for the Catholic to provide the teaching, correction, reproof, and training in righteousness we need to become equipped for the work that God has already ordained for us. That would seem to be the reason why the Catholic Church tells its people what they need to do and how they need to do it. Things like confession, and sacraments, and purgatory, and indulgences, and the authoritative place of tradition alongside of Scripture, starts to make sense as to why they were created. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

When it concerns 2 Tim 3:15-17, Catholic apologists seem to be determined to undermine and explain away the obvious meaning that we can easily and clearly see from these verses. What Scripture says about itself is that it is the all-sufficient rule of faith for the believer to understand the faith and practice of the Church. It says that the all-sufficient Scriptures thoroughly equip us as believers, that it teaches us, and corrects us, and rebukes us, and trains us to be the people of God that God Himself chose us to be, long before the foundations of the world we laid.

All things that are read from the Holy Scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behooves us to hear with earnest heed … That which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian, when He had given Himself to be handled by them, that did not suffice Him, but He would also confirm by means of the Scriptures the heart of them that believe: for He looked forward to us who should be afterwards; seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read.

Augustine

Sola Scriptura - means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. Since they are ‘God-breathed’ (Mat 22:31; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), they are ultimate in authority, for there can be no higher authority than God Himself. All other rules of faith, creeds, councils, or anything else produced by the Church herself, are subject to the ultimate correction of God’s Word.

Church history has repeatedly and clearly proven one thing: once the highest view of Scripture is abandoned by any theologian, group, denomination, or church, the downhill slide in both theology and practice is inevitable.

James White

Footnotes

[1] Vines uses the work ‘hetoimazō’ while newer Greek dictionaries use ‘etoimazō’. They are interchangeable as far as I can tell. Nor am I going to get into participle forms of words, which more technical Greek scholars will do, and have done for the two verses being discussed. I am no Greek expert, and will not pretend to be one. But I know how to use an Interlinear Greek New Testament, I can look up the Greek words in in Vines. I would also like to state that some of this is adapted from the book, David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 83.
[2] Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Robert Sungenis, Editor (Santa Barbra: Queenship Publishing Co, 1997) p. 117, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 83.
[3] B, Verb, ‘prepare, prepared’ Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 886.
[4] B, Verb, ‘prepare, prepared’ Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 887.
[5] Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Discourse 33rd sermon, section 2. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org. My only disagreement with Chrysostom is that the emphasis should be on the reading of Scripture, not just the possessing. A dusty Bible does no one any good.
[6] John E. Rotello editor, The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, (New York: NY, 1997), Part 3, Vol 11, Sermon 360B.28, p. 383. PDF version, online Google Books.
[7] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 80.
[8] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 80.
[9] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Forgotten Books, Classic Reprint Series, photocopy of published work, 1588), p. 321. Whitaker has much more to say on the subject, but that will be held for a later time.
[10] Ibid, p. 288.
[11] Ibid, p. 288.
[12] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 81.
[13] Raymond E Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 90.
[14] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pg. 90.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

The best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.