Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.
Point out that the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you haveheard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.
I’m having an interesting experience listening to the bible lately. I have a three hour round trip commute and over the last three years have gone through the whole thing a couple of times, the new testamant many times, and many of the books over and over and over.
It’s done two things, one of which makes me a little nervous.
Thing number one: It has solidified my understanding of the message, the connections between the old and new testaments, the teaching of Christ, and daily application.
Thing number two. I now see it as what it is: A collection of books and letters from individual sources and I’m finding I respect some sources less than others. I first noticed it when listening to Jude for the umpteenth time. Who the heck was that guy and why do I give his letter status of being God speaking to ME?
And how much of the bible is for all readers and how much was specific messages to specific people. I mean, sure, we can glean wisdom from John telling little Joey to look both ways before crossing the street and apply it to our own lives, but when part of that message is also not relevant to me, how should I interpret that.
I’m not trying to argue that the bible is not the inspired word of God. Rather, I’m implying that throwing that word “inspired” in there has tremendous ramifications and makes it not the same as if the word was missing.
Comments anyone?
The Church tests Sacred Tradition against the canonical biblical texts (both Old and New Testaments) and does not place Sacred Tradition over them. To the extent Sacred Tradition contradicts the biblical texts or preaches another Gospel than what the Church has received, Sacred Tradition is neither good nor necessary.
The Bereans are oft misunderstood. That they were more noble than the Jews in Thessaloniki is beyond question, except to unbelievers, and that is the point. Paul, was a chosen vessel of the Messiah to the Gentiles. In order to conform to the Messiah, he preached the word to the Jew first, and also (not then) to the Greek.
It was not necessary for the Berean Jews to search the scriptures daily to validate that what Paul said was true. It was true ! It was inspired, and witnessed, by the Spirit of God. Searching the scriptures daily to confirm it was true did not give the Bereans the authority to decide doctrinal truth. It was profitable to them personally, either for germinating a seed in those who had not yet believed the word of Paul, that Jesus is Messiah, or for the growth and edification of newborn babes in the faith, that the seed they received with joy not be choked, and they might overcome and receive the inheritance.
We never see Cephas telling the sheep of Messiah's flock that they should search the scriptures daily to see if what the Apostles taught was true or not.
Ping
Let the truth shine forth.
Please prove that what the Catholic Church today calls tradition is exactly what the apostles referred to as tradition.
As was pointed out, Paul did not have excess to the new testament scriptures so he went by what he had learned from the holy spirit by reading the prophecy’s of the old testament and putting two and two together with what he was told by Peter and other eye witness`s of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Paul was also a scholar so he could talk or write all about something in which he may know less about than an eye witness who could not even relate it to others.
But the point is the early Christians did not have the Gospels , we do have them so we know much of what Jesus said with out going any where else.
Why would any one want to go to Ambrose or Clement or even Paul for that matter when they can go right to the source?
We do not have to go to
Ultimately the argument of inerrancy boils down to only one of 2 choices.
Either we place our faith in the Word of God, or in the words of man.
I choose the Word of God.
But Catholics can't prove that what they call "sacred tradition" is exactly what the apostles taught as "tradition" or "oral tradition".