Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
Oh, for crying out loud. The "sign of Tammuz" theory is as credible as the Elders of Zion. Even if the Persians used the Roman alphabet, which they did not, the symbolism of the sign of the cross is obvious.
You wrote:
“Yah’shua removed the requirement of burnt offerings to cover sin.”
That’s not all.
“He as the slain Lamb of G-d propitiated for all sin,
if but we call on His NAME YHvH be my salvation.”
And that’s not all either.
“He then destroyed the temple and the need for a priestly class.”
A Jewish priestly caste - yes. Priests in the order of Melchizedek - no.
He is our High Priest of the order of the King of Righteousness.
Yah'shua did not create nor institute a priestly class
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
to perform magic and cannibalism.
Very good explanation. Thanks.
Hopefully settomg things straight. Thanks.
“The Roman Catholic Church has infallibly defined the interpretation of Matthew 16.”
And where exactly is infallibility of Biblical interpretation predicated of the Roman Catholic Church?
You wrote:
“Yah’shua did not create nor institute a priestly class
to perform magic and cannibalism.”
He established a priesthood based on His own to re-present His sacrifice on the Cross.
“He is our High Priest of the order of the King of Righteousness.”
Yep, and He has sent others as priests with the order of Melchizedek.
Yep, and He has sent others as priests with the order of Melchizedek.
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?, To coin a phrase :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
You wrote:
“Where Is That Taught in the Bible?,”
First, where does the Bible say it must be explicitly stated in scripture to be true?
First, where does the Bible say it must be explicitly stated in scripture to be true?
If you do stand on the authority of YHvH, you stand on YOPO. On what authority do stand ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
And where exactly is infallibility of Biblical interpretation predicated of the Roman Catholic Church?
The Charism of Truth Handling: Infallibility
Jesus Christ was sent by the Father and was known as an authentic Teacher. Forty times in the New Testament, Christ is called “teacher” (didaskalos, also translated as “Master”). Twelve times Christ is called “Rabbi” (master, the address of teachers):
Mt 23:8, 10
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
Mt 7:28-29
When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Jn 1:17-18
... because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.
Jn 13:13-15
You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.
The Gospels record Christ handing over to the Apostles his own mission, or divine office which he had as man.
Jn 17:18
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
Jn 20:21
(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
Mt 10:40
Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.
Lk 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
Mt 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Christ is revealed instituting a perpetually enduring truth-teaching, truth-handling authority in the Apostles.
Mt 28:20
... teaching them (all nations) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.
Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Roman Catholic Christians believe that Christ’s teaching authority and truth charism continues in His Body the Church in the successors both of Peter and then the apostles, and then to their successors: the successor of Peter in the Bishop of Rome, and the successors of the apostles, the episcopoi or bishops from apostolic time to the present.
“Roman Catholic Christians believe that Christ’s teaching authority and truth charism continues in His Body the Church in the successors both of Peter and then the apostles, and then to their successors: the successor of Peter in the Bishop of Rome, and the successors of the apostles, the episcopoi or bishops from apostolic time to the present.”
Yes, I know what Roman Catholics believe about this. My question is: Where do you find the basis for this belief in the Holy Scriptures? None of the citations you provide answer this question. Just because you want it to be so and say it is so, doesn’t make it so. Where is what you assert taught clearly and unambiguously?
Equating the Eucharist with cannibalism is both both perverse and evil. However, God did not create a requirement for scriptural attorneys to decipher every grammatical nuance in ancient languages in order to gain salvation. He gave us the Beatitudes. These satisfy His greatest commandment and the His second commandment. Nothing else is needed.
Where do you get the idea that the Holy Spirit opened a window of Apostolic influence and guidance with the Catholic Church just long enough to permanently establish Scripture in the compilation of the works you call the bible? Is that Scripturally supported?
He gave us the Beatitudes. These satisfy His greatest commandment and the His second commandment. Nothing else is needed.
No; He told us to hear the whole Word of G-d preached. It must be wonderful for those who believe that they are All those smug erudite self absorbed imperious individuals May you know : YOPO;
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
educated far above the masses to dismiss the creator of
the universe with a wave of the hand.
will be shocked when they are called to answer for how
they were false shepherds
leading the flock astray.
“Where do you get the idea that the Holy Spirit opened a window of Apostolic influence and guidance with the Catholic Church just long enough to permanently establish Scripture in the compilation of the works you call the bible? Is that Scripturally supported?”
So, the Catholic Church established the authority of the Holy Scriptures? No wonder that the Higher Critical method of Biblical interpretation has received welcome in Roman Catholic academic circles. It is little different than the hermeneutic you are suggesting. In either case, man stands over the Scriptures and tells God what he will or will not accept as truth.
No, I will stick with the self-authentication the Holy Scriptures accord themselves. They purport to be the very word of God given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures of the New Testament plainly claim to be the successor and indeed the record of the fulfillment of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. That is the plain, simple reading of the Gospels and Epistles. It is in complete accord with the teaching of Christ on this point, as it is on every point of doctrine.
If you will not listen to Christ, listen to Peter: “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; KNOWING THIS FIRST, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:91-21) Don’t tell me what the Roman church says this means, that is to say, don’t give me its private (or in more contemporary language: personal, individual)* interpretation. For an interpretation to be non-private, non-individual, non-personal, i.e., the product of man’s judgment, it must be God’s own interpretation. In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture. The Author always knows, remembers, and keeps His own word. Was you go beyond this you do nothing more than engage in what is known in our day as deconstruction.
The teaching of SOLA SCRIPTURA, which is the very thing Peter is plainly saying in the citation above, stands against every attempt to deconstruct the Holy Scriptures and interpret them according to any other agenda than their own agenda, the Author’s agenda, which is SOLA GRATIA, SOLA FIDE, and, above all, SOLUS CHRISTUS. This is why Romanists continually, and unsuccessfully, attack this teaching the Holy Scriptures. Roman Catholic dogma, to use your terminology, will fail in many, many points when subjected to the judgment of Scripture alone. You know it and I know it. And thus you twist and turn and yet cannot escape what I said in reply #139.
Just read and understand what 2 Peter 1:19-21 plainly, clearly says.
* If you really want to get into the Greek text of this, we can do that. But you will not find any help there.
Go annoy someone else. We clearly do not share the same God. Your god is an exacting, demanding, vengeful, fearful, vindictive god of the Old Testament. My God is a compassionate, loving, forgiving God of the New and Everlasting Covenant, based in redemption and salvation.
You have no credible basis for telling Catholics what and how to believe and threaten the withholding of salvation for legalistic infractions. Such claims of spiritual superiority and self acclaimed favor in God's eyes is the true meaning of taking the Lords name in vain. Enjoy it for your three score and ten.
I’ll ask again, where does the Bible say it must be explicitly stated in scripture to be true?
Precisely, through Apostolic Tradition, unless you believe that Scripture was handed to man in stone tablet form directly from the burning bush. Sola Scriptura is an invention of, by, and for men who sought to deny Apostolic Tradition for personal gain.
2 Peter 1:19-21 teaches sola scriptura? It’s amazing to me how two people can read the same verse and reach different conclusions.
Beyond that, what do you (or anyone else) think more accurately defines the central notion of sola scriptura?
Private interpretation, or a rule of law that settles all dispute?
I mean really, you really don’t believe that inherrent to the very nature of sola scriptura is one’s own private interpretation? You really don’t believe if you “read the Bible for yourself”, there is never any danger of twisting it “to your own destruction”, via an “unlearned” approach?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.