Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

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.

“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.”

Nice attempt to both mischaracterize and then set up a straw man. Then you top it off by presuming to judge motives of people you don’t even know, something reprehensible in the eyes of all. And even if you did have some acquaintance with those of long ago whose motives you presume to judge, you have strayed into a province God reserves to Himself alone. Is this apologetics in your mind?

Demonstrably, you have confirmed what I said in post #139. Thanks.

“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.”

Why are you amazed? What do you think Peter, Paul, and John were warning about in terms of false prophecy and the strong delusion that they could already see was coming into the church?

“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?”

Notion? Notion? Wow! The Holy Scriptures don’t deal in notion. They express the will of God, period, His law and His gospel. You keep opting for law when the central NOTION (I would call it teaching or doctrine) of the Scriptures is salvation by grace through faith for the sake of the life and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of Man. A friendly admonition, if you keep demanding law from God, eventually that is what you will get.

“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?”

Of course, I believe there is danger of twisting the the Scriptures “to your own destruction.” More than you know I believe this. By the way that is a nice segue back to the very same 2 Peter, this time to 3:14-18. Read what it says in full, and then tell me whose is the “unlearned” approach. Peter is saying that he agrees with what Paul wrote, every word of it, and all to whom he (Peter) is speaking should do the same. Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture agrees with Scripture. Peter agrees with Paul. Sounds rather apostolic and non-”private” in the Petrine sense to me.

You have just made my point for me, for which I also thank you.

We clearly do not share the same God.

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.

Whoa there, pard. I've got news for ya. There is only ONE true God and he said his name is Jehovah (JHVH, YHvH or Yahweh). It is the same God in the Old Testament as in the New. The attributes given are all true, although I would not call him "vindictive". Deal with it.

Odd that you condemn UriA'el-2012 for deigning to tell Catholics "what and how to believe and threaten the withholding of salvation" when that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does and has done to any other non-Catholic Christian faith for centuries. Do we have a pot/kettle situation here?

“Demonstrably, you have confirmed what I said in post #182.”

Fortunately, I was not drinking anything when I read this, otherwise I would have covered my keyboard with it.

“We all know the principle of invincible ignorance. However, some are mired in insufferable ignorance. I’ve learned to recognize the type. Rather than ask what Catholics actually believe they begin with a false premise and then attack it and the refutation from a knee-jerk recital of preprogrammed anti-Catholic propaganda they have been taught since the cradle.”

I see. What is the title of this thread? Let me help you: “Where Is That Taught in the Bible?” Who started this thread and asked this question? Go back and look. I did. Who is spewing “knee-jerk” and “preprogrammed ... propaganda”? And, ah, when were you taught such? Or when was NYer?

I think I am staying pretty much on topic in a thread I did not start. This thread is obviously an effort to provoke. I will admit to being provoked.

Finally, ad hominem argumentation is so unhelpful and unneighborly. One might even say it is the stalking ground of an unstable personality bolstered by invincible ignorance.

Peace in Christ, the Savior of sinners.

“Why so passive aggressive? Indirectly accusing me of things not said or done is a more clinical sign of instability.”

Ummmm, so I’m the passive aggressive type, the accuser of things not said or done? Let me make this very simple. True or false.

1. Did you or did you not write post #182?

2. Did you or did you not apply the contents of post #182, written originally to one “vladimir998,” for whatever reason you chose to do so, to me in post #184?

Time to correct our test.

1. True.

2. True.

Who started it?

You want to stay on topic, then stay on topic. You want stay with reasoned, neighborly debate, then do so. If not, don’t feign surprise and offense when someone talks to you the way you talk to them.

I see others have kept you busy, so I’ll just make a few general comments.

Yes, — there is an agenda. We Catholics would like everyone to be Catholic and come to salvation with us. Sola Scriptura is a counterscriptural nonsense on your way. Hence, the agenda.

Our attitude toward the Lutherans is a bit schizophrenic. On one hand, of all Protestant communities of faith the Lutherans and the Anglicans are dogmatically the closest. I can see a day when some continuing in the tradition Lutheran communities come back to the Church in the fashion similar to the Anglicans. The joing declaration on Justification, for example, is grounds for such hope. I do not think that any other Protestant group, all of which you rightly call radicals, would ever reconcile as a group, although individual conversions are happening all the time and surely conversions will accelerate as Protestantism continues to splinter and disintegrate.

But on the other hand, you guys started all this. The cardinal errors were all Luther’s: sola scriptura and sola fide. Neither is scriptural, and together these two errors lead to radical individualism of latter-day Protestantism just as surely as water flows downslope. Further, there is that issue of basic knowledgeability: the expectation that a Catholic holds for a Lutheran is much higher. So if a Catholic acts in an especially punishing way toward the Lutherans, that is the reason. You are Protestantism’s Original Sin.

You painted a symmetrical picture with the Confessional Lutheran community of faith aloft in the center with their, admittedly more sophisticated than the radical kind, notion of Sola Scriptura remaining in purity, whereas the Catholics mix the Scripture with the “human judgment ... through time” and the Radical Protestans, — with “human judgment ... contemporaneous”. The symmetry is fake.

Firstly, the Lutheran version of Sola Scriptura is not at all immune from human judgment. Luther had to ignore and even falsify scripture to make his notions fit. That is hardly “scripture interpreting scripture”. To pick the point that this article argues, nothing in the scripture verifies “sola scriptura” any better than it verifies, for example, the Purgatory, or even sale of indulgences, — the very sticking points for Luther.

Secondly, there is no symmetry. Given a choice between contemporaneous human judgment and historical human judgement who in his right mind would pick against the historical judgment? The scripture after all is a historical document! No wonder the Jews and the Muslims, and the Hindu, and the conservative legal scholars of the US Constitution, — every one with a common sense except apparently the Protestant lunatics — all look for historical context when they try to understand the books dear to them. The rapid radicalizaton of Lutheranism, some occurring even in Luther’s lifetime, is evidence of the folly of this arrogant, self-serving absurdity, which is the rejection of the patristic roots of any valid interpretation of scripture.

And even on your own terms, — by Scripture alone — your doctrines fail their own tests.

Well, hello again, annalex. I seem to recall encountering you on another, but similar thread. You are a bit more circumspect that some of the others that have been, as you say, keeping me busy.

Most of what you say in your general comments I, of course, do not agree with. I do acknowledge, however, a corresponding schizophrenia toward the Roman church. I commend the fact that you still hold to the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, as do we. I don’t appreciate the fascination with Pelagius you could never quite let go of. And, yes, Lutherans too tend to be a bit hard on their Roman cousins, since you are Christendom’s original sin, for which we have quite a lot of Scriptural support, none of it in need of being ripped from its context to support an agenda. 2 Thessalonians 2 would be a good place to start.

No, we didn’t start it. You did, long before the Reformation. At the Reformation you just doubled down instead of owning up.

A symmetrical picture ... I don’t know about that. Leaving that mathematical term aside, there is an analogous relationship to the way Rome views the Bible and the way the radical reformers do. You can dismiss this in your own mind, if you like. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Both enlist the judgment of man to tell God what He means.

You keep saying Luther falsified the Scriptures. To do so you point to one word in one example. Surely you can do better than that. Besides which, the word “alone” can be dropped from the translation, but the meaning remains the same, “by faith, without the works of the law.”

Looking at your last big paragraph, not the little totally false one at the end, you are still standing where you were on June 25, 1530. We have the Scriptures and you have the fathers (but by no means all of them!); and nothing has changed. Your arguments against the Augsburg Confession are no better now than those found in the pathetic Confutation, both of which are readily available on the net. I invite the truth seekers on this thread to just read and compare them. And, by the way, the Confutation was answered by the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, also readily available.

Peace in Christ.

” Whoa there, pard. I’ve got news for ya. There is only ONE true God and he said his name is Jehovah (JHVH, YHvH or Yahweh). It is the same God in the Old Testament as in the New. The attributes given are all true, although I would not call him “vindictive”. Deal with it.

Odd that you condemn UriA’el-2012 for deigning to tell Catholics “what and how to believe and threaten the withholding of salvation” when that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does and has done to any other non-Catholic Christian faith for centuries. Do we have a pot/kettle situation here?”

Excellent post, boatbums - and oh, so accurate!

you are still standing where you were on June 25, 1530

Of course. Or on any point since the Pentecost onward. This is precisely, where the comparisons to self-propelled radical Protestants end.

If you have a scriptural argument for Faith Alone (the article is about the falsity of Scripture Alone, but no one seems to have a coherent argument on that score), please feel free to make it.

Also, if "allein" inserted in Rom 3:24 is honest translation, why was it subsequently dropped?

Disparaging, and in the case of the Deuterocanon, dropping altogether the scripture Luther did not like is not limited to the fraud of his version of Rom. 3:24. This is the pervasive methodology that is the ugly cousin of Luther's Sola Scriptura.

- The Deuterocanon was dropped
- the Letter of James was declared "of straw"
- the parables of the Gospel were declared hermeneutically wrong to teach from

Luther really worked hard to discredit the scripture that he disagreed with.

Alright. I see your methodology. Throw a pot full of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

In response to my saying, “... you are still standing where you were on June 25, 1530, you said:

“Of course. Or on any point since the Pentecost onward. This is precisely, where the comparisons to self-propelled radical Protestants end.”

Well, that is the very point at issue isn’t it? And on the question of whether nothing changed in terms of Roman dogma between the first Christian Pentecost (it was a Jewish festival, you know) and June 25, 1530, history is not your friend. And no amount of burned heretics or political skullduggery could make it so.

Regarding Romans 3:24 (and I will do a little checking here), well, OK, it was dropped, but with no loss of meaning. Pretty good, huh? One insignificant mistake in a first try at translating the whole New Testament into German? What about Jerome’s “she” in Genesis 3:15, talk about doubling down on a mistake.

The deuterocanon, yes, well that they were not canonical was recognized by the church of the time, i.e., of the Old Testament. They were rejected before the time of Christ by the same people who accepted the canonical books. So, blame that on Israel. But we would be happy to take credit for it, if we could. The deuterocanonical books don’t measure up, and a careful reading of them will reveal that their authors didn’t think so either. Ever read 1 & 2 Maccabees all the way through in their own context? Try it, you’ll see what I mean.

The Epistle of James, well, gee it’s still in every Bible I’ve ever used, including Luther’s original translation. Oh, maybe you’re looking at his preface to James of 1522, not 1535. Luther was pretty good at owning up to his errors and not doubling down on them.

The parables of the Gospel declared hermeneutically wrong to teach from? I don’t think so. Someone fed you a line on that.

“Luther really worked hard to discredit the scripture he disagreed with.” So you say. But here again you are quite, quite incorrect.

Keep trying.

Peace.

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.