Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

cna ^

[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.

[NYer]

Oral instruction from such men is one thing. Doctrines fabricated by a bunch of "clerics" in some conclave are another thing entirely.

Please cite a doctrine from any conclave that is fabricated.

[Uri’el-2012]

“traditions” always translated traditions

<3862> para,dosij paradosis
Meaning: a handing down or over, a tradition
Origin: from 3860
Usage: tradition(1), tradition(8), traditions(4).

Also see
Jer. 39:4; 41:2; Matt. 15:2f, 6; Mk. 7:3, 5, 8, 13; 1 Co. 11:2; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6

When you review the cited scriptures, most often Yah'shua
is rebuking the Pharisees for creating man made tradition
which impugns the Written Word of G-d.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Natural Law]

"This is what the Catholic Church teaches."

Your post exemplifies what is good and illustrates what is bad with so many of the Catholic related posts. I can fully understand and appreciate a discussion of Catholic dogma and another biblical perspective about why one might disagree with it, but it is getting hard to stomach non-Catholics and anti-Catholics misstating the Church's position and then getting insulting and argumentative when corrected and refuted.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?”

There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Are you completely ignorant...

One of us is and it ain't me. Everything good in Paul's writings is not new and everything new in Paul's writings is not good. Paul was not a Pharisee and actually demonstrated a very imperfect understanding of rabbinical Judaism, which was a much livelier and more humane affair than he made out. He was, by his own admission, an agent of the Sadducee High Priest, who was a Roman collaborator loathed by the Jewish population. I do not question his faith after his conversion, but I cannot accept a distortion of who he was prior to it.

I direct you to :

Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.

Acts 22: 3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Holy Word of G-d.

Nor Gamaliel

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[vpintheak]

Amen!

[NYer]

Timothy was to continue in what he learned...from the Apostle Paul.

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy.

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

[hellbender]

Well, I’m not sure exactly how or where the Catholic Church invented many of its doctrines, but they sure didn’t get them from the Apostles or from scripture. I’m thinking of things like purgatory, celibate clergy, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the cult of Mary, veneration of relics...just to name a few.

[NYer]

Well, I’m not sure exactly how or where the Catholic Church invented many of its doctrines, but they sure didn’t get them from the Apostles or from scripture.

When you make a statement, it is always helpful if you back it up. To which 'invented' doctrines are you referring?

[Ken4TA]

"Just show us where Apostolic succession is taught or promoted in scripture .."

2 Tim. 2:2

NYer, that's quite a stretch, even for you, isn't it?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[Mr Rogers]

Yes, while the New Testament was being written, the oral teaching of the Apostles was critical, as were Prophets.

However, there IS no Apostolic oral teaching recorded outside of scripture. That was largely why scripture became scripture - because the NT writings were by Apostles or recorded what the Apostles preached.

The Catholic Church doesn’t pretend that Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Mariology, Indulgences, etc came from oral teachings of the Apostles handed down lip to ear until formally proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church.

NY “Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2).”

2 Tim 2:2 reads: “2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

As I said, if you have teaching from the Apostle Paul “which thou hast heard from me”, I’ll listen. But the doctrines we differ on are ones that came up hundreds or a thousand years later. They are NOT teachings passed from Paul to Timothy.

NYer “He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).”

Again, the teachings of the Apostles are not in question.

NYer “”So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher.”

Yes, we need preaching to convert folks, and the Church is to be the true teacher - it is supposed to be the support and pillar of the truth, not the replacement for the truth. A Church that teaches non-Apostolic doctrine as required belief is therefor not a true church.

Sola scriptura doesn’t teach to abandon the church, but that the true church submits to the breath of God - the scripture. It is the only place we have the teachings of the Apostles.

Paul didn’t install priests, or hear confession, or instruct anyone to ‘do penance’. Paul didn’t teach Purgatory, or Indulgences. Paul didn’t teach that we are born again by water baptism, or teach that the Eucharist was a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice of Jesus. Paul didn’t teach that Peter was Vicar of Christ - nor did Peter. Yet Paul taught the “full counsel of God”.

Therefor, those things are not part of the full counsel of God, and a church that teaches them as dogma is a false church.

[annalex]

purgatory, celibate clergy, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the cult of Mary, veneration of relics

All of these are strongly suggested by the scripture, albeit not spelled out directly. Pick any two, and I'll show you.

[hellbender]

I already know that the RCC has some twisted arguments which they use to “prove” these doctrines, but the arguments are little more than sophistry. Otherwise everyone, including Protestants, would have no problem with these doctrines.

[Salvation]

**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. **

A fact not recognized by all.

[annalex]

So you retract your previous statement?

The article is about twisting the scripture. It shows convincingly where the foundational Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not even remotely supported by the Holy Scripture.

So, the offer stands. I can show you how any two (I am a very nice guy) of these Catholic doctrines are supported by the scripture. You show me how the Sola Scriptura superstition is supported by it. See who reads what’s written and who twists and turns.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?

There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?

Easter is Babylonian paganism

Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept

Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism.

Christmas is Babylonian Paganism

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[count-your-change]

Perhaps the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary” doctrine as addressed at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II and the Council of Lateran 649.

[TradicalRC]

... celibate clergy,

10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Matthew 19:10-12

Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8

transubstantiation,

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and giving thanks, broke and said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29

praying to saints,

We pray with the saints not TO them. Just as you would ask someone in your church to pray for you, we also ask the Saints in Heaven to pray for us.

the cult of Mary,

41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul does magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he has regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty has done great things to me: and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He has showed might in his arm: he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble.
Luke 1:41-52

veneration of relics...just to name a few.

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter came, his shadow at the least might overshadow any of them and they might be delivered from their infirmities. 16 And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits: who were all healed. Acts 5:15-16

You're right, no Scriptural evidence whatsoever...

[DariusBane]

Ok, Paul is claiming apostalic authority... I guess I better read Corinthians. To get my apostolic authority. Don’t need the Papal tradition, that line has failed. Don’t need the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Moscow. That line has failed also. So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.