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.

[21twelve]

“So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.”

I recall some lady say something at a church I was at about “Oh - but that’s Paul” as she seemed to dismiss anything that he had written. I’m not sure where she was coming from - but I imagine some group(s) have a long history of “anti-Paul” theology? Not sure how you just through out so much of the New Testament though.

[count-your-change]

I’ll take you up on your kind offer. What Scriptural support do find for a celibate clergy and the cult of Mary?

[DariusBane]

Well, Paul is really hard often times severe. He is logical, and often times misinterpreted, particularly the misogynist charges. To throw him out would be a mistake as he developed the theology of the church as we know it today.

[annalex]

Mary’s complete biography is not covered in the scripture. What exactly would you like to discuss: theological reasons for the doctrine, evidentiary reasons, the scriptural references to the “brethren” of the Lord, the veneration of Mary, or?

[Bodleian_Girl]

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death.

Have you been born again as Jesus said you must be, through faith in Him?

If you have been born again, which I realize your doctrine says you can't really know, the words of Jesus Christ not withstanding, you'd have to be of the belief that Jesus couldn't actually save you to the uttermost and that He has aborted you from the new birth.

[Bodleian_Girl]

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death.

1 John 5:12
 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[count-your-change]

I was responding to post #29 by NYer:
“When you make a statement, it is always helpful if you back it up. To which ‘invented’ doctrines are you referring?”

The idea that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life after bearing Jesus is what I referred to and what the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity refers to.

[JLLH]

“1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Great post, Bodleian Girl! I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you for standing for the Gospel!

[boatbums]

Paul also called himself a Pharisee. Was he lying? Nope!:

Acts 23:6 (New International Version) 6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

Acts 26:5 (New International Version) 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

Philippians 3:5 (New International Version) 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Easter is Babylonian paganism”

Nope. Easter is the Christian feast of Christ’s Resurrection. It was once a pagan Germanic holiday. The Germans were never Babylonians. Some poorly educated people confuse Ishtar with Easter because they’re too stupid to realize there is no connection between the medieval Germans and the ancient peoples of the Near East.

“Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept”

No, actually the idea of celibate priests comes from Christ and St. Paul. Celibacy was also occasionally practiced by other ancient Jews when they were called to serve the Lord:

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the “Divine Presence”) in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya).

It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: “Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).

Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).

Other celibates

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. “Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth” (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100).

For “the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light” (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because “if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation” (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, “the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable” (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245). http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Apparently you were completely unaware of these basic facts.

“Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism.”

Nope. The title is from Roman paganism. The Romans were not Babylonian and never even conquered Babylonian territory. The Romans possessed the title and office long before they had left the confines of Central Italy. Hundreds of years into the Christian era the title was given to the pope.

“Christmas is Babylonian Paganism”

Nope. The name tells tou what it is = Christ’s Mass.

I think you should read real history rather than the slop from Hislop. A high school history teacher proved to an anti-Catholic like you that Hislop was completely wrong on this issue. A high school history teacher.

[boatbums]

If, as you say, the Catholic Church only teaches what can be found in the Scriptures, why are so many AGAINST the concept of Scripture being the sole authority for the faith? Could it possibly be that some Church dogmas are NOT and cannot be backed up by scripture the real reason for the seeming hostility to God's holy revealed word?

Or is the main reason that to find ANY Catholic Church dogma unscriptural would imply that this particular self-declared one true religion is NOT the church Jesus said he would preserve?

[Natural Law]

"Why do you make up things like that?"

I will ask again, why do yo make that stuff up? Each has been clearly refuted many times here on FR yet you continue to spew it like some kind of preprogrammed brainless reflex. FR Religion Forum decorum prohibits me from more accurately characterizing your statements.

Easter is not Paganism. It is the celebration of the Risen Lord. Your earlier falsehood about it never occurring in conjunction with the Passover was refuted when I pointed out to you that Holy Week and the Passover coincided in 2009.....get a calendar.

Celebate does not mean "chaste". It only means unmarried and has nothing to do with paganism....get a dictionary.

Pontif Maximus is a Roman, not a Persian office. Its use to describe the Bishop of Rome dates to the 3rd century....get a history book.

Christmas is not Pagan, it is the celebration of the birth of Christ.....get a clue.

[Uri’el-2012]

Every thing you quote from is from a man made tradition.

You do not quote from The holy Word of G-d.

YHvH gave to all of His followers commanded Feasts (appointed times).

The pagan Roman "church" founded at Nicea by the Pontiff Constantine
rejected all of YHvH commanded Feasts and replaced them all with Paganism.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Natural Law]

"Paul also called himself a Pharisee. Was he lying? Nope!:"

However, someone is not telling the truth. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), he arrested the early followers of Jesus and jailed them (Acts 22:4). We are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest.

Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judea sees a problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect.

[boatbums]

As far as someone being truly saved, we know that only God sees the heart. We can only look at outside appearances. Having said that, though, anyone who is depending on their own merits or good works/deeds in any way is not really trusting in Jesus Christ as their savior. Either we are saved by grace through faith in Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross or we earn salvation by our works. Scripture is extremely clear that it cannot be grace and works.

[Natural Law]

"The pagan Roman "church" founded at Nicea by the Pontiff Constantine."

You are either dense or intentionally wrong. I suspect the later. I have seen you corrected a half a dozen times on this point, yet you persist. I can only question your motives.

Constantine was NEVER a Pontiff or Pope. He was an emperor. The Pope at the time of the Council of Nicea was Saint Sylvester I.

God (not YHvH) satisfied the earlier covenants by the death and resurrection of Christ who brought the New and Everlasting Covenant.

[Uri’el-2012]

I will ask again, why do yo make that stuff up? Each has been clearly refuted many times here on FR yet you continue to spew it like some kind of preprogrammed brainless reflex. FR Religion Forum decorum prohibits me from more accurately characterizing your statements.

Easter is not Paganism. It is the celebration of the Risen Lord. Your earlier falsehood about it never occurring in conjunction with the Passover was refuted when I pointed out to you that Holy Week and the Passover coincided in 2009.....get a calendar.

Celebate does not mean "chaste". It only means unmarried and has nothing to do with paganism....get a dictionary.

Pontif Maximus is a Roman, not a Persian office. Its use to describe the Bishop of Rome dates to the 3rd century....get a history book.

Christmas is not Pagan, it is the celebration of the birth of Christ.....get a clue.

Again Ignorance of the Holy Word of G-d.

The Roman "church" is built on paganism ;
it is not built on the Holy Word of G-d.

Where is Easter, Christmas and Sunday worship in the Holy Word of G-d.
No where; it is all man made paganism impugning the Holy Word of G-d.

Despite the pagan astronomers of the Vatican
making sure that Easter and Passover would
not coincide the non leap year of 2000
changed the best laid plans of the Evil One.

Easter began coinciding with Passover in the year 2000.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[tioga]

LOL.......unreal.

[Natural Law]

"Again Ignorance of the Holy Word of G-d."

This would make a good tag line for you. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the teachings of the Catholic Church so you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. You are stuck in the Old Testament.

Where did you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and gain for yourself a knowledge or confidence in your understanding such that you feel able to argue it with those who have been formally educated in it?

[NYer]

As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).