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.

Cool, thanks.

First, this is the teaching on celibate clergy. The Church considers priesthood compatible in certan combinations with marriage. The Latin Particular Church of the Catholic Church indeed would not ordain a married man absent a special dispensation. Other Catholic Churches (most Eastern rites) do routinely ordain married man, subject to some restrictions. Orthodox Churches have valid priesthood and they, too, routinely ordain married men subject to some restrictions. So we are not talking of some blanket prohibition of married priests, but rather what is known as a "discipline", a rule that the local or particular Church might impose because it considers it beneficial for the task of guiding the flock to salvation.

I go into this because we are all aware of verses that warn about prohibiting people to marry, the fact that Peter was at least at some point in his life married, the historical fact of early clergy being often married, etc. We also are aware of the fact that St. Paul suggests that a Christian bishop be a "husband of one wife". None of that invalidates the desire, especially in the Latin Church, developed in the Middle Ages, to offer the flock that particular gift, of a celibate priest.

Why is it desirable? The Church teaches that a priest is one who in his sacramental duty is sent by Christ and is seen by the flock as Christ:

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20, describing a priest as one absolving or retaining sin as Christ Himself)
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22, describing that the priests starting with the Apostles are to do what Christ did, offer His Body and Blood; that is what makes them priests, -- they offer sacrifice).
He that heareth you, heareth me (Luke 10:26)
be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16 , later repeated, -- here we have the teaching authority of Christ passing on to His priests)

So you have the idea: priests are to the flock what Christ was to the Church: confessors, martyrs and reachers.

But Christ was celibate. Also, martyrdom is a gift that not everyone can give. The Church was blessed by centuries of tranquillity where opportunity for martyrdom was limited, although now that has ended. Celibacy is a gift everyone can give. It is the most natural form of denial of self we have.

I do not have to give you scriptural commendation of self denial, in imitation of Christ -- they are too numerous and will take us on a tangent.

Further, Christ is described as the Bridegroom of the Church. Ah, this is why He was celibate, -- He, too, was a "husband of own wife", His glorious umblemished Church:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it (Ephesians 5:25 see the entire chapter for an elaborated parallel between marriage and Christ's love for His Church; see also the parable of wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25)

So to imitate Christ better a priest is to consider himself married to his flock. This would exclude marriage to a woman.

But is it a good idea practically?

St. Paul says it is (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8) already brought to our mind by TradicalRC.

In our day especially. It used to be that sexual continence was not hard to come by: people married one wife, stayed married to her, considered romantic (let along purely instinctual) frivolities outside of marriage shameful, and so there were examples of chaste life available to children besides priests. Not any longer. I am not aware of another common example of people, male in particular, that stay chaste deliberately, except my priest iin Church. God bless them, it is truly a precious gift.

The Cult of Mary. Again, we are all aware of the miracle of Incarnation being one of the two fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. Now, the Incarnation required a willing human participant, and Mary was that participant. I do not have to direct you to the first two chapters of Luke, or Matthew 1, where this is explained (see also TragicalRC's post that has the most emphatic part of it). The Incarnation was a cosmic event precisely because a humble servant of Our Lord was at the center of it.

Was she a mere vessel as Protestant calumny goes? Well, now: she was at the Christ's first miracle, -- she, in fact, in some way encouraged it (John 2, the miracle at Cana, again I don't need to remind you of this memorable story).

Then she was with Him through out his ministry, at times being with him when everyone else seemed to abandon Him (Mark 3:31ff; no, Christ did not decide, absurdly, to insult his mother by offering His love to all who love and follow Him; He did it another time, too, in Luke 11:27ff).

And she was at the Cross, just she and young St. John (John 19). At that point something significant happened: dying, Christ asked His mother to adopt "the disciple He loved", and He asked the disciple to take her "with his own" (the Greek original never mentions any "house", which John likely did not have). Now, we Catholics take this seriuously and apply this to ourselves, -- we are the disciples Christ loves. Mary is our mother. It is then our obligation, as heirs to the Jewish law, to honor her, keep her in our houses, ask her advice, talk to her, just plain love her.

Are we bringing some kind of longing for a spiritual mother into the scripture that simply speaks of an economic arrangement for an aging woman, as another Protestant attempt to dismiss the scripture goes? Well, no. The adoption was mutual. If all there was there were an economic arrangement, Jesus being aware of His future passion would have arranged it beforehand as He instructed His disciples how to survive future hardships (Mt 24:16, for example). On the Cross, Christ saw the birth of His Church, and Mary and the Beloved Disciple were the firstborn of it. This is why the role of Mary in the Church did not stop at the hill of Golgotha:

Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven. 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
(Acts 1-2) 1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

Oh. See who is there. Now the Church is formally birthed, all of the creation will soon hear it. But who is it with the Church, she who had been overshadowed by the same Holy Spirit 30-odd years ago? It is fitting that the Church is born right around Mary's mantle.

It doesn't end there either. Now an aged man, the same adopted disciple, St. John, now known to us as The Theologian, sees this:

the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. [continued to Chapter 12]
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
[...]
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night. (Apoc. 11-12)

So who is it, the Queen of Heaven, the mother of God's Christ? Er, no, don't think that thought, protestant superstitionists warn us...

See who is it however that very much wants to spit a river of lies about our Lady, and who are her chidlren:

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Apoc. 12)

This is where we, the rest of her spiritual seed, are today, fighting.

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.