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.

[daniel1212]

Yes, with the questions from cronos. Why that question?

[Judith Anne]

“Not interested.”

Of course not. It shows that your statement is false.

[caww]

That's right! I wasn't thinking in that vein but you're absolutely right. He does have his thugs out and about in all avenues of life.

I have wondered why the two most divisive topics are politics and religion....I enjoy talking both but many stay clear of in day to day life. But then it was equally so in Biblical times...wonder where exactly that started? Probably in Genesis...seems the first of just about everything began there.

[Judith Anne]

It’s impressive work. Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know, if you wrote it, or if you cut and pasted it from some other source.

[daniel1212]

Oh, it could be improved. I think we met back here BTW: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2421970/posts?page=10420#10420

[small voice in the wilderness]

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in the respect of an holyday, or of the new moon,or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."(Colossians 2:16,17).

Have a fear of meat on Friday? Read the above, or eat grilled cheese sandwiches, better safe than sorry, in your world, I guess.

[Grunthor]

There is no dispute on my part. The Bible tells us all that we need to know in order to be saved. To say otherwise is to insist that Christs’ sacrifice was not enough.

[don-o]

Please check your Freepmail

[caww]

Not interested.

[Grunthor]

your post was the longest and most informative I have read.

[Frumanchu]

So are you saying that you do not believe the Apostle John and what he wrote -- that all things could not be written down?

But that's the problem...you're appealing to our ability to rightly discern what the Apostle John meant in order to prove the case that we cannot reliably discern what Scripture means. You're ultimately forced to fall back on the assumption of the very conclusion you're trying to prove: that your religious institution has the sole authority to rightly interpret the Scriptures.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Thank you for the Freepmail. I'll be clear as to what I believe.

We are saved, by grace, through faith. Period. No works for salvation. It is the FINISHED WORK of CHRIST that saves. To add or take away from His finished work is to deny the completeness that is in Christ.

We are instructed to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). If we desire God's approval we rightly divide His Word, and know which dispensation we are operating under. We know WHEN this present Dispensation began, Who it was given to, Who gave it to him, what it's purpose is, and when it's going to end.

The Word of God is the final authority. Period.

[daniel1212]

To God be any glory for any help it provides.

[don-o]

Do you believe that Jesus and the other Apostles brought a “works based” gospel for the Jews and that Paul alone brings the gospel to the gentiles?

[small voice in the wilderness]

"Whom shall He teach knowledge, and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept; precept uon precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little". (Isa. 28:9,10).

There is a divine principle in God's method of instructing man. Not all information at once, but "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little," God has revealed Himself to man.

Noah knew more about God than Adam had known. Abraham knew more than Noah, Moses knew more than Abraham,David more than Moses, Peter and the 11 more than David, and Paul knew more than the twelve, and all that had gone before. For to Paul was revealed BY CHRIST, the very "secret of the gospel", the capstone of DIVINE REVELATION. (see Eph. 3:1-4, 3:8,9 and 6:18-20).

If this were understood plainly, there would be no seeming "contradiction" between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God. There is no contradiction between the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, and Paul's Epistles. There are only contradictions if we try to apply them to the same dispensation. This is where the confusion, doctrines of men, tradition, false teachings and adding to or taking from God's Word comes from.

[mountn man]

So let me get this straight.

Your saying that because EVERYTHING that Jesus said or did is not written down, therefore the Catholic church can make up traditions at will and accredit them to Christ?

All John 21:25 says is that not everything Jesus said or did isn't written. Thats ALL it says, no more no less.

[don-o]

Thank you for laying it out as clearly as you did.

[caww]

Good post....I agree...seeing this in many of the counterfeit Christianity cults.

[mountn man]

You quoted a question I posed to freeper popman.

Yes I did.

This is a public forum, and you asked your question in public.

So whats your answer? Does the Catholic church have power over mens salvation?

[caww]

That’s correct...that’s all it says...unfortunately that’s used to often to justify additional books, teachings and literature....and at worst to say things Christ never said.