Posted on 07/11/2010 10:58:32 AM PDT by 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.
Very good.
I need to copy this.
Excellent excellent work. And great delivery.
With the Old Covenant, to the Jews, the law was given to expose what sin was. God requires sinless perfection. but since man is incapable of that sinless perfection he provided the sacrificial system to cover sins.
When Christ came and died, he became the once for ALL sin sacrifice.
It is by faith... that Christ is the promised messiah, the son of God, by very nature God, and the only sacrifice ever needed. It is faith in this that sanctifies one. Jew or Gentile. If one refuses faith the only recourse is perfect works. Which is impossible.
And faith based on works is not faith, it is still works. It is believing that you can do enough to to earn your way to heaven. But not only is it arrogance in thinking we could actually earn our way, its an insult to Christ and the Father, that THEIR sacrifice wasn't enough.
Why THEIR sacrifice. Well obviously Christ suffered and died. He took the sin of everybody upon himself, which was tortourous to a Holy God.
But John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world THAT HE GAVE his only begotten son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES in him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
In essence, belief in ones own works to get to heaven tells the Father and Christ-NOT GOOD ENOUGH-I'LL GET THERE ON MY OWN.
Now James, when saying faith without works is dead, WAS NOT teaching that faith AND works got us to heaven. Because getting to heaven can't be earned. What IT IS saying, is that if we truely have faith, our good works, the affects of Christ in our lives will naturally flow out.
Example: A man is in love with a woman. Head over heals. They're on a long walk, far away from home. She twists her ankle and cannot walk. He carries her all the way home.
Why did he carry her home? Was he working to earn her affection? Or was he working as an outflowing of his love?
The same applies to us, either we work to EARN Gods favor, or we work because we already have his favor.
BUT...if we are working to earn our way to God, do we really love him, or are we doing works to get what he can give us.
Contrarily, if we already have what he's promised, then our works are not out of our initiations, but out of our response for his love he has shown us.
I am evangelical. I associate with other evangelicals. The pastors I listen to at church, on the radio,tv or in books are evangelicals.
And yet you tell me that the great majority of evangelicals deny this.
Now even if this were true, IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!
I'm standing on truth, and truth dosn't require a quorum.
Who has a "fear" of meat on Friday?
Wait, I know a lady, kind of a bubble head. She is not very good at the whole "being where you are" thing, and so she ate meat on a Lenten Friday, before she realized it was, um, Lent, AND a Friday.
So she was all in a dither. I was there when she asked on of the friars and he tried to level her off a little, but it was clear her whole deal was "works theology" from the git go.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If people WANT to be a dither, there's not much we can do to stop them. But it's not our fault either.
Good post!
LOL! :)
See link to page here, with pop up verses. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Sola_Scriptura.html Praise God.
bookmarked. Thanks.
I would really like to have PROOF of what you’re saying here. Sola Scriptura believers deny what I said/ where?
God bless you in the search, for the learning you already have and for the learning He will grant.
It is still remarkable to me how easy it is for me to forget to give it all to God, who already has it anyway.
10-4. That's part of why we don't call bishops apostles. They're successors - ones who follow.
For us, there is an apostolic character to the whole Church, and to each member of the Church.
I'm not surprised at the disagreement. It is to be expected.
I AM surprised at the manner of argument of some. And I am particularly surprised that assertions are made about our beliefs and practices which are false, and then those making them are not interested or able to deal with evidence that the charges are false.
But I'm not surprised.
Matthew 4:1-2: Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry.
Matthew 17:17-20: And Jesus rebuked him, and the devil went out of him, and the child was cured from that hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus secretly, and said: Why could not we cast him out? Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible to you. But this Kind is not Cast out but By Prayer and FASTING.
But maybe that's just me.
And any theological arguments that are built on that false premise are at best dubious.
Do you go to a regular church on sunday. Independent?
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.