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.
yep. I just think of New Orleans. Large Catholic area, large voodoo are. Merged in a very morbid and sacrilegious way, indeed. Thanks for the information!
UNBELIEVABLE. I would like to see some RCs around here defend this or explain this.
Before Mark 13:31 and we can only speculate those that put the WORDS together did so chronologically, Christ says in Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
Now not one WORD of the "NEW" had been penned when Christ spoke these WORDS and yet Christ said He had foretold all things... And NONE of man's traditions had been set in motion yet.... I can't wait for the face to face when the 'vitamin analogy gets judged'.
Well you can expect that they will once they see it. But in all fairness other Christian denominations are hijacked and used equally as bad....Mormonism merges Christianity with outer limit style beliefs...becoming Gods and having your own planets...and into alot of ritual stuff like baptizing people for the dead.
Frankly unless people get into Gods word and know it... and meet with Christ often... they are all positioned to believe deception...it will only take a weak moment and the enemy of mens souls will strike.
I need to ask you one more question. Is it the duty of a Christian to receive water baptism and to observe the Lord's Supper?
“”It is finished”...”
What is finished?
That controversy about the ending of Mark is part of the larger contention that the since a certain extant MSS are older than the Majority text, then they are more accurate, but the MSS of the MT \could easily have been copies of even earlier MSS, and if i am not mistaken, they have the greater degree of conflation with each other. Freeper Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus would be more able to engage in this, and would send you here. http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
However, Mk. 16:17,18 is not part of the GC, but as Divine supernatural attestation is consistently given for the gospel and the preaching of the Word, from the transformative effects of the new birth to healings etc., Jesus is foretelling what the church would do. While speaking with new tongues was manifest on Pentecost, not being harmed by snake bites (or liberal snake oil?) is exampled in Acts 28:3-6:
“And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. {4} And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. {5} And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. {6} Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.”
And by searching the rest of Scripture we may see that while tongues and healings were common and proactively exercised, the only evidence we see as regards protection from deadly snake bites is that they were rare, unsought circumstantial events, and not a common or sacramental type practice.
While the Lord still attests to His Word by manifestly supernatural means (including such as are included here: http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/Amazing http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/true-stories-testimonies-of-jesus-christ) , these do not by themselves provide certainty, as the deceptive devil seeks to operate on the same level God does, (Ex. 7:11; 8:7,18; 2Thes. 2:9-11), and thus such must be in consistent testimony with the objective authority which is established to be of God, the Scriptures.
Well since you are catholic it would make sense you likely are quite aware what was accomplished on the cross since one needs to have that understanding to become a catholic.
Thanks so much for the information! It does help in understanding Mark 16 in relation to Acts.
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one BAPTISM, One God and Father of all,who is above all and through all, and in you all." (Eph.4:4-6).
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..."(1 Cor. 11:23). Read verses 23-26. "This do in remembrance of me."
You were arguing that the truth of the, to me untrue, arguments of the saved would manifest itself to me were I ever to be rescued from my Catholic ignorance . (or something like that more or less.)
My response was to indicate that the saved seem a little over-eager to say things that are flat out not true about us, all the while renouncing reason and claiming that because of their saved status what they say is just plain true, and the arguments against it come from preferring the phronema sarkos to the Wisdom of God (or words to that effect).
In response to the things which are not so but are said about us and your contention that my vision of what was true and what wasn't would change were I ever to give up my errors, I said, in effect, that the things which are not so would not become so because my opinion or state of grace changed.
I also meant to suggest that to claim that what one is saying is unassailable truth when some of it is or depends on things which are indisputably NOT true seems not only dubious but spiritually dangerous to me.
Despite my differences with the catholic faith I have stated several times there are saved Christians within the catholic church and I remain steadfast in that. So anything written which would appear to contradict this is simply not so. I will trust you do understand my position and will not group me into what you see as a collective.
1. I am not Roman Catholic
2. So Christians do have a duty to receive water baptism and observe the Lord's Supper? Is this consistent with the "gospel of grace?" Sound a lot like works to me.
It's stuff like that that makes one KNOW that Paul really was given a remarkable vocation and wonderfully enabled to carry it out.
I think your take is good. I have to warn you that thinking that way was a great part of what led me finally to “kiss the pope's toe.” (Ick - I hope he uses, like, Gold Bong - typo, but I'll let it stand ;-) - foot powder or something.)
To me, it is like when lovers say, “We were made for each other.” God made us for himself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him (paraphrase of St. Augustine.) There is nothing we have to do, nothing we CAN do to make God love us any more than he loves us right now.
Yet in our experience, or, as I would suggest, as this eternal truth “plays out” over the time of our lives, there is some kind of, oh, what, dynamic, some adjustment, some something that happens in us which feels like a ‘work’ but which, when we look back we KNOW we could not have done unless God did it in us.
When I first began to “get it”, it was like somebody opened a door in my mind, a door I didn't even know was there, WHILE I had been leaning on it and doing my best to keep it closed all my life.
Now, this followed on a period of prayer and fasting and on the Episcopal Church's version of “private confession.” But those things “caused” it no more than the cock's crow causes the sun to rise. All along it is the sun inspiring the cock to crow, while all the gifts of the sun give the cock life and strength.
Likewise, all along God had been calling, entreating, tugging, chivvying, chastising, herding, swatting me a good one when I needed it, and all the rest. And one day He just opened the door!
What I fear my non-Catholic friends will never quite believe of me is that “my own heart teacheth me the wickedness of the ungodly” and, while I still deceive myself minute by minute, the stronghold of my mind has been taken and fully invested by my loving enemy, and no fitful attack of my vanity can possibly take it back as long as He holds it.
It is HE who works, and if He suffered any fear and trembling in the Garden and on the Holy Hill near a garden, then even MY fear and trembling is His work in me for His good pleasure.
So all my days I will praise Him.
Except when, as now, I am having a bad reaction to medicine, whereupon I will immediately revert to murmuring like the Israelites in the desert. Send me your saraph serpents Lord and turn my heart back to You! Their sting is nothing like the slow steady ache of being turned away from You, so let them sting!
I was not "grouping" you anywhere, except in the big group of "non-Catholic."
You seemed to make an assertion. I questioned it and used examples to bolster my questioning. Isn't that how conversations are supposed to work among people who have differing views?
Which One Baptism is Paul referring to in Ephesians 4:4-6? Let’s start here.
Even though it may seem I'm frowning when I post to you, always know I'm smiling. You bring that out in a person!
As the scripture pointed to says: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
The letters of Paul are in the scriptures, of course.
As to the rest, if someone can provide me with some proof of traditions that Paul taught that were not in his letters, I'm open to hearing about it.
As to "traditions" that came later - I'll test them against scripture, thanks.
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.