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.
I believe that Baptism is a Sacrament which a Christian must receive, utilizing water. The vast majority of evangelicals (non-liturgical) Christians, who do not have a sacramental theology, still teach that it is a duty - an obedience.
So, again, I ask: Is it the duty of a Christian to receive water baptism? That is a yes / no question.
We can discuss specific scriptures when we are clear on our beliefs.
Of course, Catholics aren't the only ones who say that.
Bless you.
Indeed, may we all be blessed!
(Now I’m going to sit back and watch you work with don-o on “one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all.”)
I believe in the ONE BAPTISM of the Dispensation of Grace.
If i my interject, works are by no means in opposition to salvation by grace, as the only kind of faith is that which manifest “things which accompany salvation”, (Heb. 6:9) especially that unique love for the brethren.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (11:2) states:
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
James 2 makes this clear, and evangelical Protestantism has historically affirmed that the “obedience of faith” is what overall characterizes the life of the elect, and even praying can be called labor, (Col. 4:12) but the key dissension between them and Rome is that of attributing salvific merit to works, that by the grace of God one does works which help merit salvation.
Tthe Council of Trent “infallibly” defines that
“nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)
Canon 32 similarly states,
“If anyone says that..the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.” (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32. Also see The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed., Decree on Justification, Chapters V, VI, VII, X, XIV, XV, XVI) (emphasis mine)
The more recent Roman Catholic catechism states,
“Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)
As the nature of man is to place confidence in his supposed merit (and or that of his church) in order to avoid the debasement and surrender necessary to be saved, salvation by faith must be emphasized, and the preaching which beings souls under such conviction of their dire need for it is also critical. And this is what see in Acts, and the salvation of souls is my main burden.
:)!
St.Paul says " And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)
What matters is not the "claim" of authority directly from God Himself, because that claim is extremely common in history, and often a disastrous source of errors.
What is important is living contact with Christ's chosen Apostles and their successors.
Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)
He says the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2). He lays hands on other men to make them successors in his apostolic ministry (e.g. Timothy and Titus) and specifically acknowledges still others who, like Matthias, were also added on after the original Twelve:
"Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." (Romans 16:7)
What if any of these are in disagreement with each other? Then they have a council of the Apostles (as in Acts.) Century after century, human nature being what it is, there have always been disageements. That's why, century after century, in a manner that shows living continuity, there have always been councils of the Apostles' successors.
Please note that I am not making a detailed argument concerning who those successors are today. But if the church isn't just a failed attempt whose remnants are found old books and in the ashes of the past, if it didn't just peter-out after the first century, there must be an unbroken line of living successors.
I’m not understanding your post. Are you saying that Paul did not receive his revelations from Jesus Christ? That he was mistaken or misled? Forgive me if this is not what you are talking about, please let me know. thanks
Round and round we go MD....I think I’ll stop this spinning top here.
It happens to all of us. I try to get off when I start getting woozie. It doesn't always work out so smoothly, though!
Thank God for any help it gives!
Does that baptism require water? Again, it's a yes / no question that I am again asking.
If the answer is no - no water, then you are contrary to the vast majority of "Bible only" believers. And that's fine. It's a case in point of the fragmentation and confusion that arises from every believer with his Bible as ultimate authority.
If the answer is yes, please explain why Peter's answers to the question "What must we do to be saved" are applied to the Gentiles (under the "diapensation of grace") - "Repent and be baptized...."
Catch you on the flip side.
It’s difficult to get a level conversation when so many “other” elements are brought to the table then that being addressed....but it’s a well known tactic... unforuntely some use it and don’t even realize they’re doing so it’s become so intrenched. It does however.. reveal who is seeking the truth and some wanting to hear their own voice. Additionally the more “stuff” you can throw out there the easier to hide under.
Hasn’t been a “woozie” thing for me yet...rather deciding if I’m going to continue enabling the ride without an understanding or at least some learning along the way. At which point time to call a hault. In certain cases it’s even better not to engage at all I’ve learned. Rather sit back and enjoy the ride.
There is however some good things to learn here...and I am grateful for that.
Yes it is...and rightfully so when we are going nowhere in the conversation but around in circles...I have better use of my time and so do you. Best to go on to other topics.
"Ye men of Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs.."(Acts 2;22).
When they are pricked in their hearts and ask what they should do Peter replies "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you,in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38).
The dispensation of grace did not begin until Paul was saved.
"If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the grace of God which is given ME to you-ward: how that BY REVELATION He made known unto ME, the mystery..."(Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9).
Paul is not saved until Acts 9, so the Dispensation of the Grace of God could NOT have begun before then.
Peter was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom on the day of Pentecost. Exactly what Jesus Christ commanded him to do. Water baptism for remission of sins was integral to the Gospel of the Kingdom.
You misunderstand me. But this will be the last time I will ask this simple question.
Does a Christian have a duty to be baptized in with water. After you answer the question, I will be happy to carry on the discussion.
To be clear, I am not trying to trap you or discredit your beliefs. I just want to know how the “dispensation of grace” plays out in practice. Do you baptize with water and observe the Lord’s Supper?
LOL
Always interesting to meet somebody who thinks he knows better than I how I should spend my time.
If i may answer, water baptism - with the mode being into the water best corresponding to the meaning of “baptismo “and supported by the texts, (Mt. 3:16; Acts 8:38) - is what is commanded. (Mt. 28:19, etc.) And which requires repentance and faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36) and thus infant baptism is never exampled, though some see it under the rubric of household conversions. (Acts 16:33)
However, baptism is no more a work that merits justification than moving one’s lips in praying a “sinners prayer” is, and in fact, baptism is confessing Jesis is Lord by body language.
However, this does not mean one cannot be born again before they are baptized, as God recognizes what manner of faith is in the heart before it is expressed in baptism, and Cornelius and company received the same Holy Spirit that apostles had, before any water touched them. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) Their confession prior to that was that of magnifying God, as did the apostles at Pentecost. (Acts 2:11), while Rome herself recognizes “baptism of desire.”
"I THANK GOD THAT I BAPTIZED NONE OF YOU, But Crispus and Gaius, lest any man should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides I know not rather I baptized any other. For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be of none effect." (1 Cor. 1:14-17).
"For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED INTO one body,whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free..."(1 Cor. 12:13).
I didn't misunderstand. I am answering you. With the Truth of God's Word.
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.