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.
For now: No on Gnostics. I'm glad we agree on that!
God bless you.
And you. Maranatha! svitw
John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Here we have the purpose statement for the gospel of John. John wrote down the miracles in this book (from the wine at Cana, to the resurrection) to show that Jesus was the Christ, that we would believe and have eternal life.
Johns comments here ARE a case for sola scriptura.
You don't know that He didn't either ... and that is as valid as your argument.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Because Paul was not an eyewitness of the events that the other apostles were. Further, and more importantly, He was not taught the gospel ... He received it by direct revelation. Read the first few chapters of his letter to the Galatians ... its in plain black and white.
WOW... I'd almost read that as authoritative or condescending.
But in response. I don't like the word Duty. It sounds like just another hoop to earn our way in, but I can't think of a better word, 14-1/2 hours at work and I'm running on impulse.
Actually maybe duty is the right word. Baptism has NO bearing on salvation, BUT it is a command given to the disciples to perform on one who has converted. So, yes, it is a duty. One should be baptized to honor and obey Christ. It is an outward and public declaration of making Christ Lord of our lives. If one isn't willing to publicly profess Christ, through baptism, what is the "faith" one has? Also, baptism is such a simple command, if one isn't willing to obey such a simple command, is Christ truly LORD?
So yeah duty fits.
Communion-Is it a duty? Following what I said of baptism, YES! Communion is to be a regular happening in a believers life. Its a humbling experience for the believer, for we are not to partake unworthily. So it humbles us to reflect on our lives before we partake. It also brings us to reverence to what Christ has done. We are humbled he is revered. Then we partake, we share in what Christ has done for us. We are identifying with his broken body and spilled blood.
You will get different answers from RCs on that one.
Seems to me one of the most popular genre for the writers of the Bible is Historical Narrative.
I do not need to be convinced of Paul’s authority. I’ll restate my question:
Why is there only the one verse (”study to show thyself...) verse, in only one of his epistles, that encourages Bible reading?
Only the one passage - to Timothy. Why doesn’t every epistle have reference to Bible reading as the way to fix all the problems that he was addressing?
Thank you. I addressed my question to a poster who had written about the gospel message of Paul and its difference from the gospel preached at Pentecost. I am still awaiting the answer from that poster.
According to what I have read about the “mid Acts dispensation” Baptism” and the “Lord’s Supper” are not for the Church.
Wrong!
Had He instructed themt to do so, it would have been recorded as such at the verby beginning of the Canon of Scripture.
Yes I am Catholic and pleased as punch that God led me to the Church in 2008.
But my question still is “What is finished?”
In your opinion.
bttt
For the sake of good will and good communication, let me review some of the things we have in common: we believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, the Son of God who was incarnate in the flesh and walked among us, and whose atoning death opened the way for our salvation. I believe in those same 66 books of Scripture you believe in, and the truth that's contained in those 66 books.
We reject the Gnostic scriptures--- as well as the Muslim scriptures, the Mormon scriptures, the Sun Yung Moon scriptures---- as not-inspired and as erroneous.
Now, here's what puzzles me: for a solid 1500 years, Christians accepted not 66 but 72 books of Scripture, because they included the whole Septuagint Jewish Canon with Wisdom and Esther and Maccabees and so forth. All of the eminent men of the Refgormation (Luther, Calvin, Knox and the rest) accepted these books. All the first English-language Bibles of the Reformation, including the KJV, included these books.
And the majority of Christians still accept these books to this very day. Even the American Bible Society long ago lifted any restriction on the distribuion of Bibles that include all 72 books, under their sponsorship.
Now, I don't understand this. I cannot call myself an expert or scholar, that would be ridiculous because I don't even read Greek or Hebrew. So what I want to know is, for what reason, according to what line of reasoning, or by what authority can a Christian or a group of Christians delete or add books to the Bible?
It's evident that groups of Christians did and do so. I am not enough of a historian to be able to say exactly who or exactly when but I do know that at the time of the English Reformation these Septuagint books were in all the new, beautifully translated, non-Catholic, un-Orthodox, English Protestant Bibles; these Bibles complete with with the Septuagint books were widely and popularly read by Anglicans, Reformers, Puritans, all of them; but starting around 1630-1660, the 6 Septuagint books were omitted from subsequent official authorized (by Parliament) English publications.
I'm looking for reasons.
I don't think pious and learned people do things without a rationale based on evidence, logical deductions, and reasonable inferences: in other words, defensible arguments. I assume this of both the 16th century English people who included all the books of the Septuagint, and the 17th century ones that omitted them. This shows my respect for ALL of them as rational people.
I'm sincerely trying to follow the trail of evidence as to WHO has this authority to exclude books previously held as sacred Scripture? And on what basis do they include or exclude books?
These are not trick, "gotcha" questions, and they come from my desire to understand reasons.
My ears are perked hopefully. On the other hand, if the reasons do not interest you, I will certainly not keep pressing for them.
Peace. Maranatha.
True, neither do we (except in the supreme sense) , as the Scriptures provide for the teaching office of the church, supernatural attestation, the use of history, etc. and even human ability to reason. But the N.T. Christians evidenced that the Scriptures, even in their uncompleted condition, were the supreme objective doctrinal authority. Thus the claims of Christ and His doctrine, and the preaching of the apostles and teaching of the church were proved by the Scriptures, (Lk. 24:22.27,32,45,46; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 13:33; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 28:23; etc.) and did not rest upon a claim to formulaic infallibility.
Rome may claim its teaching is Scriptural, though confessing some are not found therein, but certain teachings rely upon upon her claim to conditional infallibility, thus according to her interpretation, only her interpretation is correct in any conflict.
How many verses constitute truth? How about Joshua 1.8? There, there's a second one ... is that enough yet? Do I need to produce a third? Would three be enough?
Are you really going to argue that the Bible encourages its own reading in only one place?
It is unbelievable what a Catholic will believe in order to not believe the Bible.
Your conjecture is just that ... a conjecture that holds nothing over the opposing position.
My point is that a reasonable person could expect to find this most important principle (sola scriptura) all over. If it were what God intended. We don’t because He didn’t.
And, btw, I am not capital C Catholic. I am small c catholic and capital O Orthodox.
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.