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.
As opposed to volumes and libraries, and updates, and new revelation, and further explanation, and upgrades, and councils, and meetings, and post it notes, and improved teachings of the Catholic Church?! How do you keep up with it all. Do you eat meat on Fridays or not. Has it changed or is it a continuance of tradition? who says what when and why and will it change next year and what about today and do I have to go back and check for where I am today and do I sit and wait to hear about where I'll be tomorrow. No there is NO confusion there. It's just a clear, unchanging road of smooth operation. lol!
I am challenging, to the best of my limited ability the doctrine of sola scriptura.
My beliefs are another matter. I have revealed that I am an Orthodox Christian. Those beliefs are easily found all over the internet. No need for me to rehash it.
I have not beaten around any bushes. I have claimed that Sola leads to confusion. I have used the example of Bullgerism to buttress my argument. I have been as cordial, logical and concise and I am able. I have not taken any bait cast before me - latest e. g.(catholic two-step and we know this.
I am now finished with it.
I have found that some protestants are hypersensitive about not naming their denomination; they will demand that Catholics know every bit of the Catechism, all Catholic beliefs and traditions, and demand that all of them be matched to scripture to THEIR satisfaction. But they will almost never state that they belong to this or that denomination, with clearly defined dogma. I suspect that few of them know what their own churches teach, with the exception that all Catholics are going to hell.
If you are halfway objective about sola scriptura, or the Catholic Church, you will find yourself attacked for being Catholic, even if you aren’t.
I don’t understand it, but that’s how it looks, to me.
Don, you have decided not to believe in sola scriptura...a subject that is at the root of the differences between Protestants and Catholics and has been fought for centuries.
We see this continue on the threads clearly and without doubt.
You are now catholic I am non-catholic. That pretty much means we won’t agree on sola scripture. But there was a time you did believe in sola scriptura and it was your choice to turn away from that.
I believe in Gods word being the final authority...I believe when it says it was God-breathed that it is. I believe when God says man shall not live by bread alone but by every word the proceeds out of the mouth of God...that I will do that. I can only support those beliefs via the source who gave them and the assurance I have in Christ that His words are trustworthy.
Yes, it is a simple faith and trust...but it is not even that as much as who I place that trust in. He promised not to lead me astray and staying grounded in His word has proven many years to keep me on His path. The only time of confusion has come when “other” sources I read create that. But if they don’t stand the test of His written word why then should I believe in something which creates confusion?
So you see I cannot give you the debate on Sola Scriptura you are asking for apart from Gods word. I don’t trust other authors though they may enhance the foundation of learning I am already grounded in...and I think that is the key.... I know who I have believed in and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which is commited to Him against that day. His word is truth..I can trust it and rely on Him to guide me thru it just as He said He would do.
Trusting this did not bore you...it is not flavored with volumes of scripture or writings.
1. It was not bits and pieces of what would be included in Scripture that they instructed the church in, but the abundance of truth which you see in the multiplicity of epistles, as well as preaching, as they reasoned out of the Scriptures. (Acts 17:2) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: {20} Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet 1:19-21)
2. The N.T. does not support the Roman idea of the Lord's supper, esp., transubstantiation (see my work here). which was a developed doctrine, nor does it find unanimous consent among church fathers, despite her claim. See http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_mass.html (thus TCQ is copied in)
3. I can, but need not use more time read and watch a testimony of the relatively few souls who depart evangelical churches to become Catholics (the tide is far more numerous the other way) and who selectively use certain church fathers for support. That some sincere and holy souls believed or believe uScriptural ideas does not validate them.
The apostle and head theologian Paul warned of the growth of heresies after his departing, nor were all beliefs of future ecclesiastical figures that which he assured us are wholly inspired of God, but Scripture, and thus whatever would later qualify as that, and Rome's nebulous church tradition does not. The fact is Rome found forgeries useful to substantiate claims.
Moreover, the idea that Rome is what manifests the faith of the church of the New Testament their most is spurious, and doctrinally deviates from the early church, (1 2 3 4) which is not restricted to Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences, and its deviations were incremental, and multitudes of former Catholics have found life in evangelical churches, despite their faults, first and foremost by becoming born again, and manifesting evidences of it, in contrast to what Rome overall shows.
Most Christians believe it should be enough that we are Christian, we believe what Christ said of Himself that he did, He did, and that we follow Him....That is what a Christian is.
But unlike the catholic church, we do not depend on our church, as you do, to determine our beliefs, what literature is acceptable to read and the hosts of dos and don't the catholic church requires of it's members...rather where we attend ‘reflects’ our belief in Christ, that we are His, and His encouraging us to meet and share and learn from one another...”the Fellowship of the Saints”.
For that we can and do attend one anther's churches because the basics of Faith in Christ are generally agreed on. Catholics tend to see all these denominations as separate houses of faith...but for all those in Christ we are a body who fellowships in many houses, whose membership is in Christ across the denominations as one in body under Christ.
The catholic church has many buildings as well and memeberships of like faith but these are under the Pope and the church hierarchy explicitly and all must go thru them to be acceptable. Catholics are bound by and to their church and the Pope...Non-Catholics are free under Christ alone.
Thank you for all your work in getting the truth out. The doctrines and traditions of men will take hold of those who desire to be led. But the truth of God’s Word will stand. For all to see. It will save those who heed it, and will condemn those who deny it. It will stand. Maranatha!
AMEN, caww. Because our salvation is assured in the finished work of Christ, we are free to be workman for Christ. We can fellowship under the banner of Christ’s finished work and spread the news of the glorious Gospel of the Grace of God to others with all assurance and approval from His promises to us. Maranatha!
And where is THAT taught in the Bible?
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
To the same degree that these citations are thought to be representations of a continuum of Scripture truth or apostolic instruction, . . .
. . . just because they are dated at 70 AD or 110 AD . . .
. . . they could JUST AS WELL BE representations of the apostasy that was already present in Christendom even before the death of the Apostles; apostasy that was already present in 70-110 AD.
"The Lord's Day" is never used in Scripture to refer to one day in a seven-day week. The Lord's Day (i.e. The Day of the Lord) is always used in Scripture to refer to a prophetic period of judgment followed by a reign of Justice by a particular King.
In the Epistles, the Lord's Supper is never referred to as a "sacrifice" made by Christians.
The people referred to by the Lord in Matthew chs. 5-7 were not New Testament Christians, but rather Israelites who were still under the Law, and who were still bringing animal sacrifices to altars. The instruction of Jesus of Nazareth, in "the days of his flesh," (Hebrews 5:7), quite a different ministry from the ministry of the Man at God's Right Hand after His ascension, was that when they brought a lamb, a bullock, a turtle-dove, etc. to a sacrificial altar, and they then remembered that they had ought against any, they were to leave that sacrifice at the alter, first be reconciled with the brother, then return to make the sacrifice.
Matthew chs. 5-7 have absolutely no reference to the Lord's Supper. The Supper was had not yet been instituted.
The citations above could very easily mean only that as far back as 70-110 AD, theologian types were already putting Scripture and tradition in their own theoligical blenders and juicers for their own apostate purposes.
And they can’t understand the ways of God - HE gave us EVERYTHING He wants us to have knowledge of.
Some religions are repeating what satan did to Eve - there’s something more and here it is. It worked on her and it’s still working. NOTHING new under the sun.
God holds NOTHING back - He GAVE HIS ONLY SON - but satan says He does hold back. Here’s some oral tradition for you!
Deception is ugly!
Don’t you know Oral Tradition is their fall guy. It’s gotta be true, some one said it’s true.
That's what YOU say. I disagree.
But unlike the catholic church, we do not depend on our church, as you do, to determine our beliefs, what literature is acceptable to read and the hosts of dos and don't the catholic church requires of it's members...rather where we attend ‘reflects’ our belief in Christ, that we are His, and His encouraging us to meet and share and learn from one another...”the Fellowship of the Saints”.
I read anything I want, the 10 commandments are my dos and don'ts. I do not depend on the Catholic Church to determine my beliefs, I already believed the Gospels when I came into the Church. And the bald pretense of universal beliefs fades very rapidly when protestants have no common enemy and must fellowship with each other. It gets downright ugly, then. And you call yourselves Saints? LOL! Cheap saints. Our saints go through a process of discernment, and we try to emulate them, we don't declare ourselves to be saints.
You attend one another's churches? LOL! When was the last time a Baptist went to a Church of God of Prophecy, or a Presbyterian went to a Mormon's church? I just don't believe it. When did Assembly of God attend Lutheran? Or Church of Christ attend Methodist?
Non-Catholics are FREE under Christ alone? Free to do what? Bash Catholics? Feel superior to Catholics online? Hate Mormons? Trash the Mormons online? What shining examples of FREEdom! Very thin arguments.
It is not uncommon though for cult religions to borrow or use Christianity to attract the uninformed. In fact they oftentimes do...The UFO New Agers use it...Mormonism masks Christianity. So mergings are really not that uncommon. I think because it's voodoo it's more disturbing.
If you go to you tube you can see some of these still I'm sure. Google, Haiti voodoo or maybe Haiti religion.
hummmm-mmmm?
Going to bed..too late to respond fully to your post...will do that tomorrow after work perhaps.
Until whenever, God bless and keep you.
There seems to be a thought that the Church is or should be a bottom-up organization rather than top-down one. I don't think THAT's in the Bible. Everyone has a voice, certainly, but not everyone has a vote, as I see it. I may manage to be clearer when the coffee reaches my cerebral cortex. (the smart money however ....)
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.