Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

cna ^

[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.

[NYer]

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.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "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 doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine. Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough. We must also obey the oral tradition. This is the body of teaching that Christ gave the apostles that was not written down (if it were, Saint John says that "even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25). In other words, it's everything else the Church teaches on faith and morals. We can be thankful for the oral apostolic traditions which have definitively taught us about the Blessed Trinity, the two natures of Christ (human and divine), the union of those natures (hypostatic union), the Filioque (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), and the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible and what books do not). All of these teachings, and many, many more, are not explicitly taught in the Bible, yet are generally believed by all Christians. To learn more about the oral apostolic tradition, buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

We should also note that the apostolic traditions Paul is commanding us to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are not the same as the Pharisaical traditions that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:9. The traditions Jesus condemned dealt with the Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the New Testament Gospel. So there are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul commands, which we must accept.

[daniel1212]

Your reliance upon 2Thes. 2:15 further examples to the spurious nature of your polemic.

1. This text does NOT validate everything else the or a Church may teach on faith and morals, but which assurance is only given to Scripture, but that the Scriptural teaching of the apostles was binding, and could belong or did, to the class of revelation called Scripture . To assumed this authority one needs to have both the manner of Scriptural substantiation, supernatural Divine attestation, and personal holiness, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) which Rome in comparison manifestly does not.

Just considering her popes, which are necessary for her historical argument of unbroken succession (which itself is not the valid basis, but Biblical gospel-faith), we see that some were not even qualified to be church members, (1Cor. 5:11-13) let alone leaders of the flock. (1Tim. 3:1-7) Unlike under the Old Testament, Caiaphas-types themselves would be excommunicated.

In addition, are teachings which depend upon her claim to infallibility, not Scriptural warrant or even the unanimous consent of the fathers.

2. The apostles were dealing with an open canon of Scripture, which again, is the only objective source of revelation which the inspired apostle declared is 100% God-breathed, not whatever the church may teach on faith and morals.

Holding to the latter would in essence by adding to the canon, while it allows a church to both autocratically self-define itself as the one true church based upon her presumption that she is infallible when it officially (as defined by them) teaches on faith and morals.

She thus solicits implicit faith in itself, with Catholics not needing to examine the veracity of her teaching by the Scriptures. In contrast, the Holy Spirit commends those who tested the very apostle’s teaching by the Scriptures, and unlike such doctrines as the as bodily assumption of Mary, church teaching was manifestly Scripturally based. (Acts 15)

It is very appealing to some to have a supreme infallible magisterium which souls implicitly trust in, but outside Himself, and for which He provided warrant for such faith, the Lord did not play it so “safe”, but showed how even the Jewish magisterium could seriously fail, and raised up prophets from outside it to reprove them, whom they often killed. And so has Rome.

3. The Thessalonians received the apostles preaching for the word of God that it was, (1Thes. 2:13) and there is no real evidence that the gospel truth they were referring to was extra Biblical revelation.

And again (as it is evident you did not read all my post) SS does NOT hold that all that can be known is in the Bible, and its preachers are said to preach the word of God themselves, but that all must be tested by the Scriptures.

4. It is NOT because purported oral apostolic traditions are equal with Scriptural that we believe Nicene Creed foundational truths (which is wise, and considering Rome has even resorted to forgeries to obtain apostolic witness), but because they are soundly Scriptural, such as the Divinity of Christ.(http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html)

5. The reason why the Pharisaical traditions were condemned by the Lord is because they were counter Scriptural, but according to the premise of Rome, which affords formulaic infallibility to teaching based upon her infallible declaration to be infallible, such could not be said to be counter Scriptural when declared by Rome.

6. The apostles did not rest upon such a claim to formulaic infallibility, but again, it was by demonstrable Scriptural proof, and supernatural Divine attestation and their own character, that they appealed to good and honest hearts, “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor., 4:2b)

It was when souls disobeyed the truth they knew that they invoked their established apostolic authority, proving it by spiritual power to chastise, and did not use the carnal means of the Inquisitions, nor passive tolerance.

7. Your own appeal to Scripture in seeking to disallow it as the supreme objective doctrinal authority, attributes the very thing to it, unless you are merely referring to as a “reliable historical document,” which is what RC apologetics has been known to resort to when faced with this dilemma.

[daniel1212]

Saw your post, and remembered some stats:

According to the Pew Forum survey, (http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/multiplefaiths/multiplefaiths.pdf), which was conducted Aug. 11-27-09 among 4,013 adults:

72% of Americans stated they attend religious services at least a few times a year, 38% at least once a week and 34% who attend once or twice a month or a few times a year. 27% said they seldom or never attend religious services.

35% of Americans answered that they regularly (9%) or occasionally (26%) attend religious services at more than one place, with 24% of the public overall expressing that they sometimes attend religious services of a faith different from their own.

Of those who attend religious services yearly or more, 37% said they always attend services at the same place, while 35% said they regularly or occasionally attend religious services at different places, aside from when they are traveling and going to special events.

Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 39% said they attend at multiple places and 28% go to services outside their own faith.

33% Protestants attend services outside their own denomination, with 40% of black Protestants, 24% of white Evangelicals and 22% of white mainline Protestants attending other Protestant denominations. 18 percent of Protestants overall indicated that they attend non-Protestant services, with 19% of black Protestants, 13% of white Evangelicals, and 14% of mainline Protestants occasionally attending Catholic Mass. ^

20% of Catholics answered that they attended services of at least one faith outside Catholicism, with 18% of Catholics overall and 16% of white Catholics saying they attend Protestant services. 5% report attending services at Jewish synagogues. ^

[small voice in the wilderness]

I do not depend on the Catholic Church to determine my beliefs, I already believed the Gospels when I came into the Church.

AWESOME.

So you eat meat on Fridays? Because that's not found in the Gospels. It's found in Catholic tradition. Or do you choose instead to eat grilled cheese sandwiches, vegetable pizzas, salads, you know-"better safe than sorry" ? And yes, I put that in quotations for a reason.

[John Leland 1789]

"Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough."

1 & 2 Thessalonians were the very first two books written by Paul. The gift of prophesy was still in effect, no other of Paul's books were written. Other books of the NT were not yet written.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Taking "have been taught," and teaching that that refers to any Vatican-approved or mandated "traditions" at any time is ludicrous.

Much of the remainder of the post appears to be circular reasoning back to the Vatican, and just makes everything fit Vatican teaching by habit, when there is little connection.

Do you mean to say that Catholics are unable to understand the Godhead and the natures of Christ from a preponderance of the Scriptures themselves?

[NYer]

This text does NOT validate everything else the or a Church may teach on faith and morals, but which assurance is only given to Scripture, but that the Scriptural teaching of the apostles was binding, and could belong or did, to the class of revelation called Scripture .

The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

You can argue your position all you want but Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

[Uri’el-2012]

You can argue your position all you want but Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

Nor is a Roman "church" ruling the folowers of Yah'shua.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[presently no screen name]

Thanks for the info. What I was experiencing was one of those times “where the truth seems unbelievable”. The shock is over. As soon as you think you heard it all - another one pops up. Deception is really that THICK in false religions.

Since I’m well aware of how ‘unbelievable’ happens - moreso, being on the RF when God’s Word is posted and it’s unbelievable to some and they rather hang onto their sacred cows of oral tradition and interpretations given to them by hierarchy and NOT from the Holy Spirit.

When the HS resides within, HE confirms Truth when it is heard or read when one has an open heart for Truth.

[daniel1212]

Your attempt to deliver your church from her authority being subject to Scriptural examination rather than effectively resting upon her own declaration has resulted in a continuing vain attempts, from misconstruing SS to reading later RC doctrine into the N.T. church, all of which have been refuted with no real attempt by you to respond, except by coming up with another specious argument, and now you attempt to defend sola ecclesia by attributing the recognition of Scripture to her. However, this also is fallacious, due to the following facts.

1. The bulk of Scripture was already written and recognized as such before the Roman church existed, which is why it could be so abundantly invoked and alluded to. And while it is certain that the Jews were given stewardship over the Scriptures, (Rm. 3:12) it is also certain that this did not confer assured infallibility whenever they spoke on faith and morals. (Mk. 5:13) How much more presumptuous it is for Rome to claim such, when the Scriptures do not teach that all the church teaches on faith and morals is infallible, nor that the church of Rome is the only true church, but which doctrines rests upon her own assertion of infallibility, nor is the authenticity of the church based upon lineage, but faith.

2. Even if Rome were uniquely given stewardship over Scripture and its authority to determine its extent and meaning, according to the logic of Rome, we should be subject to the Jews to whom Scripture was explicitly entrusted, and through whom it came, and was discerned by, and was defined.

3. While the Jews had a small degree of disputation about a few book, Rome itself had no infallible definition of what the extent of Scripture consisted of until over 1,500 years after the birth of Christ. You can invoke Hippo or Florence, but these did NOT provide an infallible decision, and the issue of the apocrapha was a matter of ongoing dispute right up until Trent.

Thus Rome did not evidence that an infallible definition was the salvific priority her apologists now attribute to it, while it was because of the (imperfect) Protestants, who proved Rome by the Scriptures, that resulted in Rome finally, but imperfectly, providing a final authoritative canon for herself.

4. Rome did not write the Bible, nor can it declarations make a writing inspired by God, any more than such can make a man inspired of God, and at best they can only ratify what has become manifestly evident, and the enduring acceptance of the Scriptures as such by free people who choose to read them is not due to ecclesiastical decrees, but because of their enduring power unique and transformative effects in those who trust and obey, predictive fulfillments, historical accuracy, and overall complementarity but not contradictory internal consistency, and attestation by those who exhibited the manner of Godliness and power which are consistent with that revelation.

To reiterate, it is not man’s declarations of what has made the best seller list of the saints is what gives Scripture its authority, but its unique qualities make it the Heavenly classic. While this method may allow dissent, so it is with men of God. But they also are established as such by their qualities, not man’s decrees, “For the the kingdom of God is not in word [as by man’s professions], but in power.” (1Cor. 4:2) And the longer the Bible has been read, believed and obeyed and withstands the competition, the stronger its establishment has becomes. To God be the glory.

And while those who are blindly bound to defend a autocratic entity which presume supreme authority may continue to insolently deny it, the supremacy of Scripture, with its otherwise Divine attestation, is what is found in the Scriptures, and not formulaic ecclesiastical assurance of infallibility in whatever it may declare in faith and morals.

[presently no screen name]

a Roman "church" .

EXACTLY!! The RCC hierarchy certainly use the same head gear as the Roman army did - and all their pomp and circumstance.

ruling the followers of Yah'shua

"My sheep listen to MY voice; I know them, and THEY FOLLOW ME".

His followers know HIS Voice/His Word and listen to NO OTHER. Jesus is The Cornerstone of HIS Church - never man.

[Uri’el-2012]

"My sheep listen to MY voice; I know them, and THEY FOLLOW ME".

Amen !

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[presently no screen name]

And the longer the Bible has been read, believed and obeyed and withstands the competition, the stronger its establishment has becomes. To God be the glory.

AMEN and AMEN!!

[presently no screen name]

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

While it is understood in the Bible - Eve being DECEIVED into thinking there is 'MORE' other than what God SPOKE/already GAVE them IS IN THE BIBLE!

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth".

[presently no screen name]

Eve being DECEIVED into thinking there is ‘MORE’ other than what God SPOKE/already GAVE them IS IN THE BIBLE!

We not only hear The Word but DOERS of the Word. APPLY The Word to one’s life.

Examine what God’s tells us in His Word - there are lessons in Eve’s being deceived into thinking THERE IS MORE.

Study and meditate on His Word...

Anyone deceive you into thinking there is MORE than God’s Word?

[NYer]

coming up with another specious argument

Nothing specious about anything that I have posted. Nothing at all. I have posted the facts. It is up to you to show me the passage in Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura.

[Judith Anne]

So you eat meat on Fridays? Because that's not found in the Gospels. It's found in Catholic tradition. Or do you choose instead to eat grilled cheese sandwiches, vegetable pizzas, salads, you know-"better safe than sorry" ? And yes, I put that in quotations for a reason.

I do not eat meat on Friday. Why? I'll give you a shallow answer, because it is much more, much deeper than this, but this is all I expect any protestant to understand (most protestants deride our Traditions, make fun of them, refuse to see their relevance) Because Friday is the traditional day of the week that Christ was crucified, and I want to remember that He suffered and died to save us from our sins.

When I go shopping, I think of His sacrifice as I buy the food that will help me remember His death on the cross. When I prepare food, even on another day of the week, I'm remembering that He died on the cross to save us all from our sins. On Friday, I remember His sacrifice for the world by eating something other than meat.

In other words, it's a reminder, whenever I do something connected with food that Christ is my Savior, by His Cross and Resurrection He has set us free, He is the Savior of the world. It reminds me, every Friday, of the fast of Good Friday when His death is in my mind all day.

Weaving daily life into my prayer life in many large and small ways is part of my TRADITIONAL way to practice my faith.

There is much much more to this Tradition than simply abstaining from meat on Friday, but this Tradition is precious to me, because of my Lord Jesus Christ, and I don't feel like sharing it with a bunch of legalistic protestants trying to trip up Catholics or ridicule my Church's Holy Tradition.

Am I resentful of snide questioning? You bet. Do I owe ANYONE an answer? No. Will I play a stupid gotcha game? To a point.

[John Leland 1789]

"The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura."

Which "church" is that now?

[John Leland 1789]

"Holy Catholic Church"

Where is THAT taught in the Bible?

[Do Be]

The Catholic Church just can’t get over the fact that the Word of God alone can free men’s souls and they no longer have power over their salvation

The Catholic Church never had such power. That power is in the hands of each and every man.

[Do Be]

Post #39. Good post.