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.

[caww]

Yeah, the democratic party does the same thing...just when you think you’ve heard it all from them.

THICK is a good word for that I’m going to just have to borrow PNSN! Good one!

The Lord is good to unfold and reveal His truth to the willing. I would not be where I am now in the Lord were He not persistant in leading me and guiding me....He not only calibrates our decisions as we walk with Him, but He calibrates the path we are on as well.

[presently no screen name]

The Lord is good to unfold and reveal His truth to the willing.

AMEN! He keeps nothing from His children.

[small voice in the wilderness]

I’m certain that you don’t believe abstaining from meat on Fridays has anything to do with your salvation. Because you see, that would not be a ‘snide’ comment. Or a ‘gotcha question’. That would be a question of just what salvation in the Catholic Church actually consists of.

[Seven_0]

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

Trick question? What is scripture? perhaps the following verse will tweak your definition.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Even God's creation, which is quite helpful in interpreting scripture came from the word. It spoke to Abraham before the Bible was written

Seven

[presently no screen name]

That was no trick question - it was the most obvious question!

It spoke to Abraham before the Bible was written

God spoke to Abraham .

[don-o]

Judith Anne gave a clear explanation for one aspect of her fasting discipline. I understood what she said. It goes deeper than what one puts into ones mouth on any particular day or season of the year. It goes beyond rule keeping.

It goes to a mindset that seeks to practice the presence of God all the time in every thing. Fasting is but one spiritual tool that is available for our use.

During Great Lent, which the Orthodox are encouraged to abstain from meat, dairy, wine and oil, we are told that a fast without repentance is just a diet. The demons never eat.

Behind all the “externals” of the ancient faith, there is a spiritual reality that corresponds to how human beings actually ARE. Focusing on the externals without reference to the spiritual reality is worse than futile.

But, these things require some measure of humility and obedience; both of which cannot coexist in a prideful heart.

[Grunthor]

ty

[small voice in the wilderness]

I understand that. I just asked if it is part of your salvation process. To eat meat on Fridays. would your salvation be in jeopardy?

Just a simple yes or no answer would do.

[caww]

Well Judith it appears you are in a fairly good place being able to use, and read, any literature references you desire to support your beliefs without it being approved by the church...that's a good thing.

As for the 10 commandments these were given to show us we are sinners...for without God establishing these how would one know if we're sinning or not? We wouldn't. Besides this, God said if we are guilty of even one of the very least of His commandments we are guilty of them ALL...so that pretty much condemns us daily... no matter how hard we try to fulfill them we'll miss the mark. Therefore since Christ died to free us from “the Law of sin and death”.. we are no longer under that Law, Rather we walk now by faith In Him, trusting, and the guidance of His Holy Spirit who uses His word as a compass thru life's dilemmas and allowing Christ to live His life thru us. Those now justified in Him live by faith in Christ the author and finisher of our faith.

Am not sure what you might mean by Universal Faith Judith...many today use Universal to mean a World wide Religion which one day the anti-Christ will control. Most non-catholics do not adhere to that.

You mentioned the catholic church saints go thru some sort of process and the membership tries to emulate them. Where we non-catholics are prone to emulate Christ as we allow Him to live His life thru us...and as for saints...we are, as Christians, called to be His own people and our inheritance is saints in Christ and the spirit intercedes for the saints (us) in accordance with God's will. It is positional status because we are in Christ. He declares us saints...we don't....and that because of Christ Jesus’s finished work on our behalf...God sees us thru His sons righteousness...not anything at all that we do.

Well we do attend each others Churches...and more...my brothers church just moved into a new church and they are Anglican, those who assisted in this move were Baptists. Further my work has taken me to many re locations and I have attended many various denominations and been warmly received. Just as catholics can attend a catholic church in another city or state while traveling. But I would say I would not attend a Mormon church for obvious reasons.

You stated...”Non-Catholics are FREE under Christ alone?”...Yes that is correct. He has set us free thru his life, death, burial and resurrection, and for doing so is the head of all our churches because He sits at the right hand of God the Father now and intercedes on our behalf.

[don-o]

I don’t know what a “salvation process” is so I cannot give a yes/no answer.

I do know that if I consistently reject actions and attitudes that help me conform myself to Jesus Christ, then I am moving away from Him, rather than toward Him. I see salvation as a journey, not a destination.

[small voice in the wilderness]

I see salvation as a journey

that would be a salvation process.

The reason I ask this question is because I was reading a Caucus Thread the other day and some (Catholics) were surprised that the meatless Fridays were still in operation. Seems they didn't know it was still in effect. I'm thinking to myself, because I can't post on a Catholic Caucus Thread, 'what would that do to my salvation process if I was doing something today that I thought was okay now, and suddenly I find out that it isn't'? just what is a Catholic's duty to KNOW what is allowed/not allowed, especially because you're on a salvation journey, and you don't believe you can know that you are saved in this life?

[Judith Anne]

Thank you for your comments.

[don-o]

Remember, I told you I am not a Catholic. I am an Orthodox. I will not speak of specifically Catholic issues. I already stated my belief.

It’s not about rule keeping. Rules are an aid to transformation of the inner man - and that IS a daily “process.”

[caww]

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.

Oh wow...Excellant point and true! God did raise up prophets to reprove the Jewish magisterium...and they did often kill them. Good point to ponder and I will remember this. Thanks.

[small voice in the wilderness]

The ‘salvation journey’ is something that seems to be shared by Catholics and Orthodox. With works being part of your salvation process. By that, you’ve committed yourself to works for your justification and ultimate salvation. Which is the law. So you will be judged by the Law. How incumbent is it then, those who follow the Law for their journey, to know exactly what they are following? Can a person claim they didn’t know a particular part? Or were told differently? I just don’t see how that holds up, the ability to claim ignorance of the very law they have committed themselves to keeping. That’s a question for anyone who believes that their works are part of their salvation.

[don-o]

I make it a policy to not reply to strawman arguments. My belief has nothing to do with “law keeping.”

Not interested in discussing your misconceptions.

[small voice in the wilderness]

It isn't a strawman argument. it is a fact.

"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:3,4).

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal.2:16).

I'm sure you aren't interested. Your belief has everything to do with law keeping. if your salvation rests on your works, you are depending on your works to save you.

[Seven_0]

That was no trick question - it was the most obvious question!

Depending on how you define terms, I cold answer either way. I think we have more than God's word. We have his work also.

God spoke to Abraham .

I agree. When God speaks, it is scripture.

[presently no screen name]

My question wasn’t to define Scripture. Not sure where you got that from.

My question was aligned to what I posted above it and that made my question very explicit. Eve was deceived into thinking there was more. Who deceived her?

Study and meditate and apply The Word to one’s life.

Is anyone deceiving you into thinking you don’t have all of God’s Word?

[daniel1212]

Your response ignores what has been shown, as usual, which your very demand is duplicitous. What you have been shown is that the only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired by God is Scripture, thus it stands in judgment on all other purported revelation, and the Lord and His apostles exampled this by only teaching that which was consistent with Scripture, and invoking its authority, while demonstrating sound exegesis as well.

As for you, you have neither supplied a passage which teaches sola ecclesia, which is effectively your position, nor have or can you show and defend that the Scripture promises that whatever the Roman church may teach on faith and morals would be infallible (which would include declaring that it is so), any more than the Jewish magisterium was.

In addition, if you do attempt to prove such based upon the authority of Scripture then you attribute to it the supremacy you deny it. And if do not, then you polemic rests upon Rome’s infallible declaration that she is infallible, and around you go, digging yourself into an ever bigger hole.

Good night.