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.
They want both, but Jesus clearly teaches you cannot have both Gods commands and mens traditions. When they hold onto their traditions they (states Christ) “nullify the word of God by their 'TRADITIONS' you have “'HANDED DOWN'.”
Many traditions are handed down thru the centuries but it does seem within the catholic church along the way they become dogma or commands as each popes might determine....as well as the authors of written works handed down. It has been an endless line of written material confusing even their own.
There was a thread here I read of dicussion over if meat was allowed now on Fridays or not in the Catholic faith. I was astounded that none could agree if allowed or not...one said yes the other said no and then the standard where do we go to find out. Stunning really! Becuase if this could not be known or agreed upon what then of the larger matters of their faith?
What is the source of your multi-page cut and paste? I went to the “source” link at the bottom, and that is not the source of the cut and paste writing.
A clear answer was given on that thread. It is not true, to say that "none could agree if allowed or not." But, perhaps your understanding is that of a child.
Paul did not dwell on his own authority as per Rome, that of claiming infallibility when speaking according to his infallibly defined formula, rather he relied upon (in order below) conformity with Scripture, supernatural Divine attestation, and personal purity, unique eye witness testimony, and secondarily, apostolic confirmation by living apostles for credence, and his judicious invocation of authority was on the basis of the above, and it evidential manifestation.
(Acts 17:2) “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,”
(Acts 28:23) “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.”
(Rom 15:18-19) “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, {19} Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”
(2 Cor 6:6-7) “By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, {7} By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,”
(1 Cor 9:1) “Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?”
(Gal 2:6-9) “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:..And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”
(1 Cor 4:18-21) “Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. {19} But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. {20} For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. {21} What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?”
(2 Cor 13:2-3) “I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare: {3} Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.”
"Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to MY GOSPEL, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, but NOW is made manifest, and BY the SCRIPTURES of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Rom. 16:25,26).
Paul was given a new message, a message that included salvation by grace through faith, the Church the Body of Christ, the One New Man. These weren't found in scripture. Otherwise, he could have gotten his ministry from Peter and the eleven. This was not of man. Not after man.
We have the scriptures because he was given the revelations.
The scriptures of the prophets that Paul refers to is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, found in the Old Testament. But even that is expounded on as new truth: That Christ died FOR OUR SINS, was buried, and rose again the third day.
(Bold added for emphasis, not yelling...;))
Good question. Let me look.
Amen Brothershalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThe spirit of confusion.
And who is the author of confusion ?
Just to be clear - are you saying that Paul was given a newer "message" than what Peter preached at Pentecost or St Stephen preached before he was martyred?
And to clarify my point: The authority of the Apostles (including Paul's) was why they could command obedience. The authority was promised by Christ and first confirmed with power at Pentecost - and then by revelation to Paul, an Apostle out of season.
Authority and power was given to the Apostles. That was the first tradition i.e. - the handing down from one Person (Christ) to another - the Holy Apostles.
Daniell....this is quite impressive and easily seen great work was put into bringing this together. I suspect there will be those who will right away demand how this came about...but frankly it is a fine piece of work....I will assume you brought this together and give you a standing ovation. Excellant...understandable and well written. I will be saving it as such...impressive indeed. A good reference I will enjoy having.... Thank you...
Found it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2524569/posts?page=203#203 It was not a multi-page cut and paste however, except for today’s beginning.
And God allowed the printing press to be invented because the “bishops” had stopped preaching the word God as found in scripture having corrupting the message of salvation. The Bible was literally taken out of the hands of the Bishops and over time was translated vernacularly to growing numbers who were learning to read and write. The church was more interested in politicking and temporal king making then they were preparing the sheep to be citizens of Christ’s Kingdom. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world and the Roman Catholics forgot that!
Absolutely I am saying this. Paul was not saved until Acts 9. How could his message be anything BUT newer than Peter's or Stephen's? Their message concerned a kingdom of believers. Paul message concerns a Body of believers. The Church the Body of Christ. Look back at the first part of Acts, before Paul was saved. Peter did NOT preach on the day of Pentecost that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. Peter was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel. Just as Christ instructed him to do.
Laying aside the gratuitous Roman slam, what are you talking about? Paul claimed the authority to tell other Christians what they needed to be doing and not doing. If it was understood that all the answers were in Scripture, why did he bother with his own personal bona fides?
Answer: It was not understood that way. The gospel was entrusted to the Apostles and to their successors. The Apostles received authority from Christ. The Apostles delivered (handed down) the authority to the Bishops. That's how it works.
Not interested.
What is the source of that teaching? I seem to recall hearing that when I was a Baptist - I was admonished to have nothing to do with it.
The Grace that was given to him did not mean his manners. It meant his message. To Paul was committed to Gospel of the Grace of God. To Peter and the 11 was committed the Gospel of the Kingdom. Once again, one involves a kingdom of believers and one involes a Body of believers. One was prophesied. The other was a mystery, hid in God.
I found the more often the great long pieces of catholic literature are posted that frequently it means the poster could not argue his point according to scripture... but was dependent on another authors words to explain his position...and further.. often with the intent the more stuff you throw at a person the more the topic at hand will be lost (confusion)...which sometimes is the purpose of the poster. Clouding the issues seems to be a trait used often....and we know who uses that tactic as well.
tsk tsk....nice one..
The other form of hermeneutic is alinsky. Attack the person. Amen !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
You wrote this entire thing?
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.