Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
ante-nicene
You can either take that interpretation or you can be consistent with the rest of the Bible and conclude Matt 16:18 is referring to the confession of Peter that Christ is the son of the living God is the cornerstone/foundation. Peter is a small rock, like the rest of believers, who make up the Church. The self-serving Catholic interpretation ignores many passages throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 2:5-6, Acts 4:11, and 1 Cor 3:11. Christ is the cornerstone.
It doesn't follow from the 2 Timothy quote. No one is disputing that the Bible is inspired, useful in arguments and in training, and it has been used as such by the Fathers of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles. What is being disputed is that it is the only rule of faith.
Granted, all Scripture is inspired by God.
St. Paul says Scripture is "useful" he does not say it is sufficient.
And in the context of this quote he is referring to the Old Testament not the New Testament as he tells Timothy: "because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." The New Testament had not yet been penned, certainly not 2 Timothy.
My Church started when Jesus came to the earth. The only requirement is that you accept Jesus as the son of the living God who died for your sins. The NT serves as a testimony for that. It doesn't matter when the NT was written or when the NT was first printed for the masses or any other random date you come up with. Any of that is irrelevant.
Further, that quote condemns the shameful Protestant attempt to truncate the Bible to accomodate their theological fantasies.
Peter affirms that Paul’s writings are themselves scripture. He says Paul’s words are twisted, that same as OTHER scripture is.
But, you miss the point.
Scripture is inspired BY GOD.
Name one other source of authority about which there is an authoritative statement that it is ITSELF “inspired BY GOD.”
Why, the Holy Apostles, of course (Jn 20:22). In other words, the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church is inpsired by God per the Holy Scripture and is authorized by Christ to sort out disputes (Mt 18:18).
According to you're statement you would believe any writing that claims to be the word of God.
You need an authorized authority to put any such claim to the test.
That Authority is the Catholic Church historically established by Jesus Christ which has proved it's Divine origins by the fact that it has existed for 2000 years unchanged, as Christ predicted.
While that isn't exactly saying "inspired by God", I'll go ahead and accept it as a scripture granting authority.
Now I ask you, "Where do you find the words of the Apostles?"
But according to the "Bible Only" principle the Fathers would be a non-Biblical authority, making them useless.
I agree with that to a degree. If I wish to establish the authenticity of a document, I need proof, don't I? If I have a writing that claims to be "Letter to the Ephesians from Paul the Apostle" I need some evidence to verify that.
Happily for us, that evidence was presented by those who had had chain of custody on that letter from Paul, and therefore, it was accepted into the canon of scripture.
Now for part 2.
Once I've agreed that these are the words of the Apostle Paul, my part is to do what: (1) pretend I'm in charge of those words, or (2) Acknowledge the authority of those instructions of an Apostle over me?
No matter how we approach it, we end up with the unique authority of scripture.
That is not to say that there isn't authority in the church for there is. However, we must admit that the Bible ONLY contains the inspired Word of God through His prophets and His apostles.
We find the teachings of the Apostles in the Catholic Church. Some of these were recorded verbatim and are in the Scripture, others were transmitted orally and are incorporated in the doctines and the liturgy of the Church.
Your question presupposes a certain answer, because you did not ask about the teaching but about the “words”. But the Holy Ghost ispired all the activities of the Apostolic College, not just writing, as is clear from the Scripture itself.
You are unable to prove that contention. That is its weakness.
We know, however, what the words of the Apostles in the Bible say.
Therefore, it is quite safe to say, “The Bible ONLY contains the words of the Apostles.”
Both the written scripture and the doctrines that explain and expound it come from the same source. So, your confidence in the scripture is no greater than my confidence in the entirety of the apostolic doctrine.
Besides, what you think you know through some evidence is not the same question as the question that is in front of us: is ONLY the scripture inspired?
We must not and cannot admit that because the Bible itself says there is another authority to be obeyed:
2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
What is before us is this: “”Bible Only” a false principle”. It was part of the title to this article. It is to that which I objected. I have already agreed that A FAITHFUL church and the true promptings of the Holy Spirit can also be authoritative.
I have demonstrated that the title of this article is wrong, because the Bible ONLY contains the provable, inspired Word of God through the Apostles. Therefore, “Bible Only” is NOT a false principle.
Now, I suspect that in regard to that question we both owe fidelity to some explanations from which we are not going to budge anytime soon and certainly not now.
Is there some other aspect of this which we should explore?
I would first point out that the context of the passage is teachings about salvation that had been handed down, but I'll be flexible.
First, the passage says these teachings had already been passed down by word prior to the writing of the letter to the Thessalonians. It says some of them had been delivered face-to-face (by word) and some by epistle.
It is obvious that none of us living today were present to hear those face to face sermons of Paul. But it is comforting to know that very early Paul affirms the authority of his epistles, and that some had already been written and sent out.
There is no acknowledgement that anyone other than the "our" mentioned in the passage could be the source of any teaching that was to be followed. Therefore, it had to be a teaching of Paul.
And we have the other necessary teachings of Paul preserved in his many other letters.
This is a contradictory statement. If you accept authority other than the Bible then you agree that Bible Only is a false principle.
No, but St. Paul preached what he had received and that truth must still be able to be found whether written or orally passed on as Christ said "teaching them to observe ALL things.. and I am with you all days". It is impossible for Christ to have failed to keep all his truth available to the world.
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.