2 Tim 3:16 which scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trevor_Stamm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trevor_Stamm

Guest
Ave Maria

[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

A question to Protestants who use this verse as a defense of Sola Scriptura. To you, what scripture was St. Paul speaking of in this verse?

Please note the date of this letter: 64-68 AD.
 
that’s a mind boggler…i fear my answer may be too liberal but for me:
anything where people have the Lord in mind (even music lyrics!) that is supposed to bring others closer to God and His son…but there are many “inspired works” that I can think of that meant well but weren’t friendly to Catholic Doctrine
 
You found a bad proof-text that is used all too often by my people. You are right to point that out.

It does work both ways, though. You know this. Maybe you could do something similar when it’s happening in the opposite direction. Catholics do bad proof-texting too, you know.
 
Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This splendid text (one of the famous 3: 16’s of the bible) actually upholds the holiness of Sacred Scripture, rather than teaching that it is a sole authority.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
krahnicles said:
You found a bad proof-text that is used all too often by my people. You are right to point that out.

It does work both ways, though. You know this. Maybe you could do something similar when it’s happening in the opposite direction. Catholics do bad proof-texting too, you know.
Click to expand...
So, what was he referring too then? I already know from the Catholic perspective, I just would like to know what Protestants think he is referring too.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
So, what was he referring too then? I already know from the Catholic perspective, I just would like to know what Protestants think he is referring too.
Click to expand...
Any and all Scripture that has been inspired of God. Did you come up with something different?
 
krahnicles said:
You found a bad proof-text that is used all too often by my people. You are right to point that out.

It does work both ways, though. You know this. Maybe you could do something similar when it’s happening in the opposite direction. Catholics do bad proof-texting too, you know.
Click to expand...
May you please provide an example of Catholics proof-texting?
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Specifics please. What was St. Paul referring to?
Click to expand...
The Old Testament, as it was the only scripture in existence at the time. Of course it wasn’t referred to as The Old Testament and there were various cannons of Jewish scripture in existence during that time as well.
 
Michael1978 said:
The Old Testament, as it was the only scripture in existence at the time. Of course it wasn’t referred to as The Old Testament and there were various cannons of Jewish scripture in existence during that time as well.
Click to expand...
More important,different sects of Jews (Essenses,Sadducees,Pharisees,etc) adhered to different text. None of the 12 or Jesus ever state a canonical list of the OT texts to only follow.
 
Nicea325 said:
More important,different sects of Jews (Essenses,Sadducees,Pharisees,etc) adhered to different text. None of the 12 or Jesus ever state a canonical list of the OT texts to only follow.
Click to expand...
Really puts a chink in the ol’ sola scriptura armor.
 
Nicea325 said:
May you please provide an example of Catholics proof-texting?
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 
Evan said:
Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Nope! Matt 16:18 is just one verse in lieu of many other verses. You are the one assuming Catholics are isolating that one verse to support the primacy of Peter. You apparently have forgotten well over 50 NT verses supporting Peter’s primacy.
 
Nicea325 said:
Nope! Matt 16:18 is just one verse in lieu of many other verses. You are the one assuming Catholics are isolating that one verse to support the primacy of Peter. You apparently have forgotten well over 50 NT verses supporting Peter’s primacy.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but I have seen this one used as a proof text in many discussion concerning

Peter = Pope
Pope = Authority over all
Church built on Peter (or the Pope)

If the discussion continues, some will bring other verses, but there was a question of ‘when do Catholics proof-text’. I’ve seen this one used a lot.
 
Evan said:
That may be true, but I have seen this one used as a proof text in many discussion concerning

Peter = Pope
Pope = Authority over all
Church built on Peter (or the Pope)

If the discussion continues, some will bring other verses, but there was a question of ‘when do Catholics proof-text’. I’ve seen this one used a lot.
Click to expand...
I understand your position and it is fair to say it is “proof-text” for papal primacy. However, the verse does say a lot,but the problem is many non-Catholics have no concept or comprehension of several facets:

The name change of Simon to Kephas and its signifance
The Keys and specifically said to Peter alone & related to Isaiah 22
The terms bind and loose

That is where much of the confusion lies.

Peace
 
Nicea325 said:
I understand your position and it is fair to say it is “proof-text” for papal primacy. However, the verse does say a lot,but the problem is many non-Catholics have no concept or comprehension of several facets:

The name change of Simon to Kephas and its signifance
The Keys and specifically said to Peter alone & related to Isaiah 22
The terms bind and loose

That is where much of the confusion lies.

Peace
Click to expand...
I know. They dismiss the entirety of the text rather than using it as a lead-in to understanding it in conjunction with other supporting texts and the ECF.

They also dismiss this text because Peter tempts Jesus (acts as a Satan=Tempter) in the next verse. Which shows that Peter could sin.

Of course, even that is irrelevant as he was not elevated to Pope until he was a priest (Last Supper) and bishop (Ascension). The Church was not built till after Pentecost, only then could he understand the keys, only when Jesus gives the authority to men at the ascension and they receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
 
Evan said:
I know. They dismiss the entirety of the text rather than using it as a lead-in to understanding it in conjunction with other supporting texts and the ECF.

They also dismiss this text because Peter tempts Jesus (acts as a Satan=Tempter) in the next verse. Which shows that Peter could sin.

Of course, even that is irrelevant as he was not elevated to Pope until he was a priest (Last Supper) and bishop (Ascension). The Church was not built till after Pentecost, only then could he understand the keys, only when Jesus gives the authority to men at the ascension and they receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Click to expand...
They dismiss the entirety of the text rather than using it as a lead-in to understanding it in conjunction with other supporting texts and the ECF

I like what you said in the above sentence,because the same can be applied to the Arians at Nicaea in 325 A.D. The Arians were isolating verses as oppose to the church which used the entirety of Scripture to support and prove Jesus divinity.
 
Nicea325 said:
They dismiss the entirety of the text rather than using it as a lead-in to understanding it in conjunction with other supporting texts and the ECF

I like what you said in the above sentence,because the same can be applied to the Arians at Nicaea in 325 A.D. The Arians were isolating verses as oppose to the church which used the entirety of Scripture to support and prove Jesus divinity.
Click to expand...
You bring up an interesting observation of mine. When did it become fashion to take isolated texts and string them togehter. I ask this as studen of thought. There is nothing new under the sun. Oneness Pentacostals are Sabellians and it appears that this method of using Scripture is something that is an ancient practice. Do you know when this began and to whom we owe this crazy way of thinking?
 
Nicea325 said:
More important,different sects of Jews (Essenses,Sadducees,Pharisees,etc) adhered to different text. None of the 12 or Jesus ever state a canonical list of the OT texts to only follow.
Click to expand...
And this is the second half of the point I bring up regarding 2 Tim 3:16, which text was St. Paul saying was inspired? We say the Septuagint, Protestants will say the Hebrew text though both have all the deutrocanonical books thanks to finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either/or, I’d like to see the justification of keeping those seven books out of their bibles even though they are proven to be inspired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top