"Bible alone," Christians

[Anniejoe]

why would he be teaching OT ? yes he had Mark and Luke writing for him,
where do you think our NT came from. I’m sure one day Luke , Mark , John and Matthew just didn’t sit down and write their book, they had notes, in Acts they must of dictated stuff, they didn’t just have real good memories and go to teach and not have references, maybe Timothy did as he traveled with St. Paul a lot.

With respect, Luvtosew, you are simply mistaken about this particular issue. Whenever St. Paul makes reference to “Scripture”, he is referring to the OT - precisely as Jesus did. The Apostles did not refer to their own notes or letters as “Scripture”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m sure your aware of the baltimoore Cathechism of 1887 developed to train Catholics in the US. I was a teaching tool used by the Nuns. Fairly basic. If one didn’t go to Catholic School one took Cathechism for a couple weeks before receiving First Holy Communion.
The Baltimoore Cathechism of course was revised in the 70’s I believe. And then the more lenghty Cathechism came out in the 90’s. So I had basic Cathechism.
Lets face it, the church teaches salvation is in the sacraments and only the CC has these sacraments , they say it and then say something else, but… also anyone who knowingly leaves the CC commits a mortal sin, well without confession one goes to hell with a mortal sin but… no one can say for sure. Do you see where I’m coming from, say it but then not say it, very contradictory, but after reading many posts here, many people believe there is no salvation out of the CC, but were not sure.

Well to be sure some Protestants are very anti Catholic which personally I never met a Protestant like that, but I do know they are out there, but until a couple years ago I never knew Catholics (many) felt the same way about Protestants, till I came to this message board.

A cafeteria catholic is a pick and choose Catholic, different extremes exist. there are some who feel fine with abortions and or adultry I guess, and some like me that don’t believe a few of the teachings, so we are called cafeteria catholics.

So you are actually answering yes to my first 2 questions about catechism.

I am not aware of the Baltimore Catechism. I was born and raised Catholic in a Catholic school and went to a Catholic College in Puerto Rico. The only catechism I am aware of is that from Rome, there were some… how do I say this… unstable nuns during my school years, but they are humans, just like you and me. There are some good, some bad and then there is the rest.

I did leave the RCC for 20+ years and after jumping more denominations than I can remember, I have just recently come back home!

I was really angry at some of the men and women of the church and I blamed the church and not the specific people in it.

However, the Grace of our Lord kept the seed of truth in me.

I have interacted with several Protestant groups, back home and in several States in CONUS. Some groups are very open about their hatred for the RCC while others are very subtle in their message about it. However, some of my best friends and brothers in Christ are not Catholics. I still go to their Bible Studies and let me tell you, you won’t believe the amount of nonsense that is attributed to the RCC. At times, it feels like I’m in court, lol. But I love it!!! It makes me stronger and it increases my faith.

Do you know how ridiculous it is for someone to come and tell you that you need to convert and be re-baptized and be saved… over and over again? The willful or innocent ignorance of thinking that Christianity started in the year 1611?

Never was I comfortable with the bible alone concept, in all of its forms. Because it means something to a Presbyterian, something to a Lutheran, something to a Methodist, something to a Pentecostal, something to a Baptist, etc etc.

If we, as Catholics, understand something different from the Bible it is because:

1. We are determined to believe that we know better than all the Church Fathers.
2. We have been poorly taught.

And please don’t get me started with the different translations!

This is more of a problem in the English speaking world than it is in the Spanish speaking world. I don’t know why, but in my experience it is.

We cannot be dual minded, St. James was really clear about that. We have to draw a line and make a committment. And understand that while we can’t understand the fullnest of truth, we are ultimately called to obedience.

So, back to my original questions:

Or do you follow a specific Church?

If you say, I follow Jesus.

Then I have to ask which Jesus? Is Jesus Protestant or Catholic? If both, how so? If none, how so?
And from what translation?
And from what church?

Understand that I am not being demeaning. Just very curious as to what you believe.

I believe Pope Benedict XVI text *Dominus Iesus *is very enlightening

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

In Him,

Jose

 

[Luvtosew]

Well you have certaintly been around. So you left for 20 years and then came back, I imagine it can be a circus out there in the Protestant world. I have never left and went to a Protestant church, but I have seen some speakers on TV and they make me cringe, not all but most.
I do listen to a couple Baptist Pastors but neither one says anything neg about the CC, actually one is reading the early fathers to his flock, word by word and is going to a Cahtolic theology college, although he disagrees with some of the Catholic doctrine, he is not anti Catholic and feels that some Protestants talk anti Catholic without knowing what they are talking about. He also went throught the Catholic confessional to teach his flock how to examine themselves for sin, but he doesn’t believe in auricle confession.

I believe reading the Bible is very important and its part of my day and has been for a long time thanks to a brother who gave it to me in the 80’s (he left the CC).

Jesus is neither a Protestant or a Catholic in my view, he was and is here for all who believe in him and what he did at calvary. He is for all Christians althought they may not think alike, but if they beleve in him as Lord and Saviour and have dedicated their life to live for him and follow his teachings that is what he wants.

 

[jasonjessica09]

Well you have certaintly been around. So you left for 20 years and then came back, I imagine it can be a circus out there in the Protestant world. I have never left and went to a Protestant church, but I have seen some speakers on TV and they make me cringe, not all but most.
I do listen to a couple Baptist Pastors but neither one says anything neg about the CC, actually one is reading the early fathers to his flock, word by word and is going to a Cahtolic theology college, although he disagrees with some of the Catholic doctrine, he is not anti Catholic and feels that some Protestants talk anti Catholic without knowing what they are talking about. He also went throught the Catholic confessional to teach his flock how to examine themselves for sin, but he doesn’t believe in auricle confession.

I believe reading the Bible is very important and its part of my day and has been for a long time thanks to a brother who gave it to me in the 80’s (he left the CC).

Jesus is neither a Protestant or a Catholic in my view, he was and is here for all who believe in him and what he did at calvary. He is for all Christians althought they may not think alike, but if they beleve in him as Lord and Saviour and have dedicated their life to live for him and follow his teachings that is what he wants.

Jesus no doubt is an Orthodox Catholic. He established an APOSTOLIC Church with Peter as the head of the church on Earth, with succession and the ability for the Apostles and their sucessors (bishops and priests) to administer the sacraments. That last paragraph is major major major majorly incorrect sir.

 

[Luvtosew]

With respect, Luvtosew, you are simply mistaken about this particular issue. Whenever St. Paul makes reference to “Scripture”, he is referring to the OT - precisely as Jesus did. The Apostles did not refer to their own notes or letters as “Scripture”.

With respect when Jesus talked about the Scriptures to the Jews he was telling them even though they knew their life was dependent on Scriptures they did not have it wrote in their hearts as if they did they would have known Jesus was the Messiah.

What purpose would Paul , Titus, Timothy or the other Apostles have in reading and teaching the OT to the Jews (they knew it but didn’t have it in them (hearts) or to the gentiles, when teaching them about Jesus and his teachings, calvary, and resurrection.
They may have referred to a few verses in the OT to show how Jesus was the Messiah, but they taught from new material besides the OT.

 

[figs]

With respect when Jesus talked about the Scriptures to the Jews he was telling them even though they knew their life was dependent on Scriptures they did not have it wrote in their hearts as if they did they would have known Jesus was the Messiah.

What purpose would Paul , Titus, Timothy or the other Apostles have in reading and teaching the OT to the Jews (they knew it but didn’t have it in them (hearts) or to the gentiles, when teaching them about Jesus and his teachings, calvary, and resurrection.
They may have referred to a few verses in the OT to show how Jesus was the Messiah, but they taught from new material besides the OT.

oh dear, maybe this excerpt can answer that for you

Paul Observed the Old Testament’s Teachings
*
Let’s look at some instances of direct reliance on the Old Testament by believers living in the early New Testament era.

---

When Paul commended the New Testament Bereans for diligently searching the scriptures to see whether what he was preaching to them was true (Acts 17:11), he referred to their study of what we call the Old Testament: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

---

But to them it was not the “Old Testament.” As far as the Bereans were concerned, they were merely searching Yahweh’s Word, which included the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, to confirm that what they were hearing from the New Testament apostles was true.

---

Remember, the Old Testament was the only Bible they had. It was the foundation of their faith and belief, and Paul even applauded them for double-checking with the Old Testament first before believing anything they read in the New Testament writings!

---

All of which screams one especially important fact: the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament.
Why did not Paul say, “Listen people, don’t bother with those old writings that are now out of date. Just read my letters and do what they say and forget that Old Testament. I am all the Bible you need now.” He knew that teaching such a thing, which churches everywhere do believe and teach today, would be an enormous falsehood. He himself based Truth on the Old Testament Scriptures.

---

Note how Paul supported and taught the law and the Old Testament:

---

• In Acts 24:14 Paul adamantly confirmed that he believed “all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Old Testament).

---

• To prove that he lived “in observance of the law,” Paul agreed to undertake a ritual purification at the temple, at which time he proved that he kept the law (Acts 21:24-26).* Born a Benjaminite, he was instructed by Gamaliel “according to the perfect manner of the law,” Acts 22:3.

---

• In diametric opposition to what most clerics teach today, Paul said he was not against Old Testament teachings and did nothing to violate them, Acts 28:17.

---

• As a matter of fact, Paul taught the people about Yahshua from morning to night “out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets,” (Old Testament) Acts 28:23.

---

• In Acts 25:8 Paul maintained that he never broke any laws of the Jews or the temple.

---

All the books of the Old Testament except Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are quoted in the New Testament.

---

That Old Testament that is used only occasionally for a children’s Bible lesson or for reading of an infrequent Psalm or Proverb is a lot more important than most people think. Yahshua, the apostles, and the earliest converts relied on the Old Testament as the basis for their teachings. They constantly alluded to it and defined their faith in light of what it said.

---

Once you have all the facts, then you are prepared to make informed, correct choices. People urgently need this truth about the Old Testament so that their worship can be corrected and aligned with the same Truth the prophets, Apostles, and Yahshua the Messiah followed. Sadly, most don’t want the truth of the matter. They love darkness rather than light (John 3:19) for fear of what they might discover that could alter their beliefs and impact their lifestyle. They are comfortable and satisfied in their traditional beliefs no matter how erroneous.

taken from: yrm.org/old%20testament%20lives.htm

 

[pgepps]

Whenever St. Paul makes reference to “Scripture”, he is referring to the OT - precisely as Jesus did. The Apostles did not refer to their own notes or letters as “Scripture”.

Sorry, but actually this is a mistake. Well, a partial mistake. No doubt references to “the writings” for these Jewish men did mean principally the Tanakh, the Hebrew canon (and in fact they usually referred to the Septuagint canon). However, the Apostles did view their written teaching as authoritative (see the judgments delivered in 1 Corinthians and the defense of St. Paul’s own writings against counterfeits and pseudipigrapha in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and others). Paul more than once refers from one of his writings to another, as well as to the sayings of Jesus (which during the lifetime of the Apostles were already being recorded by the evangelists–with Mark’s probably being the first done in Greek, while Matthew probably compiled a first draft record of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic some 20yrs before his Greek narrative was finished). But the clearest evidence that the Apostles did regard their writings as part of The Writings would be from St. Peter’s writings:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nrsva_ucs2,latin_nova_vulgata_ucs2,greek_WH_UBS4_parsed_ucs2&book=61N&from_chap=3&from_verse=14&to_verse=18&hide_context=1

From Apostolic times, certain of the letters were understood as approved for circulation and reading in the churches. These were listed very early. However, not all churches had all of the letters, or were familiar with the origin of all the letters. It took a couple centuries for everyone to be on the same page, and of course it wasn’t until Trent that the deuterocanonical books (the full Septuagint canon) were definitively and explicitly included, though it’s clear that those were the versions Christ and the Apostles mostly relied on.

 

[Luvtosew]

Figs,
I am fully aware the NT fulfills the OT, and yes Paul referred to passages in the OT to emphasize what it said about the coming of the Messiah.

Yes they searched the OT to see if what Paul was teaching about the NT or good news about Jesus and his resurrection was foretold in the OT. I also know the OT was all they had in writing, No the NT does not contradict the OT, if it did we’d be in trouble.

Yes Paul observed the law only because he was afraid of the Jews, and then Jesus told him to preach the the good news in Acts 18:9 and not be afraid. Now if all Paul was doing was preaching the OT he would not be in danger of the Jews, he’d still be chasing after Christians who were preaching about Jesus and the good news.

But Pauls job was not to preach or teach the OT except to show where Jesus was foretold, he was to preach about Jesus, and thats what his letters are about and his writings.

Scriptures mean any sacred writings, books , etc, and I maintain they has things wrote down and were teaching about Jesus.

Also I am fully aware and know the NT fullfills the OT, but Paul and the Apostles were teaching the Good news about Jesus Christ, his teachings, his death and his resurrection.

One of the main problems is when some people take a verse here and there and not see the big picture, so one must read all of Acts to see that Paul was appeasing the Jews for fear of his life, but was devoted to preach the Good news of Jesus.

 

[Luvtosew]

Sorry, but actually this is a mistake. Well, a partial mistake. No doubt references to “the writings” for these Jewish men did mean principally the Tanakh, the Hebrew canon (and in fact they usually referred to the Septuagint canon). However, the Apostles did view their written teaching as authoritative (see the judgments delivered in 1 Corinthians and the defense of St. Paul’s own writings against counterfeits and pseudipigrapha in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and others). Paul more than once refers from one of his writings to another, as well as to the sayings of Jesus (which during the lifetime of the Apostles were already being recorded by the evangelists–with Mark’s probably being the first done in Greek, while Matthew probably compiled a first draft record of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic some 20yrs before his Greek narrative was finished). But the clearest evidence that the Apostles did regard their writings as part of The Writings would be from St. Peter’s writings:

unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nrsva_ucs2,latin_nova_vulgata_ucs2,greek_WH_UBS4_parsed_ucs2&book=61N&from_chap=3&from_verse=14&to_verse=18&hide_context=1

From Apostolic times, certain of the letters were understood as approved for circulation and reading in the churches. These were listed very early. However, not all churches had all of the letters, or were familiar with the origin of all the letters. It took a couple centuries for everyone to be on the same page, and of course it wasn’t until Trent that the deuterocanonical books (the full Septuagint canon) were definitively and explicitly included, though it’s clear that those were the versions Christ and the Apostles mostly relied on.

I agree as it was pointed out that Paul even sent for Luke and Mark to help him, which I imagine were to write for him.

Yes thank Goodness the early fathers compiled it all, I do believe God was in charge of everything for us to be able to have the Bible as we do today.

 

[figs]

Figs,
I am fully aware the NT fulfills the OT, and yes Paul referred to passages in the OT to emphasize what it said about the coming of the Messiah.

Yes they searched the OT to see if what Paul was teaching about the NT or good news about Jesus and his resurrection was foretold in the OT. I also know the OT was all they had in writing, No the NT does not contradict the OT, if it did we’d be in trouble.

Yes Paul observed the law only because he was afraid of the Jews, and then Jesus told him to preach the the good news in Acts 18:9 and not be afraid. Now if all Paul was doing was preaching the OT he would not be in danger of the Jews, he’d still be chasing after Christians who were preaching about Jesus and the good news.

But Pauls job was not to preach or teach the OT except to show where Jesus was foretold, he was to preach about Jesus, and thats what his letters are about and his writings.

Scriptures mean any sacred writings, books , etc, and I maintain they has things wrote down and were teaching about Jesus.

Also I am fully aware and know the NT fullfills the OT, but Paul and the Apostles were teaching the Good news about Jesus Christ, his teachings, his death and his resurrection.

One of the main problems is when some people take a verse here and there and not see the big picture, so one must read all of Acts to see that Paul was appeasing the Jews for fear of his life, but was devoted to preach the Good news of Jesus.

You shouldn’t make one testement exclusive from the other, they cannot be divided if one is a fullfilment of the other.
The Jews may have known the scriptures by heart but that didn’t mean they understood what the scriptures meant. It was the job of Paul and the Apostles to teach the word, old AND new, together, so there was proper understanding.

 

[Anniejoe]

**

Sorry, but actually this is a mistake. Well, a partial mistake. No doubt references to “the writings” for these Jewish men did mean principally the Tanakh, the Hebrew canon (and in fact they usually referred to the Septuagint canon). However, the Apostles did view their written teaching as authoritative (see the judgments delivered in 1 Corinthians and the defense of St. Paul’s own writings against counterfeits and pseudipigrapha in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and others). Paul more than once refers from one of his writings to another, as well as to the sayings of Jesus (which during the lifetime of the Apostles were already being recorded by the evangelists–with Mark’s probably being the first done in Greek, while Matthew probably compiled a first draft record of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic some 20yrs before his Greek narrative was finished). But the clearest evidence that the Apostles did regard their writings as part of The Writings would be from St. Peter’s writings:

From Apostolic times, certain of the letters were understood as approved for circulation and reading in the churches. These were listed very early. However, not all churches had all of the letters, or were familiar with the origin of all the letters. It took a couple centuries for everyone to be on the same page, and of course it wasn’t until Trent that the deuterocanonical books (the full Septuagint canon) were definitively and explicitly included, though it’s clear that those were the versions Christ and the Apostles mostly

*relied on.
*

Is this what St. Paul meant, specifically, when he said “Scripture”? That was the issue under discussion, not whether they used Apostolic writings for teaching. Did St. Paul reference his own writings as “Scripture”?

 

[Anniejoe]

**
**

Is this what St. Paul meant, specifically, when he said “Scripture”? That was the issue under discussion, not whether they used Apostolic writings for teaching. Did St. Paul reference his own writings as “Scripture”?

To clarify my previous post, I was addressing St. Paul’s reference to “Scripture” specifically relating to his letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:15) in which Paul reminds Timothy that he (Timothy) was trained from youth in the Holy Scriptures, etc. This can only refer to what we call the OT. That is the context for his next line: " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training…"

Luvtosew is under the impression that St. Paul’s reference in these verses includes his own contemporary letters. St. Paul’s reference to “Scripture” in this verse is actually in contrast to and in addition to Apostolic Tradition, which he also affirms. What I’m reading from Luvtosew is that these two different sources (Apostolic Tradition and Scripture) are being conflated into one single source called “Scripture” in an attempt to support a “Bible only” position. It seems clear to me that St. Paul is being quite specific, and that what he calls “Scripture” in these verses is exactly what Jesus called “Scripture”. St. Paul referenced all sorts of writings, including pagan writings in his teaching; he would not have included every teaching tool he used in the word “Scripture”, in my opinion.*

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Figs,
I am fully aware the NT fulfills the OT, and yes Paul referred to passages in the OT to emphasize what it said about the coming of the Messiah.

Yes they searched the OT to see if what Paul was teaching about the NT or good news about Jesus and his resurrection was foretold in the OT. I also know the OT was all they had in writing, No the NT does not contradict the OT, if it did we’d be in trouble.

Yes Paul observed the law only because he was afraid of the Jews, and then Jesus told him to preach the the good news in Acts 18:9 and not be afraid. Now if all Paul was doing was preaching the OT he would not be in danger of the Jews, he’d still be chasing after Christians who were preaching about Jesus and the good news.

But Pauls job was not to preach or teach the OT except to show where Jesus was foretold, he was to preach about Jesus, and thats what his letters are about and his writings.

Scriptures mean any sacred writings, books , etc, and I maintain they has things wrote down and were teaching about Jesus.

Also I am fully aware and know the NT fullfills the OT, but Paul and the Apostles were teaching the Good news about Jesus Christ, his teachings, his death and his resurrection.

One of the main problems is when some people take a verse here and there and not see the big picture, so one must read all of Acts to see that Paul was appeasing the Jews for fear of his life, but was devoted to preach the Good news of Jesus.

In this same line of thinking.

Was Paul told to go plant his own church and preach his own thoughts?

or

Was he directed to go join the other Apostles and preach jointly with them?

 

[Luvtosew]

Anniejoe,
Ok say it does mean the OT which it seems to say that referring to Timothy when he was young, so your right, and as we know the Gentiles had to be taught about the OT

and well apparently the Jews as well, obviously they didn’t follow the OT like Jesus said to them, given that your probably right when he referred to Scriptures as the OT but they also taught from the new writings that now make up our Bible. Goes to show how important the scriptures are and how we should adhere to them.

Am I saying not to go to Mass, of course not. But I also think Bible Alone Protestants are not wrong as long as their Pastor is teaching the Bible and not the telling people homosexuality , adultry, and premarital sex is ok, also of course the commandments and the teachings of Jesus. Even tho I understand Baptist believe in OSAS , the one I listen too doesn’t sound like he believes that as he is always talking about sin and whats sin.

I know Protestants and Catholics have different views on salvation and a few other things in the Bible they think of differently, but are they wrong or are Catholics, thats for each individual to decide once they are educated enought and how their heart leads them.

I might even venture to say that some people such as myself might hold a view not in line with all my Church teaching, but some in line with the Protestant view, might not be right I don’t know, but that is heart telling me, and its hard to go against a heart felt belief.

Saying that, they are many Protestant preachers that people should run from and are further ahead to stay at home and read the Bible on their own, but there are many good Protestant preachers out there as well that are doing a good job with their teaching from the Bible.

I just wish we could all respect eachother, we don’t need to go to the same Church, but I do believe all Christians can be saved by believing in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and devoting their lives to him.

I heard a homily this week, local, and it was of course about the temple being destroyed, and he went on to say how we have to look past our beautiful Churches, rituals and have a personal relationship with Jesus. Of course the homily on Ewtn was different, but good also.

So that is why I think the Scriptures need to be the authority on teaching , and well if one wants to throw in a tradition or a few, as long as it doesn’t hurt or change the meaning of Scripture I think thats fine. I just don’t see the problem, but I’ve been wrong many times in my life, believe me.

 

[Luvtosew]

In this same line of thinking.

Was Paul told to go plant his own church and preach his own thoughts?

or

Was he directed to go join the other Apostles and preach jointly with them?

Paul did go and spend time with the Apostles and well heard first hand of their accounts I imagine , but God told him not to be afraid and go out to preach God told him what to preach. Is that what you mean?

so I was curious you say you go to Bible study with your protestant friends and do you and them have a different take on some of the scriptures and if so what parts?

 

[pgepps]

Part 1 of 3

To clarify my previous post, I was addressing St. Paul’s reference to “Scripture” specifically relating to his letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:15) in which Paul reminds Timothy that he (Timothy) was trained from youth in the Holy Scriptures, etc. This can only refer to what we call the OT. That is the context for his next line: " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training…"

Luvtosew is under the impression that St. Paul’s reference in these verses includes his own contemporary letters. St. Paul’s reference to “Scripture” in this verse is actually in contrast to and in addition to Apostolic Tradition, which he also affirms. What I’m reading from Luvtosew is that these two different sources (Apostolic Tradition and Scripture) are being conflated into one single source called “Scripture” in an attempt to support a “Bible only” position. It seems clear to me that St. Paul is being quite specific, and that what he calls “Scripture” in these verses is exactly what Jesus called “Scripture”. St. Paul referenced all sorts of writings, including pagan writings in his teaching; he would not have included every teaching tool he used in the word “Scripture”, in my opinion.

As clarified, I think I still differ somewhat from both of you, but I think you’re closer to the right exegesis of the passage. Shall we see if we can come to agreement?

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become plain to everyone.

Paul is warning Timothy against self-aggrandizing teachers (it’s impossible to read this and not think of typical TV evangelists, isn’t it?) … what we must always pray we never become in our zeal for our own ideas about the faith.

Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them.
Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.

Paul reminds Timothy of the many ways in which Paul’s calling from the Holy Spirit was made evident. This passage should remind us, not only of how important it is to teach and lead and learn by example, but also of how much the Church must have learned from Christ and His Apostles which would only have been worked out in the traditions and decisions handed down, the texture and details that could not all have been recorded (as St. John tells us in his Gospel).

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

So we see the connection here between “what you have learned and firmly believed” (the faith as received by Timothy) and “from whom you learned it” as well as “the sacred writings that are able to instruct” Timothy. I think it’s correct to say that this passage urges Timothy to be faithful to both; and I think it’s also correct to say that we can only be certain that Timothy, who was brought up by his devout Jewish mother and grandmother to be faithful, would know the Hebrew Scriptures (probably the Septuagint).

Can we say with certainty that Timothy did have any Christian Scriptures “from a child”? There’s no evidence to support such a claim, so I don’t think we can treat Paul’s statements here alone as directly applying to his own letters.

 

[pgepps]

Part 2

When Paul and Silas arrive in Timothy’s hometown, though, St. Luke says that Timothy’s “mother was a believer” and that Timothy “was well thought of by the believers” (Acts 16). While it is quite possible that “believer” in this context was loose enough to include a devout Jew not violently opposed to Christians, I think it more likely that Timothy and his mother (and grandmother?) were already Christians when Paul arrived. If that is the case, then Timothy was already being taught as a Christian, and was “well thought of” already, when Paul arrived about A.D. 51. At that time, Timothy was still living at home, but more than 14 years had passed since Paul’s conversion; Timothy would be in correspondence with Paul, or travelling with him, for most of the next 16 years. Understanding that in writing to Timothy about 13 years later, Paul would still advise Timothy “let no man despise thy youth,” we get the picture that Timothy was quite young in A.D. 51. It is very likely that all or early drafts of Didache, Matthew’s “sayings Gospel” (the draft for the narrative Gospel we have), and the canons and deliberations of the Jerusalem Council, at least, were in circulation. Paul’s letters, however, were definitely not written until after Timothy met Paul. What that means is that it is at least possible that Timothy had learned the faith of Jesus from not only oral accounts plus Hebrew Scriptures, but from oral accounts documented in approved writings plus the Hebrew Scriptures.

We definitely can’t “flatten” this text to imagine that Paul is telling Timothy to attend to the (Protestant 66?) canonical books of Scripture. Paul clearly tells Timothy to attend to the faith as received from approved teachers, by Apostolic authority, conveyed in both the prophetic Scriptures and the taught Tradition. But clearly this passage does give significant weight to familiarity with the Scriptures as a keystone of faith soundly received and held. I would go so far as to say that the passage indicates that neither a faith idiosyncratically derived from isolated reading of Scriptures nor a faith communally derived without reference to the Scriptures is healthy; we must be taught, and learn with submission, but we must be taught the Scriptures, and we must receive the Tradition as Biblical, or our faith is unbalanced and lacking ballast.

If you look at the way Paul makes a rhetorical pause, stopping to make a categorical statement that “all Scripture” (Lat. Omnis Scriptura, cf. Sacra Littera in 15) has the manifold benefits and perfections he ascribes to it, I think you’ll see that whatever St. Paul were to receive and recommend as Scripture, or whatever the Apostles, or whatever the Church, were to receive and recommend as Scripture, would fall within its scope. So when Timothy was a child, it’s true that “all Scripture” likely included only the Tanakh, though possibly also some recorded sayings of Jesus and some approved texts which did not endure or were incorporated into other texts. But by the time St. Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, “all Scripture” probably did include several other texts, including some of Paul’s own writings. And I do not think it is at all unjust, nor anything but the literal sense of the text, to understand this text to speak of whatever the Church recognizes as the canonical Scriptures.

 

[pgepps]

Part 3
How can we be pretty sure that “all Scripture” at the time of St. Paul’s writing to Timothy included some of what we now know as the New Testament? Well, aside from the very likely early form of Matthew, it is likely that Mark’s Gospel was underway when Sts. Peter and Paul were in Rome awaiting execution (when 2 Timothy was also written). We know that Paul directed the Colossians (Col. 4:16) to send the letter on to Laodicea, and to get the letter the Laodiceans have and read it in Colosse, so at the very least we have some canonical evidence (there is actually much more evidence in the tradition at large) that Apostolic authority directed the circulation and reading of the letters. And I really don’t think it would be possible to overstate the importance of Peter’s Second Epistle, which begins with

I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

and ends with

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also **our beloved brother Paul wrote to you **according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

In my mind, this book alone would be conclusive evidence that St. Peter regarded the Scriptures as too important to be treated as mere grist for idiosyncratic debates, but also as indispensable elements of the Apostolic Tradition, and that St. Peter included St. Paul’s approved and circulated letters as part of the “writings” with authority in that Tradition. (note that St. John uses a similar strategy in an even later letter, his First Epistle: opening with a discussion of the Apostolic eye-witness, he later says “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”)

Done for now,
PGE

 

[Luvtosew]

PGE- Thanks for all your work and explanation. Much appreciate it.

 

[Nicea325]

I can’t think of one right now, but God gave us the Bible so thats what we have. Everything in it was wrote by 100 ad.

You cannot think of one because there is none and Jesus never once teaches such a fallacy. Okay…it was written by 100 A.D…and? Again where does the written scripture alone state it is the final authority and above Christ Church? No where!