Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

[CutlerB]

Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across “The Berean Call” by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he’s trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?

Question: It seems to me that Karl Keating, in The Usual Suspects , demolishes…the major foundation of the Reformation and Protestantism, “sola scriptura.” He points out, as did Cardinal Newman more than 100 years before, that “for Timothy, Scripture was [only] the Old Testament…If Paul’s comment [2 Timothy:3:16, 17—the favorite Protestant ‘proof’ text] really implies sola scriptura, then it implies that the Old Testament alone is sufficient as a rule of faith. Does any Christian believe that? Of course not” (pp 52, 53). I challenge you to try to refute this conclusive argument.

Answer: It is amazing that Catholics have praised Newman’s pitiful fallacy for more than a century. For Timothy the Bible was only the Old Testament? Hardly. This is Paul’s second epistle to him, so Timothy has both First and Second Timothy. Moreover, that this is Paul’s last epistle is also clear from his statement, “I am now ready to be offered…my departure is at hand…I have finished my course” (2 Tm 4:6,7). Clearly, then, all thirteen of Paul’s epistles were in existence.

And so was the book of Acts, authored by Luke. It must have been written prior to Paul’s death or it would have recorded his martyrdom. Likewise for the gospel of Luke, the “former treatise” (Acts:1:1); and also Peter’s two epistles, because in his second, Peter refers to Paul and his epistles (2 Pt 3:15,16) as though the latter is still alive. In existence also were the gospels by Matthew, Mark and John—written by those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses” and had “set forth in order a declaration of those things [concerning Jesus] which are most surely believed among us” (Lk 1:1, 2). In fact, far from the Old Testament being all that was available, the entire New Testament, except for the three epistles of John and Revelation, had been written.

But even if none of the New Testament had been written, Paul’s expression “all scripture” surely refers to all of the Bible, not just to what had been written up to that time. When Solomon writes, “every word of God is pure” (Prv 30:5); the Psalmist writes, “the word of the Lord is right” (Ps:33:4); “thy word is settled in heaven” (119:89); “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (138:2); or Isaiah says, “the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Is 40:8)or “trembleth at [thy] word” (66:2); or Jesus says, “blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Lk 11:28), etc., etc., no one would imagine that reference is being made only to scriptures which had been written up to that time.

As for whether this passage teaches that God’s Word is sufficient, Keating avoids 2 Timothy:3:17 which states, “That the man [or woman, boy or girl] of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” It couldn’t be clearer that nothing else is needed for instruction in living the Christian life and being all that God wants us to be.

 

[adrift]

The answer ignores the point that at the time Paul’s writing was not scripture. The Bible as we know it did not exist. Timothy would not have known what a Bible was. He would have only have known Scripture and that Scripture would have been what we now refer to as the Old Testament. Paul wrote letters which later became declare inspired by God. Would Timothy reading a letter say "Ah ha this is inspired Scripture’? No that is why this argument fails. They put hind sight into it. We now know that it was inspired by God but not then.

The argument that Timothy would have meant the whole Bible even if it hadn’t been yet written is putting words into his mouth. Of course, he meant only the Old Testament. Of course we can see that it applies to all Scripture now. But to be solo scripture means you cannot add to what he was saying. He didn’t say all scripture now in the future. I wonder if he would have even thought there would be new scripture.

 

[tabycat]

Dave Hunt is a Bible Only Christian. He, like other Bible Onlys, either forget, ignore, or don’t know that God used fallen humans to write and compile the Bible. His veiwpoint works only with other Christians that agree with him. I’m not sure that Hunt knows (or does not what to know) that when Paul was writing the New Testament had not been written or compileled.

Dave Hunt is a well known antiCatholic. The best thing we can do for him (and others like him) is to pray for them

 

[Spirithound]

Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across “The Berean Call” by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he’s trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?

2Tim 3:16 says “All Scripture is useful” or profitable. And v.17, “That the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped”. How does someone become “thoroughly” prepared, from something that is only “useful”? By being trained by someone in authority to interpret the Scripture.

Sola Scriptura necessarily is an individualistic process, and those are the churches that it bears. In a church, either one person has authority to define what they believe, or everybody has the authority to strike out and form their own church.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Which sacred writings was St. Paul talking about in 2 Tim 3:15-17? He clearly had in mind those sacred writings with which Timothy had been acquainted from “infancy.” (2 Tim 3:15) So, which sacred writings were available at the time of Timothy’s infancy? Since Timothy was already a well-spoken-of disciple (Acts 16:1-2) before the first New Testament writings appeared,* Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament.

• 1 Thessalonians is generally regarded as the first of the New Testament writings to have been written and Timothy is one of the named senders of that letter. (1 Thes 1:1)

 

[SPH1]

Not to mention that Hunt’s theology doesn’t work, considering all of the conflicting scriptural interpretations in Protestantism. It gets him nowhere.

 

[pablope]

Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across “The Berean Call” by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he’s trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?

Question: It seems to me that Karl Keating, in The Usual Suspects , demolishes…the major foundation of the Reformation and Protestantism, “sola scriptura.” He points out, as did Cardinal Newman more than 100 years before, that “for Timothy, Scripture was [only] the Old Testament…If Paul’s comment [2 Timothy:3:16, 17—the favorite Protestant ‘proof’ text] really implies sola scriptura, then it implies that the Old Testament alone is sufficient as a rule of faith. Does any Christian believe that? Of course not” (pp 52, 53). I challenge you to try to refute this conclusive argument.

Answer: It is amazing that Catholics have praised Newman’s pitiful fallacy for more than a century. For Timothy the Bible was only the Old Testament? Hardly. This is Paul’s second epistle to him, so Timothy has both First and Second Timothy. Moreover, that this is Paul’s last epistle is also clear from his statement, “I am now ready to be offered…my departure is at hand…I have finished my course” (2 Tm 4:6,7). Clearly, then, all thirteen of Paul’s epistles were in existence.

How does he know? Does he provide verified timelines of writing?

Besides, Timothy does not have authority on his own to declare what is to be inspired or what is to be in the Bible, neither does Paul. Only the Pope does…and Peter makes such a pronouncement in one of his epistles. But Peter does not name which epistles…so it is hard to determine which were already written when Peter’s epistle was written. Keep in mind, Peter was executed ahead of paul.

And so was the book of Acts, authored by Luke. It must have been written prior to Paul’s death or it would have recorded his martyrdom. Likewise for the gospel of Luke, the “former treatise” (Acts:1:1); and also Peter’s two epistles, because in his second, Peter refers to Paul and his epistles (2 Pt 3:15,16) as though the latter is still alive. In existence also were the gospels by Matthew, Mark and John—written by those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses” and had “set forth in order a declaration of those things [concerning Jesus] which are most surely believed among us” (Lk 1:1, 2). In fact, far from the Old Testament being all that was available, the entire New Testament, except for the three epistles of John and Revelation, had been written.

He has the facts wrong…John’s gospel was written around AD90. Peter was executed around AD62 or so.

As for whether this passage teaches that God’s Word is sufficient, Keating avoids 2 Timothy:3:17 which states, “That the man [or woman, boy or girl] of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” It couldn’t be clearer that nothing else is needed for instruction in living the Christian life and being all that God wants us to be.

Funny…but he does not or fails to mention V14…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

Which speaks of oral instruction. Taken as a whole…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It is oral and Scripture…and he fails to mention…that the term man of God…does not refer to a layman…but that term, used here and taking into account the context and culture and usage of this term at the time the epistle was written…refers to someone called to the ministry…or the priesthood.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Which sacred writings was St. Paul talking about in 2 Tim 3:15-17? He clearly had in mind those sacred writings with which Timothy had been acquainted from “infancy.” (2 Tim 3:15) So, which sacred writings were available at the time of Timothy’s infancy? Since Timothy was already a well-spoken-of disciple (Acts 16:1-2) before the first New Testament writings appeared,* Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament.

This! How could Timothy have known Paul’s letters from infancy?

 

[Jacob_Morgan]

If someone wanted to join the US Army, would they a) go to the nearest recruitment center of the US Army, or B) put together their own “authentic” army based on their interpretation of what they read in Johnny Trumain or in a Thomas Paine pamplet?

They would say that they are just simple honest 1776 US Army men, going to the orignal source as it plainly reveals itself. That would quickly splinter into the flint lock only group and the three-corner hat only group, and the group that insisted the signal corps only being drawn from the ranks of silver smiths. The modern US Army, with helicopter thingies and such, are clearly innovations not referenced anywhere in any of Gen. Geo. Washington’s writings. Somewhere before the war of 1812 a great apostacy occured.

I grew up in a church like that, I recall once being told that if a group of people found the Bible and just followed it, well they’d have a church just like that one. Hogwash. If someone found a Bible for the first time they wold A) conclude it was the history of a Church once made–they’d have no suspiction that it was a set of* Popular Mechanics* blue prints on do-it-your-self church making, and B) they would want to know the provenance of that book if they were to take it seriously.

A lot of the fundamentalist Bible thumpers are from a prior era when every respoectable middle class America belived, or at least honored, the Bible. With that assumption, there was no need to say where it came from or why one should belive it, just a race to simplify and individualize the interpetation. Those days are gone.

 

[Gamera]

Paul’s letters to Timothy emphasize that Timothy should accept what he has “heard,” not just what he has “read.”

 

[fhansen]

Hunt also misses the fact that scripture can’t be easily interpreted or fully understood without the Holy Spirit edifying the authority of His choice. The Ethiopian Eunuch couldn’t understand scripture without the help of Philip, a leader of the Church. Likewise Hunt can’t hope to adequately understand scripture without the Church. Now I’m not suggesting that Hunt is a eunuch, except that, by analogy in the spiritual sense, he’s at a severe disadvantage when it comes to knowing God’s will because he’s missing the essential organ God’s provided for that purpose, the teaching authority of the Church, aka the Magisterium.