Dialogue Thread: Is the Bible our only Infallible Authority?

[DNS]

Hi, sk32900!

I now feel more adequately prepared to discuss some of the issues brought up. In this post I will address John 21:20-24 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

sk32900:

Then there is the example of an oral tradition that is recorded in scripture, in John 21:20-24. Here is an actual saying of Jesus that was heard by the apostles, who managed to DISTORT what Jesus actually said about John! And how do we know it was a distortion? JOHN SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT WITH THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD!

First let’s define the Catholic view of Tradition. “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.” [Catholic Answers, “Scripture and Tradition” (San Diego, Catholic Answers, 2004)]

John 21:20-24 says: Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved…When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet, Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” (RSVCE)

So the question is whether or not the saying of Jesus was a teaching of the Apostles. Did the Apostles authoritatively teach that the beloved disciple would not die? There is no indication that Jesus’ saying falls into the category of Sacred Tradition. Also, I’m not sure it’s clear from the text that the Apostles necessarily misunderstood Jesus; it may be that just the brethren did.

sk32900:

As I stated earlier, sola scriptura is IMPLICIT doctrine (see one of my earlier posts on this). Look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 again: scripture is called God-breathed (in Greek; see also NIV), and makes us “complete” and “thoroughly equipped” (New King James Version). This verse alone creates lots of problems for those claiming we need traditions to REALLY understand the Bible, especially in light of Jesus’ warning in Matthew 15:1-9, which shows that manmade traditions can get in the way of our knowing God (regardless of which church they come from) by making the Bible “of no effect” (v. 6) upon our lives.

Let’s look at the context of the passage. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 reads “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 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 complete, equipped for every good work.” (RSVCE)

Not only is St. Paul telling Timothy to follow scripture in chapter 3, he is also telling him to follow his oral preaching. You objected earlier that scripture never calls tradition “God-breathed” (by the way, you are right that “God-breathed is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than “inspired”). However, scripture does call oral tradition “the word of God” (see 1 Thess 2:13).

Now I’d like to look specifically at verse 17. First I’d like to focus on the word “complete.” The passage certainly says scripture makes us complete, but the question is how does scripture make us complete? Is it by being our sufficient authority, or is by being embraced along with Tradition and Church authority? Just as chocolate chip cookie batter is made complete by adding chocolate chips, so the man of God is made complete by being given the scriptures to supplement oral Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6; 1 Thess 3:15) and Church authority (Mt 16:18-19, 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15).

But what about the words “equipped for every good work?” Well, let’s say I have a box of blocks. One might say I am fully equipped to build a castle. However I might not know how to build a castle, and thus would need another authority to help me correctly arrange the blocks. Now let’s say a recent convert to Christianity is given a Bible. He is now equipped for every good work. He decides he wants to find out whether or not infant Baptism is biblical. So he searches the relevant passages but still cannot make up his mind. He needs Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church to help him use equipment.

In my next post I’ll respond to your comments on the Canon of Scripture, and also address the issue of whether all authentic, Apostolic Traditions are found in Scripture.
Thanks for your continuing willingness to dialogue these issues.

[Note: I look forward to any replies and to posting some more; however, my posts and responses may be delayed as we are in the process of moving.]

 

[b_justb]

sk32900:

The “outside influence” that determined what was part of the NT canon was the Holy Spirit, not some council.

In what way did the Spirit work? Through the councils.

sk32900:

Those earlier councils merely formalized what was already in evidence in the churches, as those church leaders obeyed the discernment of the Spirit regarding which letters were God-breathed, which were helpful but not inspired (e.g.: Sherpherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache) and which were forgeries (e.g.: Acts of Paul). God did this once before with the OT canon; there was no reason He could not do this again with the NT canon.

Why were there 2 distinct and separate OT canon lists then? What do we as Christains point to in determining which of those 2 lists is “Christian”? The Protestants point to a Jewish Council of Jamina, held speciaically to squash Christian influence, Catholics use Christain sources, Christian Councils for example.

sk32900:

Consider also: Peter had already declared Paul’s letters as equal with OT scripture in the FIRST century in 2 Peter 3:15-17; it is also not unreasonable to believe that the Apostle John, who lived until 100 AD, helped determine which NT writings were truly scripture (he continue to govern the churches of Asia after his exile at Patmos—see Ecclesiatical History chapter 23); the early church DID have scriptures while the NT was being written and collected—you may remember the Old Testament, which was quoted quite a bit in the NT. Jesus made it clear that the OT testified of Him (see John 5:46 and Luke 24:27).

I made other points about sola scriptura in another post on this thread, so I won’t repeat a lot of it here. I will only state that sola scriptura is far from “illogical.”

I disagree, obviously.

sk32900:

The Apostle John states it best: “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; **but these have been written ** so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” What we have in the OT and NT is all the revelation we need as the final authority for our faith and morals.

This suggests that anything written after John Gos. should be excluded from the Canon. You don’t really hold that view.

 

[DNS]

sk32900,

As b_justb has already responded to your post on the canon, I will not add a post on this issue unless prompted. I’ll turn right to the issue of Sacred Tradition.

sk32900:

WHERE in scripture does it say that any tradition not recorded in scripture is God-breathed?

I already addressed the issue of whether or not Tradition is God-breathed on previous posts, so I’ll focus on whether or not there are authentic Apostolic Traditions outside of scripture. In my last post I quoted a Catholic Answers tract:

Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. [Catholic Answers, “Scripture and Tradition” (San Diego, Catholic Answers, 2004)]

From what I gather from this, it seems the Church is undecided at this point as to whether any of her Sacred Tradition is not recorded in scripture. I tend to think that all Tradition is found in scripture in one way or another, but that Tradition and Church authority are needed to bring out fully Christ’s teachings (I believe this is the definition of the material sufficiency of the scriptures).

 

[sk32900]

To b_justb: “In what way did the Spirit work? Through the councils.”

As I stated earlier, the councils confirmed what was already evident in the churches, with their acceptance of genuine God-breathed NT scripture. Surely you do not believe the Holy Spirit worked ONLY through those councils.

“Why were there 2 distinct and separate OT canons then?”

Check your history again—there was only ONE, the Jewish canon that was settled long before the Council of Jamnia (which, by the way, met only to raise questions about several of the books ALREADY IN the Jewish canon, not to add any more). The inspired OT writings closed with the Book of Malachi, 400 years before Jesus’ birth. Even the apocryphal book 1 Maccabbees hints that there was no prophetic voice from God in Israel during this time (4:46 and 14:41).

The apocryphal books were attached to the Septuagint translation of the OT, but were NEVER accepted as inspired by the Jews. Interestingly, while Jesus and the NT writers use many quotes from the Septuagint, they DO NOT QUOTE EVEN ONCE from any of the apocryphal writings contained in the Catholic Bible.

One more point: the apocryphal books were NOT declared scripture by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546. “The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent” of 1565 states that Catholics “shall never accept or interpret them (scriptures) except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” So if the church fathers unanimously agree to a doctrine, then it is true Christian teaching—this would include the addition of the apocrypha to the Bible. And yet Jerome—the translator of the Latin Vulgate—OPPOSED including the apocrypha, as did Origen, Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. It’s true that Augustine supported their inclusion into the canon—but the “unanimous consent of the fathers” demanded by Trent is out the window on this point. And yet, I’m expected to accept the Catholic Church’s pronouncements as “infallible” and equal to the Bible, when it can’t even stick to its own arbitrary rules! Your statement that there were 2 Jewish canons is on pretty shaky ground—Jesus Himself only referred to ONE—those books contained in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms or Writings (see Luke 24:44).

On John 20:31: My point in quoting this was the NT’s emphasis on the WRITTEN word as opposed to any oral tradition allegedly “passed down” alongside it. See my statement on John 21:20-24 on another post on this thread. The phrase “it is written” is used by Jesus and the apostles around 90 times in the NT. To borrow the words of another writer, the Holy Spirit didn’t take thousands of years to produce the written scriptures, only to bypass them!

 

[sk32900]

DNS:

sk32900,

As b_justb has already responded to your post on the canon, I will not add a post on this issue unless prompted. I’ll turn right to the issue of Sacred Tradition.

I already addressed the issue of whether or not Tradition is God-breathed on previous posts, so I’ll focus on whether or not there are authentic Apostolic Traditions outside of scripture. In my last post I quoted a Catholic Answers tract:

From what I gather from this, it seems the Church is undecided at this point as to whether any of her Sacred Tradition is not recorded in scripture. I tend to think that all Tradition is found in scripture in one way or another, but that Tradition and Church authority are needed to bring out fully Christ’s teachings (I believe this is the definition of the material sufficiency of the scriptures).

Thanks for your responses. I’m going through your posts and the article by Jimmy Akin, and will get back to you ASAP. Thanks again for discussing this all with me (even in the middle of your moving!). God bless!

 

[sk32900]

Hi DNS: I’m going to break up my response into two parts (I haven’t had time today to finish it up; it was Daddy’s turn today to watch our four enegized children—all under 5—and their 10-month old cousin). Below, I address your points on the Catholic view of tradition and John 21:20-24. I’ll finish up ASAP with a post on 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

“Catholic view of Tradition”: In light of the definition given, it must be asked why we NEED this oral tradition if, as the definition itself states, they “largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture.” How would this oral tradition assist our understanding of Scripture, especially if it’s ALREADY CONTAINED in the written Word of God?

In general, tradition can be helpful—but it must ALWAYS be subject to measurement by the Bible, never elevated to the Bible’s level of authority. The church fathers, for example, can give helpful insights into the scriptures. But the Bible is STILL the final court of appeal for ANY doctrine or belief!

Let me give you an example: I believe that Gen. 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image …”) is a reference to the Trinity Godhead (in spite of several liberal theories to the contrary). Were there early church fathers that saw this? Absolutely—several fathers from VERY early in church history commented that this was the Father speaking with Jesus; and it was well established that this was the Trinity Godhead by the time Augustine commented on this verse. So the church fathers were a witness to this correct interpretation. HOWEVER, the PRIMARY REASON we know Gen. 1:26 speaks of the Trinity is by the NT REVELATION of this doctrine, and the suggestions of plurality in the Godhead that can be found in the OT (Hebrew words echad and Elohim, two Lords of Gen. 19 and Psalm 110, Jesus’ pre-incarnate appearance as the Angel of the Lord who is called Lord, etc.).

Yes, God does give the church the leadership gifts (Ephesians 4:11), especially teachers (James 3:1) and pastors, to help us understand the Bible and how it applies to our lives. But this does not mean that these same teachers and pastors are somehow an equal authority to the Bible; what they teach MUST line up with the Scriptures. There MUST be a standard by which we judge whether what they teach is true; that standard is God’s WRITTEN word in the Bible. I’ve seen Peter Kreeft’s horse and rider analogy about scripture and tradition, and I understood the ones you gave. So let me offer one: maybe we can see scripture as a stairway, with tradition as handrails. The handrails can be very helpful for getting up and down the stairs; but ULTIMATELY, one can get up and down those stairs WITHOUT the rails.

John 21:20-24: The point in referring to this verse is showing the unreliability of oral tradition in contrast to written scripture. Keep in mind, Jesus uttered His original statement at about 30 AD after His resurrection; John wrote his gospel around 90-100 AD. There was at least a 60-year gap between this saying going out (and being mangled) and John finally setting the record straight. We can quibble about whether it falls into a “sacred tradition” category, but John (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) thought it was important enough to WRITE DOWN the actual account of what Jesus said.

I’ll get back to you soon on 2 Timothy. God bless!

 

[Philthy]

DNS:

There are many threads on these forums where people ask questions about the faith and others respond with there answers. I thought that perhaps it would be nice to start threads that provide a place for those of different faiths to discuss specific issues that seperate them. Since Protestants take the affirmative on this issue, I (and I hope the other participating Catholics) will not defend the Catholic position until the Protestants (or a Protestant) states his/her position.

I look forward to your responses !

First: The bible is incapable of being infallible - that is a property only possessed by a person. The bible is inerrant in matters of salvation.
Second: The current collection of writings which we today recognize as “the bible” did not initially and does not now “reveal itself” to us as the inerrant word of God. Unlike the ten commandments written by God and entrusted to Moses, the rest of the bible required the testimony of witnesses to validate its origin. This validation was performed through the members of the Church in what would appear to be a very human way, and indeed it was, but it was also done by the guidance of the holy Spirit. This latter point we accept on faith and on the testimony of those post apostolic witnesses.

phil

 

[Philthy]

sk32900:

Is the Bible sufficient in itself for our faith and morals? Let’s start with that famous “Protestant prooftext,” 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that all scripture is God-breathed (the original Greek, reflected in the New International Version). Catholic apologists like to claim that the verse doesn’t state “only Scripture.” But this begs the question: WHERE in scripture does it say that any tradition not recorded in scripture is God-breathed?

Actually, several questions become critical:

• If the bible was meant to be the ONLY means of learning the New Covenant faith, why did Paul use the weak term “uselful” rather than something stronger like “the exclusive means”?
• What, exactly, did Paul mean when he used the word Scripture?
• Is there any indication in Scripture that OTHER THINGS are fundamental to the faith?
• Do those other things contradict any of the interpretations generated from the second question?

I personally find it very telling that Paul in his two letter to Timothy does 2 things:First, he acknowledges that Timothy “knows all the Scripture” and has since his childhood. Next, he tells Timothy that he is writing so that Timothy will know HOW TO BEHAVE in the Church of the living God, which is THE PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH. How odd, if Scripture alone was the means, that Paul would say such a thing and not trust Timothys excellent knowledge of Scritpure to govern his behavior.

sk32900:

You can state that the Bible itself doesn’t claim it is the supreme authority for our faith. But this is a case where the doctrine of the Bible’s authority is implicit, as opposed to explicit (an example: we agree the Bible explicitly calls Jesus God in John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8, for example. But it doesn’t explicitly state there is a Trinity. Nonetheless, the Trinity is Implicitly backed up by scriptural patterns). It’s had to escape the emphasis on the authority of God’s WRITTEN word in both the Old and New Testament.

Uhhh, isnt that putting the cart before the horse? We can say nothing about the Trinity from Scripture until we have successfully defined Scripture to be what it is, and that recognition of what Scripture did not come from Scripture itself. This simply brings us back to square one.

sk32900:

Then there is the example of an oral tradition that is recorded in scripture, in John 21:20-24. Here is an actual saying of Jesus that was heard by the apostles, who managed to DISTORT what Jesus actually said about John! And how do we know it was a distortion? JOHN SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT WITH THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD! This passage should give pause to Catholics who want to claim that traditions not in the NT can still be traced to the early church.

OK, lets talk about this. Was this “distortion” not resolved until the Gospel of John was written? Is that what you are claiming? How, exactly, do we know that? And what “tradition” do you think was produced from this? I dont know how you can claim that John didnt discuss with the Apostolic successors outside of Scripture…

sk32900:

Going back to 2 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that the God-breathed scriptures are given to us “that the man of God may be COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for every good work” (NKJV). Read that again: the written word makes us COMPLETE and THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED! And yet, we’re supposed to give equal authority to traditions that the Catholic Church can’t quite trace back historically to the NT church?

You’re zeal to prove your point is clouding your objectivity - or perhaps you simply don’t possess strong analytical knowledge.
The fact that with Scripture the man of God can become complete and thoroughly equipped does not mean that Scripture per se (that means Scripture of itself) makes us complete and thoroughly equipped. A knowledge of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division may complete our knowledge of algebra, but that knowledge - alone - does not “make us”-by itself- know algebra.

sk32900:

Traditions, by the way, are not bad within themselves; Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:1-9 can be applied to ANY church in Christendom, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, where tradition obscures or obstructs our faith in God. All churches have man-made traditions, some good, some not-so-good and some that were good at one time but are now irrelevant. Is a tradition drawing one closer to Jesus, or driving him or her away? That’s the central issue of Matthew 15.

I agree that how traditions are used by individuals can be good or bad - just like Scripture.

Phil

 

[sk32900]

Good morning DNS:

Here’s my thoughts on n 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (and I apologize for the delay):

First, we both agree that the Bible is the inspired, God-breathed word of God. We believe this for both the OT and the NT.

Perhaps our main difference lies in where teaching authority is compared to the Bible. The Bible shows that there are those gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11; James 3:1). I believe that any Christian pastor or teacher needs to have a “court of final appeal” which would be God’s written revelation in the Bible.

Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that our final authority is the Bible and Catholic Church tradition together. Does this mean that it’s an either/or proposition—that either the Bible or the church tradition can serve as our final authority on questions of faith? (My understanding also is that Catholic Tradition cannot contradict the Bible).

Again, my view is that the Bible is our FINAL authority. While all churches have their traditions, those traditions are SUBSERVIENT and secondary to the written word of God. I also believe that any tradition that was orally passed down in the NT times in now contained in the written Word that we now have in the NT. You claimed that 1 Thess. 2:13 shows that oral tradition was also called the word of God. But is the word of God they heard from Paul at that time now recorded in Scripture? Or was it preaching based on OT scriptures, especially those pointing to Christ? The NT teachings from the apostles HAD to be given orally for the first century church, until they could be WRITTEN DOWN just like they were in the OT.

“The idea that Jesus—the living Word of God …—would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved by the written word of God is absurd on its face,” James Akin claims. All I could think about when I read this was Jesus’ repeated appeals to the written OT record, especially in dealing with the religious authorities of the day. When the Sadducees tried to trip Him up on a question, His response was, “You are in error because you do not know the SCRIPTURES or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Akin would object that Jesus cited the OT scripture only to prove specific points; in this passage, for example, Jesus cited Exodus 3:6 to answer the Sadducees’ anti-supernatural beliefs. And yet, Jesus REPEATEDLY cites the written OT scriptures—and isn’t HE supposed to be our ultimate example? There are several instances where Jesus appealed to His own authority; but again, this was when the normative NT revelation was still being given, and those instances are now part of the written NT record. Even in his being tempted by Satan in the wilderness, Jesus’ answer was, three consecutive times, IT IS WRITTEN.

My understanding of the position you and Akin present is that just because the written Word makes us complete, doesn’t mean that written scripture is complete within itself. But it must be asked at this point if God would leave something important out of the only direct written revelation received from Jesus and the apostles. We both agree that Christians are to handle the word of God correctly (2 Timothy 2:15). If a new Christian has trouble understanding parts of the Bible (while the Bible’s ESSENTIAL doctrines that regard salvation are clear, other things, as Peter admits in 2 Peter 3:16, may be “hard to understand”), he or she should go to a teacher or pastor that God has raised up to help them (leaders, that is, who live their lives and teach their doctrine in accordance with God’s written word). That we would need an equal authority in the form of Catholic tradition (which, as I pointed out to b-justb in another post regarding the apocrypha, can be inconsistent) seems foreign to the NT.

Several points about Akin’s article:

If the scriptures ONLY make the “man of God” or clergy complete, as Akin argues, what would be the point? Ephesians 4:11-12 gives the answer: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,* for the equipping of the sa**ints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ …" The written scriptures are STILL our final authority, whichever way you go on the “man of God.”

*Akin’s argument regarding “every scripture” versus “all scripture” (at the beginning of 2 Timothy 3:16-17) is really a distinction without difference. If EVERY scripture is inspired, then it stands to reason that ALL scripture is inspired!

DNS, let me know if this raises any other questions. Thanks for sharing your views on this, and God bless!

 

[MarySon]

I would like to throw my insight into this discussion. First of all, I have to second what Philthy said: <<If the bible was meant to be the ONLY means of learning the New Covenant faith, why did Paul use the weak term “uselful” rather than something stronger like “the exclusive means”? >>
Secondly, let’s look back at the time when that letter was written. Paul wanted to teach young Timothy something. Since he was not able to come he wrote the letter. We all agree that the letter was composed in what 50 - 60 AD? The cannon of the Sacret Scriptures was not completed at that time. Moreover, some other letters were not written at that time also. The only Scripture known to men at that time was what we call the ‘Old Testament’. It can only be that set of books that Paul refered to.

 

[Pedro]

sk32900, allow me to respond to a few of your comments:

sk32900:

I believe that any Christian pastor or teacher needs to have a “court of final appeal” which would be God’s written revelation in the Bible.

These verses do not agree with your idea that the bible is that “court of final appeal”:

1 Timothy 3:15 - the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth

Matthew 16:13-20 - keys and binding/loosing authority given to the Church

Matthew 18:15-18 - the Church is the “court of final appeal”

You see a “court of final appeal” will need to interpret the Word of God, decide on it’s ruling, and then explain it’s ruling. Interpretting, deciding and explaining are actions, and as such, they require an active agent. The bible, although it is the living Word of God, is static text, so it cannot interpret, decide or explain. Those actions are done by the reader of the bible, who is an active agent. To be able to get infalliable teachings from the bible, we need an infalliable active agent that will interpret, decide and explain the bible to us.

sk32900:

“The idea that Jesus—the living Word of God …—would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved by the written word of God is absurd on its face,” James Akin claims. All I could think about when I read this was Jesus’ repeated appeals to the written OT record, especially in dealing with the religious authorities of the day. When the Sadducees tried to trip Him up on a question, His response was, “You are in error because you do not know the SCRIPTURES or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Akin would object that Jesus cited the OT scripture only to prove specific points; in this passage, for example, Jesus cited Exodus 3:6 to answer the Sadducees’ anti-supernatural beliefs. And yet, Jesus REPEATEDLY cites the written OT scriptures—and isn’t HE supposed to be our ultimate example? There are several instances where Jesus appealed to His own authority; but again, this was when the normative NT revelation was still being given, and those instances are now part of the written NT record. Even in his being tempted by Satan in the wilderness, Jesus’ answer was, three consecutive times, IT IS WRITTEN.

The examples you cite of Jesus needing to quote the OT and explain the correct meaning of scripture actually supports the Catholic teaching of the need for an authoritative interpreter of scripture. These Pharisees & Sadducees studied scripture all their lives, yet they still needed Jesus (an infalliable active agent) to explain it to them. Even if your claim is true that everything the apostles taught is written down in the NT, we would still need an infalliable interpreter of scripture to get infalliable teachings from scripture.

sk32900:

If a new Christian has trouble understanding parts of the Bible (while the Bible’s ESSENTIAL doctrines that regard salvation are clear, other things, as Peter admits in 2 Peter 3:16, may be “hard to understand”), he or she should go to a teacher or pastor that God has raised up to help them (leaders, that is, who live their lives and teach their doctrine in accordance with God’s written word).

Your admission of the need of a teacher/pastor to help understand the difficult parts of the bible again supports the Catholic position. You can only be sure that a doctrine being taught is in accordance with God’s written word if that teacher is infalliable. The Church is the only entity mentioned in the bible that Jesus promised would not be overcome by the gates of hell.

Also how can you say that the essential doctrines of the bible are clear and at the same time say there are parts of the bible that are hard to understand? How can you know with absolute certainty that there are no essential doctrines in the parts that are hard to understand if you don’t understand them in the first place?

 

[sk32900]

MarySon:

I would like to throw my insight into this discussion. First of all, I have to second what Philthy said: <<If the bible was meant to be the ONLY means of learning the New Covenant faith, why did Paul use the weak term “uselful” rather than something stronger like “the exclusive means”? >>
Secondly, let’s look back at the time when that letter was written. Paul wanted to teach young Timothy something. Since he was not able to come he wrote the letter. We all agree that the letter was composed in what 50 - 60 AD? The cannon of the Sacret Scriptures was not completed at that time. Moreover, some other letters were not written at that time also. The only Scripture known to men at that time was what we call the ‘Old Testament’. It can only be that set of books that Paul refered to.

Good morning MarySon:

Just a few comments:

I don’t believe any words or phrases needed to be changed here(example from Philthy) for the BIble to support sola scripture (see my other posts on this thread).

On your second point: Paul wrote this to Timothy as his final instructions, before his execution by Nero (4:6-8). Regardless of whether Paul himself knew he was producing scripture, his writings WERE recognized as scripture by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16). The NT is just as much God-breathed as the OT, as the Catholic Church affirms. The fact that the NT scriptures were not completed at that point further shows that the “traditions” mentioned in the NT would now be part of the NT record.

 

[Pedro]

sk32900:

The apocryphal books were attached to the Septuagint translation of the OT, but were NEVER accepted as inspired by the Jews. Interestingly, while Jesus and the NT writers use many quotes from the Septuagint, they DO NOT QUOTE EVEN ONCE from any of the apocryphal writings contained in the Catholic Bible.

There are literally dozens of quotes/references/allusions to the deuterocanonical books by the NT writers, but let me just give you one of my favorites. Let me know if you want more.

Matthew 27:41-44
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42"He saved others," they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, **for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ **44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.”

Most bible commentaries will note that that verse 43 makes reference to Psalm 22 which is recognized by all as messianic prophecy. But notice that only the the first part of verse 43 references Psalm 22 and nowhere does Psalm 22 mention the “Son of God”. The idea that a son of God would be delivered by God was not a general idea during the OT times since prophets were recognized as sons of God but God did not always deliver them. The idea that the Messiah would be mocked and put to a shameful death was also an idea foreign to the Jews.

The only place in the OT that you will find the story of a righteous man who said he was the Son of God and who was put to a shameful death and mocked like in the Matthew verses above is in Wisdom 2:12-20.

Wisdom 2:12-20
12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
**19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. **
**20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." **

What this tells us is that by making reference to both Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2 in the same verse, the inspired NT writer recognizes both as messianic prophecies, as inspired writings.

 

[sk32900]

Hi Pedro;

Thanks for your responses. I’ll get back to you on them ASAP. The post on the apocrypha was especially interesting. If you can provide a list of other examples, I would appreciate it. God bless.

 

[sk32900]

Pedro:

There are literally dozens of quotes/references/allusions to the deuterocanonical books by the NT writers, but let me just give you one of my favorites. Let me know if you want more.

Hi Pedro:

Your claim that Wisdom 2:12-20 was referred to in Matthew 27:43 was very interesting, especially the similarity of the use of the phrase “Son of God.” You conclude that this shows that the Book of Wisdom is cited authoritatively as OT scripture alongside Psalm 22 by Matthew.

Let me point out several things before we can draw this conclusion:

*The writer of Wisdom claims to be Solomon, and yet this work was obviously written by a Greek-speaking Jew about 40-100 years before Jesus came to earth—hundreds of years after Solomon existed. I’m aware that writers of that time liked to put their words into the mouths of renowned people of the past; nonetheless, this fact alone shows that it was with good reason the Jews never accepted this work into their canon of scripture (the Jewish canon closed with Malachi about 400 years earlier).

*According to Greek and New Testament authority Bruce Metzger, the writer may have been influenced by a contemporary Jewish martyrdom; by the suffering of the Jews during the time of the Maccabees revolt; or by Glaucon’s description of the “binding, scourging and crucifixion of the perfectly just man who is esteemed to be unjust,” found in Plato’s *Republic * (An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 76). Metzger, in a footnote, adds that Clement of Alexandria claimed Plato was “all but foretelling the dispensation of salvation”—but surely you would not consider ALL of the Republic to be inspired scripture even if this WAS prophetically pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. I remember hearing a taped sermon by Bishop Fulton Sheen, in which he showed mankind’s yearning and anticipation of a savior of mankind—fulfilled in Jesus—through the writings of Homer and Buddha, among others. Perhaps the writer of Wisdom better fits into THIS category—part of a universal expression of the desire for salvation that was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. This does NOT make Wisdom equal to scripture, any more than the writings of Homer or Buddha would be.

*Let us, for the sake of argument, admit that this quote from Wisdom IS prophetic; apparently, according to Metzger, many church fathers including Augustine thought it was (Introduction, p. 75). There are OTHER such prophetic utterances recorded by New Testament writers, from non-canonical sources. Jude quotes from two: the Assumption of Moses in verse 9 and the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, both apocalyptic works that were popular among the Jews at that time. In Titus 1:12-13, Paul quotes as “one of their own prophets” the Crete poet Epimenides, and in Acts 17:28 he quotes a saying of Aratus, “We too are His offspring.” These examples show that citing these true statements did not amount to an endorsement of the remainder of the sources as equal to inspired scripture.

At best, Matthew (the tax collecting traitor who became one of Israel’s greatest patriots in repeatedly quoting the OT in his gospel, to paraphrase Bishop Sheen) may have alluded to Wisdom (although this is not certain; Metzger notes (p. 76), “The parallel to Christ’s sufferings is more apparent than real.” Even the New American Bible says that Matthew probably was alluding to Wisdom, in a footnote to Matthew 27:43). But even this does not amount to making Wisdom inspired scripture, especially considering its dubious origins.

 

[Pedro]

Hi sk32900,

I was not trying to prove that Wisdom was inspired writing in my post. You claimed that the NT writers do not quote even once any of the deuteros, so I gave you one such quote. I agree that the citing by an NT writer does not mean the source was inspired writing, but if you already knew this, what exactly was the point you were trying to make by claiming the deuteros were never quoted?

The issue with the deuterocanonical books basically boils down to authority. Who do you trust to tell you what is scripture? Is it Jewish authorities, the same ones whose man-made traditions Jesus condemned? Or will you trust the apostles who evangelized the world using the Septuagint, and the testimony of the early church?

 

[b_justb]

sk32900:

To b_justb: “In what way did the Spirit work? Through the councils.”

As I stated earlier, the councils confirmed what was already evident in the churches, with their acceptance of genuine God-breathed NT scripture. Surely you do not believe the Holy Spirit worked ONLY through those councils.

“Why were there 2 distinct and separate OT canons then?”

Check your history again—there was only ONE, the Jewish canon that was settled long before the Council of Jamnia (which, by the way, met only to raise questions about several of the books ALREADY IN the Jewish canon, not to add any more). The inspired OT writings closed with the Book of Malachi, 400 years before Jesus’ birth. Even the apocryphal book 1 Maccabbees hints that there was no prophetic voice from God in Israel during this time (4:46 and 14:41).

Sorry it took so long to get back to this…

No I wouldn’t say or think that the Holy Spirit may work only in a way I think He should. But I will say it is evident that He did work through the various Councils of the Church. With the Council of Jerusalem being recorded in Sacred Scripture we have a model of how The Church settled matters of great concern.

There were 2 fully accepted lists Jewish Canons in the 1st century AD. The Alexandrian Canon that included the Deuterocanon and the Jerusalem Canon that did not include them. This is the breaking point that the OT canon list hangs on between the Protestants and Catholics. Protestants accept the Jerusalem Canon and Catholics accept the Alexandrian. And yes Jamnia did put out Orthodox Jewish acceptance of what was acceptable and what was not, it decreed the Alexandrian Canon non (Jewish) Orthodox. Though it is difficult to ascribe motive to historical events, it is clear from the documents surviving the Jamniain Council that they were very concerned as to what Jews had access to that was seen as “Christian” and the writings of “Christians” were directly spoken against at the council.

In any case my argument still stands: If the Bible was the ONLY source of authority then a list of what is in the Bible would be contained in the bible, which it does not. Since we must derive an external source for the Canon, the Bible cannot be the ONLY souce of authority.

 

[Philthy]

sk32900:

Good morning MarySon:
Just a few comments:
I don’t believe any words or phrases needed to be changed here(example from Philthy) for the BIble to support sola scripture (see my other posts on this thread).

We know you don’t believe it, and we know the reasons you originally stated for not believing it, and we gave you actual reasons why your belief has problems so you can understand why we don’t beleive what you believe - at least not for the reasons you believe. We dont need you to restate that you believe what you believe, we would like you to respond to the objections we raised in defence of your belief.
Here are some of those points which you ignored:

• If the bible was meant to be the ONLY means of learning the New Covenant faith, why did Paul use the weak term “useful” rather than something stronger like “the exclusive means”?
• What, exactly, did Paul mean when he used the word Scripture?
• Is there any indication in Scripture that OTHER THINGS are fundamental to the faith?
• Do those other things contradict any of the interpretations generated from the second question?

I personally find it very telling that Paul in his two letter to Timothy does 2 things:First, he acknowledges that Timothy “knows all the Scripture” and has since his childhood. Next, he tells Timothy that he is writing so that Timothy will know HOW TO BEHAVE in the Church of the living God, which is THE PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH. How odd, if Scripture alone was the means, that Paul would say such a thing and not trust Timothys excellent knowledge of Scritpure to govern his behavior.

sk32900:

On your second point: Paul wrote this to Timothy as his final instructions, before his execution by Nero (4:6-8). Regardless of whether Paul himself knew he was producing scripture, his writings WERE recognized as scripture by Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16).

See how easily one’s reasoning can fall into traps when objective, critical analysis is not used! Here, let me help you understand - again.
Scripture does not identify itself as Scripture.
You cannot rely on 1Peter as “Scripture” to witness to the “fact” that Pauls writing was “Scripture” without an EXTERNAL AUTHORITY to recognize 1 PETER as scripture! You are running in circles my friend, and we have simply arrived at square one: how do we know 1Peter is Scripture?

sk32900:

The NT is just as much God-breathed as the OT, as the Catholic Church affirms. The fact that the NT scriptures were not completed at that point further shows that the “traditions” mentioned in the NT would now be part of the NT record.

And why is that exactly? Have you ASSUMED that the NT was meant to be a means of establishing ALL TRUTH ON ITS OWN?
A guidebook, so to speak? I think you have, but you have no solid justification for doing so IMHO. In fact, you have selectively ignored that scripture tells us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of Truth, that we are to be subject to the presbyters, and that Pauls writings are very hard to understand and capable of being distorted.

Phil

 

[DNS]

Hello again sk32900! I am going to break up my response into two posts in order to correspond to your two most recent posts addressed to me. Before I begin I just wanted to thank you again for engaging in this dialogue. I’m sure it is hard to be the only one of your faith on a thread defending Sola Scriptura against a group of Catholics! Since there are many Catholics posting, I don’t want to respond in a lengthy fashion (unless I have to in order to get my point across) so that hopefully you will not have an overload of material to work through.

sk32900:

“Catholic view of Tradition”: In light of the definition given, it must be asked why we NEED this oral tradition if, as the definition itself states, they “largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture.” How would this oral tradition assist our understanding of Scripture, especially if it’s ALREADY CONTAINED in the written Word of God?

In general, tradition can be helpful—but it must ALWAYS be subject to measurement by the Bible, never elevated to the Bible’s level of authority. The church fathers, for example, can give helpful insights into the scriptures. But the Bible is STILL the final court of appeal for ANY doctrine or belief!

We need Tradition because it aids us in interpreting the Bible correctly. Together with Church authority, it gives us assurance in matters of faith and morals. Remember, just because a Tradition can be found in scripture does not mean it is spelled out clearly for us. For example, how do we know whether or not to baptize infants from the Bible alone? We need to consult Tradition and the Church to help us resolve the issue.

Sacred Tradition was taught by the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15) and was passed down to us from the Apostles (2 Tim 2:1-2), and thus it certainly has the same authority as scripture.

sk32900:

Yes, God does give the church the leadership gifts (Ephesians 4:11), especially teachers (James 3:1) and pastors, to help us understand the Bible and how it applies to our lives. But this does not mean that these same teachers and pastors are somehow an equal authority to the Bible; what they teach MUST line up with the Scriptures. There MUST be a standard by which we judge whether what they teach is true; that standard is God’s WRITTEN word in the Bible. I’ve seen Peter Kreeft’s horse and rider analogy about scripture and tradition, and I understood the ones you gave. So let me offer one: maybe we can see scripture as a stairway, with tradition as handrails. The handrails can be very helpful for getting up and down the stairs; but ULTIMATELY, one can get up and down those stairs WITHOUT the rails.

You are right, we shouldn’t give pastors and teachers the same authority as the Bible; they are fallible. But the Apostles and their successors were infallible (see Mt 16:18-19 and 18:18)[Endnote 1]. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Church Councils are infallible because they are guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15).

Your analogy is an interesting one; however I have some problems with it.

1. Does God really want us to climb a flight of stairs without handrails?
2. Just because you might be able to discern the Trinity without handrails does not mean you can discern everything without handrails. How can you tell from the Bible alone what God thinks about masturbation, cloning, test tube fertilization, and a host of other present-day issues?

sk32900:

John 21:20-24: The point in referring to this verse is showing the unreliability of oral tradition in contrast to written scripture. Keep in mind, Jesus uttered His original statement at about 30 AD after His resurrection; John wrote his gospel around 90-100 AD. There was at least a 60-year gap between this saying going out (and being mangled) and John finally setting the record straight. We can quibble about whether it falls into a “sacred tradition” category, but John (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) thought it was important enough to WRITE DOWN the actual account of what Jesus said.

Whether or not Jesus statement is Sacred Tradition is crucial, because if it is not then the verse does not pose a problem to the Catholic position. Since it is not Sacred Tradition, the fact that it was mangled does not show that Sacred Tradition cannot be reliably passed down, because, after all, God protects His Word. We can tell that the Apostles intended their Tradition to be passed down from verses such as 2 Tim 2:1-2.

Endnotes
1 Infallibility does not mean inability to sin. Rather, it means under certain conditions the pope or the bishops united with him are protected from teaching error. For more information click here

God bless,

 

[sk32900]

Pedro:

What this tells us is that by making reference to both Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2 in the same verse, the inspired NT writer recognizes both as messianic prophecies, as inspired writings.

Hi Pedro: In your last post you state “I was not trying to prove that Wisdom was inspired writing in my post.” But the above quote was from the post previous to your last one, that I responded to.

“You claimed that the NT writers do not quote even once any of the deuteros, so I gave you one such quote”—as I pointed out in my response, it is not certain that Matthew was even making an allusion to Wisdom; even the Catholic New American Bible (online edition) says it was PROBABLY an allusion. I said that AT BEST it MAY be an allusion. There is NO DIRECT QUOTE here from the apocypha.

My overall point about the apocrypha was already addressed in my Jan. 11 post to b_justb.