Do these verses prove Sola Scriptura?

[christmary4ever]

Yes, this is key, there is not pace where scripture teaches only scripture!!!. Is Prayer necessary for prefection, or for being complete…absolutely, all saints will talk about that no prayer no salvation, Scripture points quite clearly to this , when it says to pray unceasingly.

Lastly, Scripture cannot contradict itself. 1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”
The church which is founded on Christ was founded in the same way the Jews operated, on a three legged stool, the teaching authority of the church-magistarium, the Sacred oral word passed down generation to generation from those early church fathers, long before there was any so called Protestant reformation kicking out two legs of the stool leaving only the third leg of the Sacred written word-aka Scripture.

Just to quote a few of a number of verses which support Sacred Oral teachings.

Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 …Thank God constantly for this, that when you receivedthe word of God Which your heard from us,…

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

In adebate page a Baptist apologist claim that all these passages concerning oral traditions can only be found on
Scriptures so all oral trafitions have already been written.so
if not found on bible is not reliable.
How dowe respond?

 

[rocketrob]

In adebate page a Baptist apologist claim that all these passages concerning oral traditions can only be found on
Scriptures so all oral trafitions have already been written.so
if not found on bible is not reliable.

      How dowe respond?

That position doesn’t make any sense. I would respond by saying that scripture, which “…is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” explicitly allows for the fact that Sacred Tradition exists, is necessary, and needs to be passed on!

rocketrob

 

[po18guy]

2nd Timothy says “all scripture”, not “scripture is all”. But who determines what is scripture and what is not? It is the Church, which did so in the early centuries as it tested the writings for inspiration.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, also said that scripture is either “useful” or “profitable”. He did not say “all” or “only” There is a big difference. The Oral tradition, used by Christ, is necessary. What about the blind or illiterate? How on earth are they to hear the Gospel, except through Christ’s own oral teaching?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Version) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” The Catholic Church follows Saint Paul on this.

Actually, the oral tradition of face to face teaching was preferred to writing (scripture). See what the Apostle John wrote about this: 2 John 1:12 “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” Writing was considered incomplete, and face to face teaching was the ultimate.

The bible says, in several places, that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18; John 20:20; John 21:25, Acts 4:20). Where is completeness to be found? Only in the teaching authority of the Church, combined with scripture.

You are from a Protestant tradition, correct? In the past 500 years, the teaching authority of the Church that Christ founded has been disregarded, or discarded, by many churches. The Catholic Church, with roots directly to Christ, has maintained both scripture, which its members wrote, as well as the oral teaching tradition, which is perfected by the Holy Spirit.

We tend to forget that the “word of God” is not the bible. It is Christ, the Word made Flesh. See John 1. A few things that Christ said and did are in scripture, but only a few. He wrote not one word of scripture. Since He is God, Eternal and Perfect, why did He not write anything? The message from the Lord is that the Holy Spirit gives all teaching authority to His Apostles.

They passed that authority on to their successors. Revelation is not complete without both the oral teaching tradition (NOT the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees!) and Sacred Scripture. Many pastors have tried to condemn "tradition: as bad. However, the teaching tradition is all that Christ used, except for those few times when He quoted from scripture.

The traditions of the Pharisees was condemned because it made void the words, and lead people away from God’s will. Saint Paul challenged us to keep the Tradition of Christ, which was the oral teaching, backed up by scripture. This is a new concept for you and I expect that you will have some difficulty embracing it, but it is what Christ taught us, and left us when He ascended.

Christ’s peace. my brother.

 

[quasimodo]

Paul did not put his original teachings into his letter - at least not most of them. He wrote his letters for purposes other than original teaching - like straightening out problems that were cropping up, encouragement, etc…

Don’t forget you are reading someone else’s mail and the author and addressee share a common knowledge that is assumed on the part of both parties. It’s preposterous to claim that all of this shared common knowledge was included in his letters. There is no way anyone would have converted to Christianity on the basis of what we have in Paul’s letter alone. Don’t forget that the gospels were not written yet, and the Corinthians did not get the letter to the Romans until many years later.

 

[christmary4ever]

lol That is not my login name. It’s AlegreFe, not Alegra like the allergy medicine.
But please call me Sandy.

Gail, I realize that Paul meant only the OT because there was no NT at that time. Did you not read that in my comment?

But you cannot say that the NT is NOT God breathed. The New Testament IS God breathed, do you not agree with that? That is the only thing I meant by my previous comment. I did not mean that Paul meant the NT also.

I have no idea why you would think that saying that the NT is God Breathed would let the devil of SS in the door. That’s just ridiculous. And even if someone took Paul’s words to include the NT, it still would not let the “devil of SS” in the door.

If someone would really read just that passage alone without any other passage (the way some protestants do) it still would not lead you to believe Sola Scriptura. Not if it is read correctly. The key word there is “profitable” which means just that. If the word were “sufficient” it could make someone believe in SS. But it doesn’t say that.

I still stand on the fact that both the OT and NT are God breathed. And even if someone thinks that Paul also meant the NT (which would be silly 'cause there was no NT) it would not make SS true. Again, because of that word being “profitable” and not “sufficient.”

Sandy The bible is inspired free of error,what higher standards could there be. Oral traditions
are all written in the bible,so the bible alone is all
we need.

 

[AlegreFe]

Dear Sandy, you state:" But you cannot say that the NT is NOT God breathed." Perhaps you should go back and read again what I wrote. I don’t use the pop verbage of "God-breathed."

I don’t either but that is what you put in your post so I used it. And I know you used it because Curtis used it. Saying “God breathed” is not wrong anyway. When God breathes it is the Holy Spirit which gives life. It goes way back to Genesis with the “seas & the wind,” that is the “water & the spirit.”

Gen 1:2 And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
I do not use that phrase but there is nothing wrong with using it. I normally just say “inspired by God” when it comes to the Scriptrues.

In my post I simply state that St. Paul was operating under the influence of the Holy Spirit (no you didn’t but that’s beside the point. You can read your own first post below) when he wrote what he wrote and that he meant the Old Testament in his letter to St. Timothy. I don’t understand what you mean by “God-breathed.” It doesn’t work for me. A little too charismatic in the verbage dept. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by it. That would be nice. Then we could be on the same page!

(dark red AlegreFe’s comment)

There you go, I explained it above your quote here. But I think you avoided the whole point of my post to you.

Here is your first post in this thread to Curtis.

Dear Curtishouse - In response to your choosing these verses as the support for a sola scriptura premise, 2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work., I would say these verses written by St. Paul in a letter to St. Timothy are referring to the OLD TESTAMENT, not the New Testament! And he is only advising Timothy that they are good for teaching, reproving, correcting, instructing, etc. it says nothing about his eternal salvation. If I took this passage as literally as you do, I’d have to not read any of the New Testament because it is the Old Testament St. Paul is referring to. If your premise that this is the ultimate reason for rejecting things other than the Bible for salvation, then you are only riding in a cart with three wheels! You’re not gonna get very far.

I will also put my post here to state that I know what you meant. I also realize that Paul meant that the OT scriptures were the ones he meant that were inspired by God and good for teaching & reproof & correction.

Gail, I realize that Paul meant only the OT because there was no NT at that time. Did you not read that in my comment?

But you cannot say that the NT is NOT God breathed. The New Testament IS God breathed, do you not agree with that? That is the only thing I meant by my previous comment. I did not mean that Paul meant the NT also.

I have no idea why you would think that saying that the NT is God Breathed would let the devil of SS in the door. That’s just ridiculous. And even if someone took Paul’s words to include the NT, it still would not let the “devil of SS” in the door.

If someone would really read just that passage alone without any other passage (the way some protestants do) it still would not lead you to believe Sola Scriptura. Not if it is read correctly. The key word there is “profitable” which means just that. If the word were “sufficient” it could make someone believe in SS. But it doesn’t say that.

I still stand on the fact that both the OT and NT are God breathed. I will also add that it is okay to believe that all scripture is inspired by God including the NT just by reading that passage, even though we know that Paul meant the OT. And even if someone thinks that Paul also meant the NT (which would be silly 'cause there was no NT) it would not make SS true. Again, because of that word being “profitable” and not “sufficient.”

Here is your quote saying that you do not agree that the NT is “God breathed.” I do believe that you know that both the OT & NT are inspired by God. I also realize that Paul never meant the NT in that passage because the NT didn’t exist back then.

As for Alegra Fe’s affirmation that they now apply to the OT and NT, as you suggest in your comments regarding the “God breathed” notion, I can’t agree. St. Paul ment the OT when he wrote his words and yes he was operating under the influence of the HS. Why do some need to stretch that fact to include everything else? So they can support SS of course! That would be a faulty premise that can let the devil of SS in the door. So I stick to what I wrote.

But you cannot deny that the NT is indeed inspired by God.
So when we read 2 Tim 3:16, Christians can all agree that the OT as well as the New Testament is inspired by God. And by knowing & believing that, it will not “let the devil of SS in the door.”
In your last post you made the fact that I said “God breathed” more important than what I actually meant in the whole post, my main point. You never expounded on that. Instead you avoided it.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Dear Sandy, you state:" But you cannot say that the NT is NOT God breathed." Perhaps you should go back and read again what I wrote. I don’t use the pop verbage of “God-breathed.” In my post I simply state that St. Paul was operating under the influence of the Holy Spirit when he wrote what he wrote and that he meant the Old Testament in his letter to St. Timothy. I don’t understand what you mean by “God-breathed.” It doesn’t work for me. A little too charismatic in the verbage dept. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by it. That would be nice. Then we could be on the same page!

Peace,

Gail

“God-breathed” is not “pop verbiage” - it is a literal translation of θεοπνευστος theopneustos which is from 2 Timothy 3:16 and is usually translated as “inspired.”

 

[po18guy]

Sandy The bible is inspired free of error,what higher standards could there be. Oral traditions
are all written in the bible,so the bible alone is all
we need.

I must disagree here. The sufficiency of the bible is a 100% Protestant assertion. Since it is an opinion, it can not be proved, but only disproved. See Luke 3:18; John 20:30; John 21:25 and Acts 4:20. The bible itself tells us it is incomplete. Since precious little of what Christ taught and did is in the bible, the only hope we have is the magisterium of the Church.

Christ did not write a single recorded word, since He is the Word made flesh. That is why He breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and gave them all authority on earth and in Heaven. “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). There is no greater assurance of completion and truth in teaching. BUT, this requires the authority of the Apostles. Christ gave it to them, and they passed it on to their successors.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I love the ‘all, not only’ distinction, it had escaped me, I’m glad to learn it.

May I also point out that most of the New Testament hadn’t been written when Paul offered this advice: by ‘scripture’, he would have meant the Hebrew scriptures, what we call ‘Old Testament’.

So if he meant what the Sola Scriptura people claim, it would mean the New Testament isn’t needed, the ‘Old’ is enough without it.

 

[AlegreFe]

The traditions of the Pharisees was condemned because it made void the words, and lead people away from God’s will. Saint Paul challenged us to keep the Tradition of Christ, which was the oral teaching, backed up by scripture. This is a new concept for you and I expect that you will have some difficulty embracing it, but it is what Christ taught us, and left us when He ascended.

Christ’s peace. my brother.

Perhaps you are not aware of this but Curtis plans to become Catholic as soon as he can complete RCIA. He is going through it right now. So please pray for him.

 

[GailMac]

Oh Dear! A fine kettle of worms!

Polguy states:“The bible says, in several places, that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18; John 20:20; John 21:25, Acts 4:20). Where is completeness to be found? Only in the teaching authority of the Church, combined with scripture.” To which I’ll add this little bit to ponder…in the Eucharist we have ALL those Words made Flesh and a few besides! Make a good Confession and taste and see the the Lord is good!

Peace,

Gail

 

[KingAlfred]

I just wanted to get some people’s thoughts on these verses and I’ll tell you my thoughts on these verses as well.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

If there are any verses in the Bible to support Sola Scriptura, I believe these verses would be the closest to prove this doctrine. It seems to be saying that all Inspired Scripture will make the man of God perfect. Isn’t that we are all striving for?

Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

If all Inspired Scripture (which would include the NT Sacred Scripture) will make you perfect if you follow it, wouldn’t that be proof positive for Sola Scriptura? Would love to get some Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut on this and how the church interprets these verses. Thanks for your time and God bless.

-Curtis

Anyone who understands the history of Christianity and the Christian West, as well as the history of the Bible, knows that ‘sola scriptura’ is simply wrong.

 

[christmary4ever]

I must disagree here. The sufficiency of the bible is a 100% Protestant assertion. Since it is an opinion, it can not be proved, but only disproved. See Luke 3:18; John 20:30; John 21:25 and Acts 4:20. The bible itself tells us it is incomplete. Since precious little of what Christ taught and did is in the bible, the only hope we have is the magisterium of the Church.

Christ did not write a single recorded word, since He is the Word made flesh. That is why He breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and gave them all authority on earth and in Heaven. “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). There is no greater assurance of completion and truth in teaching. BUT, this requires the authority of the Apostles. Christ gave it to them, and they passed it on to their successors.

Acts 3:18 is based on the old Testament-The written word of God.
They have scriptures even before christianity and Jesus quoted
from Scriptures when tempted by Satan in the desert. and not
from oral tradition. and where does in the bible say that the catholic
church has been commissioned to interpret the bible. God gave
the apostles the authority to forgive sins and no one else. that
is why we appeal to Christ directly because they are gone.
God gave the apostles the authority to forgive as long as a person
believes that christ has taken away his sins for all time. The bible
does not mention through christ that apostolic authority be passed on.

 

[VociMike]

As others have pointed out, the key word here is “profitable”. Now screwdrivers are without question very profitable in fixing a car, but that doesn’t mean that an auto shop has no tools other than screwdrivers.

 

[po18guy]

Acts 3:18 is based on the old Testament-The written word of God.
They have scriptures even before christianity and Jesus quoted
from Scriptures when tempted by Satan in the desert. and not
from oral tradition. and where does in the bible say that the catholic
church has been commissioned to interpret the bible. God gave
the apostles the authority to forgive sins and no one else. that
is why we appeal to Christ directly because they are gone.
God gave the apostles the authority to forgive as long as a person
believes that christ has taken away his sins for all time. The bible
does not mention through christ that apostolic authority be passed on.

This sounds 100% Protestant. 2 Peter 1-19:20 prohibits Protestantism - at least relying on the authority of self in determining truth. Christ gave all authority to the Apostles, since He was ascending. He left not one written word. He taught from the perfection of His Godliness, and clearly intended that the Apostles carry on in that perfect tradition. Did He leave a book for them to read, or did He breathe the Holy Spirit upon them to lead them into all truth?

The Catholic Church clearly has all authority to interpret scripture. Christ gave it to her. And, it was the CC which canonized the bible in the first place. It wasn’t Luther who canonized the bible - he pillaged it, tearing out truth until he was happy with it.

 

[porthos11]

Acts 3:18 is based on the old Testament-The written word of God.
They have scriptures even before christianity and Jesus quoted
from Scriptures when tempted by Satan in the desert. and not
from oral tradition. and where does in the bible say that the catholic
church has been commissioned to interpret the bible. God gave
the apostles the authority to forgive sins and no one else. that
is why we appeal to Christ directly because they are gone.
God gave the apostles the authority to forgive as long as a person
believes that christ has taken away his sins for all time. The bible
does not mention through christ that apostolic authority be passed on.

But by this very same logic, since the Scriptures were already in place, then the New Testament is out 100%, no?

 

[onenow1]

HI, all
Scripture alone is an abomination to God ! By using it you deny God to speak any more revelation ! And as the previous post by
porthos11 stated no need for the OT.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[tobias]

Acts 3:18 is based on the old Testament-The written word of God.
They have scriptures even before christianity and Jesus quoted
from Scriptures when tempted by Satan in the desert. and not
from oral tradition. and where does in the bible say that the catholic
church has been commissioned to interpret the bible. God gave
the apostles the authority to forgive sins and no one else. that
is why we appeal to Christ directly because they are gone.
God gave the apostles the authority to forgive as long as a person
believes that christ has taken away his sins for all time. The bible
does not mention through christ that apostolic authority be passed on.

In Acts, Peter, the one whom Jesus ordained to ‘tend the sheep (christians)’ and ‘lambs’ (apostles[bishops]), declared that they had to fill Judas’ office. They prayed about it, cast lots, which fell on Matthias, and layed hands on him and and prayed and he replaced Judas as an apostle.
They bound Matthias on earth to be an apostle, so it was bound in Heaven.

Yes, Jesus quoted from scripture that was oral tradition before it was ever inscriptured (written down).

 

[christmary4ever]

In Acts, Peter, the one whom Jesus ordained to ‘tend the sheep (christians)’ and ‘lambs’ (apostles[bishops]), declared that they had to fill Judas’ office. They prayed about it, cast lots, which fell on Matthias, and layed hands on him and and prayed and he replaced Judas as an apostle.
They bound Matthias on earth to be an apostle, so it was bound in Heaven.

Yes, Jesus quoted from scripture that was oral tradition before it was ever inscriptured (written down).

I agree with the first part of your reply,simply because christ
commissioned 12 apostles to spread the Gospel. Matthias is
simply a replacement.

The last paragraph is not accurate. Jesus quoted from O.T.
SCRIPTURE which was already written Jesus quotes from
DEUT.8:3 , DEUT.6:16 AND 6:13. EVERY ORAL TRADITION
IS BASED ON THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.

 

[christmary4ever]

This sounds 100% Protestant. 2 Peter 1-19:20 prohibits Protestantism - at least relying on the authority of self in determining truth. Christ gave all authority to the Apostles, since He was ascending. He left not one written word. He taught from the perfection of His Godliness, and clearly intended that the Apostles carry on in that perfect tradition. Did He leave a book for them to read, or did He breathe the Holy Spirit upon them to lead them into all truth?

The Catholic Church clearly has all authority to interpret scripture. Christ gave it to her. And, it was the CC which canonized the bible in the first place. It wasn’t Luther who canonized the bible - he pillaged it, tearing out truth until he was happy with it.

PETER 1-19-20 is about interpreting the scriptures privately w/o
the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT. A person through prayer and
sincere intention can be guided to the truth. Jesus did not leave
any book because the HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME to inspire the
apostles (4) to write the GOSPEL. and teach them everything they need to know, to fulfill their mission.

Remember Jesus said Ask and it shall be given