Which of course is why the Baptist faith groups choose to interpret the words “Baptism now saves you” to mean “baptism does not now save you but is instead only a mere symbol of the faith you probably already had in the first place.”
St Paul wrote this epistle about 30 years after Jesus' completed work on the cross. The fledgling Christians were only becoming to understand that they would be distinctly separate from Judaism. They had been a sect, albeit a troubling one for the Jews, of Judaism.
When you read the Epistles, the only Scripture they were referencing was the Septuagint, or the Old Testament. St. Paul wasn't calling his letters Scripture. Protestants like to imagine that the KJV Bible was handed out on the first Resurrection Sunday. Well, we know that's not true and we also know that some of the New Testament wasn't even written until after the letter to Timothy.
Necessarily then, the Church needed to be the pillar and foundation of truth. St Paul regularly exhorts them to hold fast to the doctrines that they were taught either by word or letter.
We know that many other writings of the early church fathers were also held in high esteem and read from in the early church. Imagine a time period almost twice as long as the USA has been in existence without a definitive canon. The Church was the holder of the faith. It was, and is, it's defender.
The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, held strong to maintain the faith that was handed down to them. Jesus led them and never forsook them. The biblical canon, even the Protestant canon was a product of the Church in unison with the Holy Spirit, and as led by Jesus the Christ.
To have faith in Jesus, and to have faith in the New Testament, is to have faith in the Church. Period. It can't be separated. Isaiah 9:6-7 says the government of this Church would be on His shoulders, and He will increase it, establish it, and uphold it.No.
Matthew 18: “Take it to the Church, and if he will not listen even to the Church, treat him as a heathen or a publican”
Couldn’t have said it any better.
CARM fleshes out the meaning of James 3:1
We were originally talking about 1 Timothy 3:15, but I’ll still read the debate. It’s also related to the discussion on Sola Scriptura, so thank you very much for sharing it!
I understand that you were asking about 2 Timothy 3:15. The general context of this verse is discussed in the debate, though, and the passage 2 Timothy 2:15-17 is referred to.
If God did not inspire the clear prophecy of Christ in Wisdom 2, just who did? If God did not inspire the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life as written in 2 Maccabees, just who did? If God did not (name removed by moderator)sire the rebellion of Judas Maccabeus, restoring the practice of Judaism to Judah and Jerusalem in time for Christ to be born under the law in order to fulfill the law (and the books written about his actions), just who did? If God did not inspire the most advanced angelology in the Old Testament (Tobit), just who did? It goes on and on. You seem almost more Jewish than Christian in your opinions regarding scripture.
Not true at all, in fact the OT quotes given in NT show most plainly that they are taken from the LXX which far predates the Masoretic Texts btw. Furthermore the LXX included not only the “apocrypha” but also books which are not included in the “Catholic” Bible. Also Hebrews draws directly from Maccabees and Jude from 2Enoch (a book Christ teaches from concerning marriage btw) and The Ascension of Moses, so how do YOU define what is apocryphal and by what authority? By the one Baptist preacher who told you so?
This is a very silly entry from CARM. Consider two positions:
Paul tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. This contradicts Sola Scriptura. Paul does not say that Scripture, or his own writing, is the pillar and ground of truth, he says that the Church is. Catholics hold to position (1) and thus must believe that what Paul writes is true. But nothing about what Paul says implies Sola Scriptura.
Catholics appeal to scripture all the time. Catholics believe position (1) is true! Appealing to scripture as something true does not mean one believes Sola Scriptura. Again, this is an enormously bad argument from CARM.
You have a problem then explaining why every ancient Christian bible contains those books right up until the time that the Protestants dropped them.