Does 2 Tim 3:16-17 support Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RussAuburn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CYRIL of JERUSALEM

‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’
Catechetical Lectures 5,12

‘Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW’
Catechetical Lectures 5,33

"It would be easy for anyone to cut and paste the Fathers to their liking, however to find the authentic faith of a Father we must look at their entire writings.

It is clear the early Church Fathers appealed to Tradition alongside Scripture. This Tradition was normative, substantive, available to all, and preserved by the Apostolic Churches, particularly the See of Rome." (Joseph Gallegos)

The Early Fathers believe in Bible+Traditions.
 
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

‘It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.’
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface

ORIGEN

“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”
First Principles 1,2

Please reread my post. …
 
DarkMark said:
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

‘It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.’
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change what I stated.
 
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Paul didn’t expect people to take his word for it.
 
He is something I wrote to a Pentecostal ‘brother’ I am in dialogue with. He quoted those verses to support sola scriptura and in return I quoted the same verses as follows: (some of the text is from a Jimmy Akin article)
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

[15] 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.

[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Verse 14 tells me to stand fast to what I have learned – knowing who taught me (as opposed to many false teachers who lead people astray)

Verse 15 (three parts underlined)

how from childhood tells me that Timothy is taught not only by Paul, but also by his family. I understand that Jewish parents were obliged to see that their children were instructed in the Law when they reach the age of five.

sacred writings It also tells me that Paul was literally referring to the OT. The New Testament hadn’t been written yet and the books which composed the NT won’t be decided upon for another roughly 350 years. This gets back to who decided what is inspired scripture in its entirety.

instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus The true instruction of the OT can be understood when read in the context of the Christian community.

Verse 16 (two parts underlined)

All scripture tells me that author probably can’t imagine any scripture texts which aren’t inspired.

I think I mentioned in a previous email, the Bible does not list the books that should be included. Nor does the Bible say ‘the Bible is scripture’.

The Bible doesn’t say ‘the Bible is inspired’ nor does it say ‘the Bible is inerrant’.

Lastly the Bible doesn’t say ‘the Bible is the Word of God’.

and if it is not in the Bible then we can’t believe it, can we??? J

These are assumptions that can’t be proven without first acknowledging the Church that Jesus built infallibly declared them to be so.

If one accepts the Church in such a fundamental assumption then why would a person then ignore what else this same Church has to say about interpreting the very same Bible?

If one accepts the Holy Spirit guided the Church to choose the books that make up the Bible, then why would they ignore what the Holy Spirit did, effectively saying God was wrong and remove seven books from the OT?

profitable The text here doesn’t say ‘only’ but it does say profitable which has also been translated as ‘useful’. The here text does not support your assertion of “our only and final authority”. Based on this line of scripture, one could correctly and rightly modify your assertion to read: “a useful authority”. To get this text to imply “only authority” is to take the text way out of context.

Would you please give me some examples of what you believe the traditions are that Paul was alluding to?

The word tradition comes from the Latin word traditio which means “to hand down” or “to hand over.”

This Tradition I am referring to, is an apostolic teaching which is true.

Apostolic Traditions passed down are simply restatements or authentic interpretations of Apostolic Scripture,

In theology I don’t have to have a truth explicitly stated in the very words of God before I believe it. I simply need to know God teaches it, regardless of how it is expressed. For example, on the doctrine of the Trinity I don’t need the Bible to say, “God is a Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Persons who are one God.” If I did, I’d be in trouble because there is no explicit statement of the Trinity in Apostolic Scripture.

All I need to know is that the doctrine is implied in Apostolic Scripture, even if the words themselves are not used. On Apostolic Tradition, all I need to know is that something is an Apostolic Tradition, instead of a tradition of men. Once I know this, I can trust it.

Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favour of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible that contained those books!
 
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known **the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 
Ginger2 said:
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Paul didn’t expect people to take his word for it.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t prove Bible alone. Paul was talking about the Old Testament. Jesus fullfiled the OT. What was hidden in the OT is revealed in the NT. There is no doubt in my mind that Paul told them numerous OT passages proving Jesus is the Messiah. They simply had to look at the OT and realized Paul was right: Jesus is the Messiah! Everything He said was in the OT.

The NT teaches apostolic teachings as well as Scriptures. Paul taught this. The Early Church taught this, and it is still taught today by Christ’s Church.

I see you have not responded to my posts. Maybe you skipped over it …:rolleyes:
 
Ginger2 said:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known **the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Click to expand...
Does not say “Only”. Read again! I have no problem accepting the fact that Scriptures make one wise, but Scriptures simply does not teach Bible alone. Its a invention proposed by Martin Luther. The word “only” does not appear anywhere in the text. It is your mind that telling you “only”.
 
Ginger2 said:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known **the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Click to expand...
Even the highlighted part, I’m sorry to say, does not support sola scriptura; Paul only notes Scripture made Timothy wise in faith with the Lord. As already pointed out, Paul did not say only Scripture is needed; that would be ironic indeed since Paul is advising Timothy, in retrospect, to listen to him, which in itself would already be unscriptural during Paul’s time.
 
Ginger2 said:
First, the idea of Sola Scripture did not just pop up 500 years ago.

Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca. A.D. 253/254) ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. A.D. 315-ca. A.D. 386) ’For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.’ (Catechetical Lectures 4:17).

Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).
Click to expand...
You forget though that these same Church Fathers, as demonstrated time and again, have also supported Tradition, thus it would be quite negligent to say they support sola scriptura. In fact, even if we are to read the quotes you gave only, one would notice that it does not support sola scriptura; rather, what they advise is that anything that is given should be in accordance with Scripture. It’s very far from sola scriptura, though, since in essence what they promote more is that even non Scripture based acts should be in accord with Scripture–exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. For further reading, you might want to look at more of the works by the Church Fathers, what passages they wrote that proponents of sola scriptura use, and why those passages do not support sola scriptura: home.inreach.com/~bstanley/sorigin.htm
 
Milliardo said:
You forget though that these same Church Fathers, as demonstrated time and again, have also supported Tradition, thus it would be quite negligent to say they support sola scriptura. In fact, even if we are to read the quotes you gave only, one would notice that it does not support sola scriptura; rather, what they advise is that anything that is given should be in accordance with Scripture. It’s very far from sola scriptura, though, since in essence what they promote more is that even non Scripture based acts should be in accord with Scripture–exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. For further reading, you might want to look at more of the works by the Church Fathers, what passages they wrote that proponents of sola scriptura use, and why those passages do not support sola scriptura: home.inreach.com/~bstanley/sorigin.htm
Click to expand...
Great Post 👍

We must read the Early Church Fathers writings as a whole.
 
Ginger2 said:
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Paul didn’t expect people to take his word for it.
Click to expand...
I love it when sola Scripturists bring this up. They all examined the Scriptures daily, but some (most?) of them still rejected the gospel preached by the very Apostles themselves! So, examining the Scriptures daily was no guarantee that they would ascertain the truth any better than the Greeks who also converted without benefit of the Scriptures.
 
St. Timothy was already a Christian by the time this letter was written, St. Paul was simply clarifying his responsibilities and giving him moral support for his continued ministry.

In fact, I believe that all or most of St. Pauls letters were written to Established Christian Churchs and were meant to correct problems within the community. These communities became Christian withOUT the use of written scripture, most being pagan before, would not even have been raised in the OT scripture. Kinda wondering how in light of this, Sola Scriptura can be supported.:rolleyes:
 
Ginger2 said:
Second, Sola Scripture is not a claim that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It simply means that if what you say is in conflict with the Bible, I should believe the Bible - not you.
Click to expand...
Of course by this, what you really mean is that you’ll believe what you interpret the bible to say as opposed to what I interpret the bible to say.

Chuck
 
Ginger2 said:
Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca. A.D. 253/254) ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

The Bible should interpret or define Tradition - not the other way around.
Click to expand...
So you’ll accept all that these Church fathers have to say about the faith, not just these few quotes. Right?

Chuck
 
Ginger2 said:
Second, Sola Scripture is not a claim that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It simply means that if what you say is in conflict with the Bible, I should believe the Bible - not you.
Click to expand...
So is this the official, authoritative definition of sola scriptura that all Protestant communities believe?
 
Ginger2 said:
Which #?
Click to expand...
Almost all of them. You made an incorrect statement about the Early Church Fathers believing in Sola-Scriptural. I refuted your comments. Milliardo responded as well, but you ignore our posts. The Early Church Fathers believed in Sacred Scriptures + Sacred Traditions, the Bible alone theory is a 500 year old doctrine proposed by a man.

Then you gave Scriptures that you took of context to prove the Bible alone theory; I [we] alreadly refuted your comments.

You can not prove the Bible alone theory Biblically and/or Historically.

Finally, you gave a definition of Sola-Scriptural that is incorrect. Sola Scriptural is a doctrine that states the Holy Bible is sole rule of faith. Martin Luther believed the Bible is the sole source and not Bible +Sacred Tradition. But you said, “Sola Scripture is not a claim that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It simply means that if what you say is in conflict with the Bible, I should believe the Bible - not you.” I know many Protestants will disagree with you on this one.
Wonder if this is your own interpretation of what Bible alone means:confused:
 
clmowry said:
So you’ll accept all that these Church fathers have to say about the faith, not just these few quotes. Right?

Chuck
Click to expand...
No. I only quote Church Fathers because Catholics hold them in such high regard. It is obvious that they didn’t always agree with each other - nor always interpret a specific verse in the exact same way. But they loved each other despite minor differences of opinion.

Too bad Catholics and Protestants can’t do the same.

If we both believe the same basic and essential Christian doctrines, what difference does it make if, for example, I don’t believe in praying to the saints in heaven, but prefer to speak with God directly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top