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

[HailMary]

OK, here is a real life issue that almost tore the church into two.

With this line of reasoning in you post, can you please explain how the Council of Nicea came to it’s conclusion on the divinity of Christ, considering the fact that the Arian’s used scripture alone as their sole rule of faith in their denying the divinity of Christ.

If the Church used scripture, and the Arians used scripture, how was the decision confirmed by scripture alone.

I don’t think she likes history very much, but VERY good point about the Arians!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Scriptures demonstrate is that the truth can be confirmed thru Scripture 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….

But acts Acts 17:11 doesn’t say that everything has to be confirmed through the Scriptures. It only says that the things claimed by Christ were indeed in the Scriptures, the things which they were confirming.

Again, I have to ask where in the Scriptures does it say that everything has to be confirmed through the Scriptures?

…and that anything in conflict with the Scriptures should not be trusted. Isa “If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.”

This passage doesn’t mean “all Scriptures”. It pertain to the particular message that was spoken against those spiritists and medium that Isaiah condemned as follows…

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

To the law and to the testimony!

If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God.

To say this passage means that anything in conflict with the Scriptures should not be trusted is an overstatement of what the passage means and exactly what Isaiah’s words apply to. Using that logic, I could just as easilly say that John 5:39 means that reading the Scriptures is a waste of time.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me…

But this passage doesn’t mean that reading the Scriptures is a waste of time. It means that without Christ their reading of the Scriptures is worthless. More specifically, without recognizing Christ at work within the Scriptures, their faith was effectively worthless and not able to lead them to the Messiah that they so longedly awaited.

See…
John 5:37-40:

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Consequently, this example of John 5:37-40 is an opposite example, an anti-thesis of Acts 17:11. This is why Acts 17:11 talks about the Bereans so eagerly studying the Scriptures.

The Bereans knew that diligently studying the Scriptures did not obtain for them eternal life. The Bereans recognized that the Scriptures were the divinely written record which testifies about Christ Jesus-- which is exactly why they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so…

Again, I have to ask where in the Scriptures does it say that everything has to be confirmed through the Scriptures?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Ginger, who determined the Canon of the bible?

The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod’s of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:

“Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!”

TIMELINE OF THE CHURCH

 

[HailMary]

The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod’s of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:

“Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!”

TIMELINE OF THE CHURCH

Great post, God Bless you.

 

[Joab_Anias]

That is incorrect. The Bible is a group of books. Each tells a part of the story. Stories are over-lapping and confirm one another.

Much of the Bible can be confirmed thru historic records and archeology - but most important…

The Bible is the living word of God. Thru the Scriptures God often speaks to His people. That in itself allows the Scriptures to be self-authenticating.

Ah but not thru Scripture alone:

• The Transmission of Authoritative Doctrine
• Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation
• Divine Revelation “By Word of Mouth” (2 Thess 2:15): Handing On

Truth Handling and Teaching Authority

catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm

Peace.

 

[DarkMark]

Where in Scriptures does it states that everything must be confirm using Scriptures (OT and NT)? The idea that the Bible is sole rule of faith (i.e., everything must be confirmed thru Scriptures) came about in the 1500s. You would not have a Bible if it were not from the Catholic Church. She assemble the canon for the faithful. This in itself proves that not everything must be confirm using the Bible. Christ gave his Church Authority, and Paul confirms it calling the Church, not the Bible the “pillar of truth”.

Not everything must be confirm using Scriptures because not all truth has been passed down to us in written form. Some, as the Apostle Paul wrote, has been passed down to us through Sacred Tradition.

 

[DarkMark]

That is incorrect. The Bible is a group of books. Each tells a part of the story. Stories are over-lapping and confirm one another.

Much of the Bible can be confirmed thru historic records and archeology - but most important…

**The Bible is the living word of God. Thru the Scriptures God often speaks to His people. ** That in itself allows the Scriptures to be self-authenticating.

But not through Scriptures alone, as the Bible never makes that claim, but you. The Bible profess Sacred Scriptures + Sacred Traditions. God speaks to us in these two Forms. The Church is the pillar of truth not the Bible.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Great post, God Bless you.

Awe ty.

 

[guanophore]

Where do the Scriptures claim transformation only occurs when blessed thru apostolic succession?

Jesus empowered the Apostles at the last supper. He changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, then commanded them “do this”.

The Apostles ordained and taught their successors, and passed the gift and commandment to them.

Then you admit your claim about me is only speculation.

No, he wasn’t speculating. He read your profile, which said “protestant”. By definition that means no valid holy orders. In saying it was not only Roman Catholics, as you asserted, he meant (I believe) that all the other 22 rites of the Catholic Church in addition to the Roman also have valid orders, as do the Orthodox.

How many disciples were at Pentecost? 120? 500?

All who were there were waiting on the Holy Spirit which was promised by Jesus.

Not all were ordained priests.

Since the Bible does not record what happened to all of them (that would make for a very long canon) how do you know where all the apostolic successors are?

They identify themselves as such, and are in union with the visible Catholic Church.

The RC only claims Peter’s successors, correct?

Incorrect. In fact, Peter was first Bishop of Rome, and ordained many before the Church came anywhere near Rome. The Eastern Traditions have many successors of Peter. However, the majority of the Apostolic Succession are in union with Rome, and that is how they are known. Once breaking that union, holy orders are no longer valid.

 

[Ginger2]

Wow!

Am I the only one who has to work for a living…

Or just the only one who can’t multi-task?

This morning I tried to answer all the questions posed to me over-night. But I don’t have that much energy this time of day.

So, I’ll just try to look thru for the main point and address that.

 

[DarkMark]

Wow!

Am I the only one who has to work for a living…

Or just the only one who can’t multi-task?

This morning I tried to answer all the questions posed to me over-night. But I don’t have that much energy this time of day.

So, I’ll just try to look thru for the main point and address that.

I think you are the only one who can’t multi-task

 

[Ginger2]

I guess there are two main points we are discussing.

First, someone has brought up the canon of Scripture. My question is that if all Catholic churches are still part of the only church founded by Christ, why is the canon not identical? (not to mention dogma that differs)

Second, someone said that the Scriptures are not the only way God communicates with us.

I agree. That is not what is meant by Sola Scripture. God speak to us thru Scripture reading, pray, and other people as well as other ways less common.

Scripture does not contain all knowledge only what we need to know about God and His plan for humankind.

To suggest that we need Tradition because everything Jesus did is not recorded in Scripture, is silly. There is nothing in the RC Tradition that changes anything found in Scripture.

 

[Stephen_C]

There is nothing in the RC Tradition that changes anything found in Scripture.

First it is not RC Tradition it is Sacred Tradition. But you are correct nothing in Sacred Tradition changes anything in the Bible…It completes it.

 

[DarkMark]

You said “I guess there are two main points we are discussing. First, someone has brought up the canon of Scripture. **My question is that if all Catholic churches are still part of the only church founded by Christ, why is the canon not identical? (not to mention dogma that differs)”

What do you mean? I know that the Orthodox and Protestants have different canons, but I never heard of a Catholic Church which have different canons and doctrines.

You said, “Second, someone said that the Scriptures are not the only way God communicates with us. I agree. . . .God speak to us thru Scripture reading, pray, and other people as well as other ways less common. Scripture does not contain all knowledge . . …”

Great then He also speaks to us through Sacred Traditions, as Scriptures states.

You said, “To suggest that we need Tradition because everything Jesus did is not recorded in Scripture, is silly. There is nothing in the RC Tradition that changes anything found in Scripture.”

To suggest that we do not Sacred Traditions, even though they were passed down to us by the Apostles and were protected by Christ’s Church, is silly. I agree that Sacred Traditions does not change anything in Scriptures, but it simply completes it. Sacred Scriptures without Sacred Traditions is empty.

Two question:
1)Why do you believe we do not need Apostolic Traditions, even though the Bible said we do?

1. Where in Scriptures does it states that everything must be confirmed thru Scriptures (OT and NT)?**

 

[VociMike]

Second, someone said that the Scriptures are not the only way God communicates with us.

I agree. That is not what is meant by Sola Scripture. God speak to us thru Scripture reading, pray, and other people as well as other ways less common.

Scripture does not contain all knowledge only what we need to know about God and His plan for humankind.

If that were true then all Protestant churches would teach identical doctrine as the Catholic Church.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I guess there are two main points we are discussing.

First, someone has brought up the canon of Scripture. My question is that if all Catholic churches are still part of the only church founded by Christ, why is the canon not identical? (not to mention dogma that differs)

51-125
The New Testament books are written.

140
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

200
The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

367
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D…

382
Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393
the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397
The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

787
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

1442
AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

All other variations are departures for different reasons. Even Martin Luthers Bible was Catholic. It wasn’t unitl later that I believe the Scottish Bible Society put the Catholic books in an appendix because they were concerned people reading them would become Catholic.

Second, someone said that the Scriptures are not the only way God communicates with us.

This is correct.

I agree. That is not what is meant by Sola Scripture. God speak to us thru Scripture reading, pray, and other people as well as other ways less common.

Actually, the other ways are much more common. Its pointed out that sola scriptura was not even thought of until the 16th century.

The point is that the sola scriptura doctine is at the exclusion of Tradition and the other common means of hearing God which is why its in error.

Scripture is actually a tradition of the Church.

Scripture does not contain all knowledge only what we need to know about God and His plan for humankind.

Untrue. Else Jesus wouldn’t have left us a Church to teach us how to put His word into practice in His Spirit.

There is nothing in the RC Tradition that changes anything found in Scripture.

Thats because the New Covenant Scripture and the septuagint canon resulted from Church tradition. Its not supposed to change anything.

Peace.

Septuagint and Catholic Bible Vulgate

 

[guanophore]

To suggest that we need Tradition because everything Jesus did is not recorded in Scripture, is silly. There is nothing in the RC Tradition that changes anything found in Scripture.

No, but there are a great many things that complement scripture, and cannot be derived from scripture alone, the canon being only one. Jesus set up a Church, and Apostolic Authority. He chose to teach and preach, not write. He taught the Apostles to teach and preach. This is the main channel by which He wanted the faith communicated. Scripture is important, but it’s purpose is to suppliment the Teaching.

 

[Ginger2]

No, but there are a great many things that complement scripture,

That I can agree with.For instance, we can get a lot more out of reading Scriptures if we pray before and after.

…and cannot be derived from scripture alone,

That I disagree with as far as anything we need to know goes. If I learned that Jesus healed five thousand more lepers that are not mentioned in the NT, would it make any difference? If a new Scripture was found and authenticated that said Jesus raised 100 more individuals from the dead, would that make Jesus any greater?

…the canon being only one. Jesus set up a Church, and Apostolic Authority.

The canon simply a decision made by God-fearing men as to which books should be placed collectively placed together to make up what we call the Bible. The only reason they felt it necessary to create a canon was because psuedo works were surfacing and they didn’t want people to be led astray by false prophets. Both inspired and psuedo writings would still exist without the book we call the Bible.

And those seeking God would still find God. And those seeking to be their own gods would still become gods to themselves.

Something that seems to be continually over-looked by Catholics is that no one comes to the Father except thru Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father sends Him. Those who truly seek God will find Him because God has promised. And those who want to be their own god will not find God because they don’t want to.

2 TIMOTHY 4:3 For there will come a time when they will not put up with the sound doctrine, but in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.

 

[guanophore]

That I can agree with.For instance, we can get a lot more out of reading Scriptures if we pray before and after.

But there is much more to understanding scripture than prayer. The exegesis and hermeneutics are just as critical. And we can see what doing these without an infallible guide produces in the Protestant Denominations.

That I disagree with as far as anything we need to know goes. If I learned that Jesus healed five thousand more lepers that are not mentioned in the NT, would it make any difference? If a new Scripture was found and authenticated that said Jesus raised 100 more individuals from the dead, would that make Jesus any greater?

It is the meaning of what is written that is essential. The scriptures reflect what the Church believed. When they are removed from the beliefs of the Church, they are no longer understood in the manner they were written. Baptism includes no more water (I am discussing this one on another thread), the Body and the Blood are no longer really the Body and Blood, etc.

The canon simply a decision made by God-fearing men as to which books should be placed collectively placed together to make up what we call the Bible. The only reason they felt it necessary to create a canon was because psuedo works were surfacing and they didn’t want people to be led astray by false prophets. Both inspired and psuedo writings would still exist without the book we call the Bible.

So, are you saying that the council that proclaimed the canon was not a theopneustos infallible council? If the HS did not guide that decision, then how is it any more trustworthy than Marcion’s canon?

And those seeking God would still find God. And those seeking to be their own gods would still become gods to themselves.

God had a plan about how He wanted people to find Him. He entrusted this plan to men.

Something that seems to be continually over-looked by Catholics is that no one comes to the Father except thru Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father sends Him. Those who truly seek God will find Him because God has promised. And those who want to be their own god will not find God because they don’t want to.

It is not overlooked. It is just that Catholics believe that, if one finds God, then one finds His Body, the Church. We believe that we are not meant to exist as “just me and Jesus”, but to be members one of another.

 

[Joab_Anias]

That I disagree with as far as anything we need to know goes. If I learned that Jesus healed five thousand more lepers that are not mentioned in the NT, would it make any difference? If a new Scripture was found and authenticated that said Jesus raised 100 more individuals from the dead, would that make Jesus any greater?

No one is arguing the truth in the scripture. Only how it is interpreted incorrectly by the exclusion of tradtion.

The canon simply a decision made by God-fearing men as to which books should be placed collectively placed together to make up what we call the Bible. The only reason they felt it necessary to create a canon was because psuedo works were surfacing and they didn’t want people to be led astray by false prophets. Both inspired and psuedo writings would still exist without the book we call the Bible.

Thats correct. But it musn’t be ignored that it was the creation of the Church which Jesus promised to leave the Holy Spirit that lead to this understanding. Further proof that Scripture and Tradition are intertwined for the full understanding of Christ’s complete revelation.

And those seeking God would still find God. And those seeking to be their own gods would still become gods to themselves.

Something that seems to be continually over-looked by Catholics is that no one comes to the Father except thru Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father sends Him. Those who truly seek God will find Him because God has promised. And those who want to be their own god will not find God because they don’t want to.

Its not overlooked. This is why renewal and self correction is an ongoing process.

2 TIMOTHY 4:3 For there will come a time when they will not put up with the sound doctrine, but in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.

When Paul said this he was refering to those teaching against the Church 2Tim 3:15-17

It is more redily applied to the heresies and protesters teachings against the Church and thats where its context remains to this day.

To be steeped in History, Tradition and Scripture is to cease to remain in protest. They are in perfect unison.

Peace.