If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[joe370]

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[JM3]

I’m sorry. What was the question again?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Joe is (correctly) asserting that Paul cannot teach both Sola Scriptura and Scripture + Tradition. Since he clearly teaches the authority of Tradition in 2 Timothy (and elsewhere, like 2 Thess. 2:15), 2 Tim. 3:16 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

Hey JM3, sorry about that. Let me clarify:

I’m sorry. What was the question again?

Was Paul, hypocritically teaching that the bible alone was the Christians sole source of authority, (believed by sola scriptura advocates today) - as opposed to the church, all the while telling Christians to obey their church leaders and defer to their authority?

Like Cat said: was he, hypocritically teaching/embracing Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) - as well as scripture + Tradition?

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[diggerdomer]

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

No it’s not teaching sola scriptura today (or any day)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

I’m not sure why you feel this v. of scripture Heb13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. says that we cannot find everything we need in the bible for our salvation.

2Tim3
15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If we can find everything that we need to make us wise unto salvation. 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What more do you feel that we need?

 

[sterryfamily]

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura, then does St Paul necessarily EXCLUDE any scriptures written after this letter? Does it only refer to the Old Testament?

 

[JonNC]

Was Paul, hypocritically teaching that the bible alone was the Christians sole source of authority, (believed by sola scriptura advocates today) - as opposed to the church, all the while telling Christians to obey their church leaders and defer to their authority?

Like Cat said: was he, hypocritically teaching/embracing Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) - as well as scripture + Tradition?

As you might guess, Joe, I would consider this a false dichotomy. Since SS is simply the post apostolic practice of using scripture as the final norm, it doesn’t exclude in any way Tradition. In fact, rejection of all Tradition, a shortsighted venture indeed, would exclude the need of the practice, since the intent of SS is to hold Tradition accountable to scripture. If one rejects Tradition, there is nothing to hold accountable.
Lutherans, and perhaps moreso Anglicans, rely heavily on Tradition.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard…

What was your answer to the OP?

I’m not sure why you feel this v. of scripture Heb13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. says that we cannot find everything we need in the bible for our salvation.

Why didn’t Paul simply say to them: All of you can find everything you need in the bible for your salvation, instead of: Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

There was no bible when Paul was teaching by the way, so how could sola scriptura even work in his day and why did he tell his followers to hold fast to the traditions you have been taught either by letter or word?

What more do you feel that we need?

Some one to interpret the infallible word. I know that I was not entrusted with that task, when it comes to contrasting teachings eg - the Eucharist. Who was???

 

[Graubo3]

Was Paul, hypocritically teaching that the bible alone was the Christians sole source of authority,

Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand? Which version of the bible did Paul use? The King James, New Oxford, New American, Douay? Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

 

[joe370]

=Graubo3;7188052]Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand?

LOL…

Which version of the bible did Paul use? The King James, New Oxford, New American, Douay? Have a nice weekend

.

None of the above. Paul, no doubt used the Septuagint, regarding the OT, and many books in NT did not exist when Paul was teaching. He certainly did not walk around with a bible in his hands. We don’t even see a compiled version of our present day bible until the 4th century.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, what we see, if sola scriptura is to be believed (not your interpretation of SS of course) - are two contradictory parts:

I am told by some sola scriptura advocates here at CAF that Paul was teaching sola scriptura (the bible alone) - with no deference to tradition, while at the same time he is telling his followers to hold fast to the traditions be it by letter or word. Paul clearly did not support the notion of individual interpretation, which is something you agree with yourself. Paul believed what the CC (and the Lutheran church) - believes today:

Sacred tradition + sacred scripture with deference to the church leadership -right? We just defer to different churches. If they did not reject tradition then, why do so many reject it now, and which traditions are to be rejected and which traditions are to be embraced?

*Obey your leaders and defer to them… *

I don’t understand why people here keep claiming that the CC leaders are claiming to be infallible people? Even the apostles were very fallible people, but teaching infallibly via the guidance of the holy spirit. If the SS perspective (from what I have gathered here at CAF) - that truth cannot be known, with certainty, (in other words - infallibly) - as it was known, with certainty, to those who were taught directly by the apostles, then what’s the point of having the inerrant (infallible) - bible? It’s like having a math book and an instructor who says: there is no right answer or, there is no way to discern truth regarding the right answer in this math book.

As you might guess, Joe, I would consider this a false dichotomy. Since SS is simply the post apostolic practice of using scripture as the final norm, it doesn’t exclude in any way Tradition. In fact, rejection of all Tradition, a shortsighted venture indeed, would exclude the need of the practice, since the intent of SS is to hold Tradition accountable to scripture. If one rejects Tradition, there is nothing to hold accountable.
Lutherans, and perhaps moreso Anglicans, rely heavily on Tradition.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard…

What was your answer to the OP?

Why didn’t Paul simply say to them: All of you can find everything you need in the bible for your salvation, instead of: Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Because he said 2Tim3:15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

There was no bible when Paul was teaching by the way, so how could sola scriptura even work in his day and why did he tell his followers to hold fast to the traditions you have been taught either by letter or word

2Tim.3:15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What is there about this text that you need interpreted? And again if we KNOW THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And are made perfect through that knowledge and faith. What more do we need?

 

[Cat_Herder]

What do you think scripture is?

2 Thess 2:15 (NRSV)

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Scripture is what is written; Tradition is what is spoken.

What is there about this text that you need interpreted? And again if we KNOW THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And are made perfect through that knowledge and faith. What more do we need?

Love, my friend.

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 5:6[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 5:8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Graubo3]

None of the above. Paul, no doubt used the Septuagint, regarding the OT, and many books in NT did not exist when Paul was teaching. He certainly did not walk around with a bible in his hands. We don’t even see a compiled version of our present day bible until the 4th century.

Hey Joe, well aware of all you say. I often wondered why Moses “wrote” so redundantly. I mean: get some kind of highlighter for the really important stuff.

Peace, Graubo

 

[benidict]

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura, then does St Paul necessarily EXCLUDE any scriptures written after this letter? Does it only refer to the Old Testament?

great point. he would almost have to be, wouldnt he? thats all they had up till that point. come to think of it, the Apostles never had a new testament in their lives. peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

2 Thess 2:15 (NRSV)

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Scripture is what is written; Tradition is what is spoken.

The traditions taught that Paul is talking about here are either by word of mouth or by letter and are obviously one and the same.

Love, my friend.

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 5:6[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 5:8[/BIBLEDRB]

2Tim3
15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Would not love be included in being perfect, in the biblical sense?
Matt.5
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

So, again I must ask. If we are perfect, in the biblical sense, and know “the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is it that you think that we should be getting that isn’t contained in scripture?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The traditions taught that Paul is talking about here are either by word of mouth or by letter and are obviously one and the same.

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

Would not love be included in being perfect, in the biblical sense?

Sure. But 2 Tim 3:16 does not say “ONLY Scripture is inspired by God…” nor does it say that Scripture is required… Only “useful.”

So, again I must ask. If we are perfect, in the biblical sense, and know “the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is it that you think that we should be getting that isn’t contained in scripture?

Ask someone who is a successor of the man who wrote those words.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

What does this scripture have to do with what we are talking about?

Sure. But 2 Tim 3:16 does not say “ONLY Scripture is inspired by God…” nor does it say that Scripture is required… Only “useful.”

Useful for what?
2Tim.3
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Ask someone who is a successor of the man who wrote those words.

But I’m asking for your opinion Cat. Are you saying you can’t or won’t answer?

 

[Cat_Herder]

What does this scripture have to do with what we are talking about?

According to the Bible, not everything Jesus did or taught is in the Bible. We worship Jesus, not the Bible.

But I’m asking for your opinion Cat. Are you saying you can’t or won’t answer?

The Bible does not interpret itself. Whether it’s you or the Pope, somebody has to do it.

Case in point:

[BIBLEDRB]Ex 20:13[/BIBLEDRB]

Is abortion considered murder? From the pages of the Bible alone it can be argued both ways (though the ones who say no are being dishonest in their interpretation). What if you want a real answer?

Or this:

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 38:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

Is contraception equivalent to Onan’s sin?

To whom should you go?