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

[joe370]

Richard if you do believe that the early Christians (who were taught by Paul) - actually stood firm and held to the traditions taught to them by letter as well as the spoken word then either Paul was teaching hypocritically by also teaching that sacred scripture alone, (letter) - apart from sacred tradition, (spoken word) - was the Christians only source of truth, or Paul did not subscribe to sola scriptura.

Which is it friend???

 

[pablope]

Hey JM3, sorry about that. Let me clarify:

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?

St Paul the apostle never taught Sola Scriptura…for the verse in Timothy you are referring to…you need to take the whole context of what Paul is saying…you need to go back to the beginning of the paragraph to understand what he is instructing Timothy here…he is not saying Scripture alone…he is stating that Scripture is profitable for instruction…sometimes, due to one’s bias…you see something that is not supposed to be here…besides, when paul mentions scripture, he is not referring to the current Bible…only the Septuagint was available at his time, the New Testament Canon was not put together until the 4th century…you should also take into account that maybe two (or three) of the gospels have been written at Paul’s life time…John’s gospel would not be written till about the year 100(+/- a few years)…i suggest you go the Coming Home network, check their “Library” for various writings by former Protestant Ministers who had trouble dealing with this…it is very enlightening when you get to read their discovery of the truth.

 

[joe370]

Hey pablope

St Paul the apostle never taught Sola Scriptura…for the verse in Timothy you are referring to…you need to take the whole context of what Paul is saying…you need to go back to the beginning of the paragraph to understand what he is instructing Timothy here…he is not saying Scripture alone…he is stating that Scripture is profitable for instruction…sometimes, due to one’s bias…you see something that is not supposed to be here…besides, when paul mentions scripture, he is not referring to the current Bible…only the Septuagint was available at his time, the New Testament Canon was not put together until the 4th century…you should also take into account that maybe two (or three) of the gospels have been written at Paul’s life time…John’s gospel would not be written till about the year 100(+/- a few years)…i suggest you go the Coming Home network, check their “Library” for various writings by former Protestant Ministers who had trouble dealing with this…it is very enlightening when you get to read their discovery of the truth.

I agree with everything that you have stated. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition stemming from the 16th century reformation. I wonder what Richard thinks?

 

[pablope]

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.

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 B]that isn’t contained in scripture?

The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[pablope]

I’ve got a bible Cat. Are you saying that my bible is not scripture?

First of all…what does paul mean or refer to by “Scripture” in the verse cited in the thread? Remember, at paul’s time, there was no complete New Testament…by Tradition and divine inspiration, the Church was able to determine which books should be in the Old and New Testaments by at least two Councils between 350 to 397 AD. If you believe the infallibility of Scripture, thereby, the Church that put it together should also be infallible, right?

If you are using a Protestant Bible…by what authority did the Protestant Reformers have to remove the deuterocanonical books? Martin Luther also tried to remove the Epistle of james from the NT, but was prevailed upon not to do this. What authority did he have in trying to remove the Epistle from the NT? Who do you think was inspired by the Holy Spirit in this event…ML or his companions that prevailed upon him? Did you know that ML inserted or tried to insert a word in the Epistle?

So question…which Bible should be used-the Protestant version or Catholic Version?

 

[joe370]

I agree. pablope, as a former protestant…

First of all…what does paul mean or refer to by “Scripture” in the verse cited in the thread? Remember, at paul’s time, there was no complete New Testament…by Tradition and divine inspiration, the Church was able to determine which books should be in the Old and New Testaments by at least two Councils between 350 to 397 AD. If you believe the infallibility of Scripture, thereby, the Church that put it together should also be infallible, right?

If you are using a Protestant Bible…by what authority did the Protestant Reformers have to remove the deuterocanonical books? Martin Luther also tried to remove the Epistle of james from the NT, but was prevailed upon not to do this. What authority did he have in trying to remove the Epistle from the NT? Who do you think was inspired by the Holy Spirit in this event…ML or his companions that prevailed upon him? Did you know that ML inserted or tried to insert a word in the Epistle?

So question…which Bible should be used-the Protestant version or Catholic Version?

 

[JonNC]

If you are using a Protestant Bible…by what authority did the Protestant Reformers have to remove the deuterocanonical books?

Luther’s translation did include the D-C’s. Luther’s position on them was not out of the norm through the centuries, including St. Jerome, and Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan

Martin Luther also tried to remove the Epistle of james from the NT, but was prevailed upon not to do this. What authority did he have in trying to remove the Epistle from the NT? Who do you think was inspired by the Holy Spirit in this event…ML or his companions that prevailed upon him?

I’m not convinced of the facts of this, by Luther’s own words: “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

Did you know that ML inserted or tried to insert a word in the Epistle?

Luther’s inclusion of “allein” in his translation of Romans 3:28 he explains himself by:

• …if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”*
  If the intent had been to “change” the meaning, “alone” would also be in English translations. No English translation that I know of has “alone” in it. And Luther was not the first, by any means, to use alone in regards Roman 3:28.

So question…which Bible should be used-the Protestant version or Catholic Version?

I kinda like the Douay-Rheims.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul clearly says here that all scripture is inspired by God. That would be the bible old and new testaments.

except that the NT was not yet written. the NT testament came from teh Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, the Church. and not everything was written down. even what is written down can only be understood by the Church. since it is the Church from the beginning that tought those things. starting wiht Judaism and continued with the Church.

the Bible alone cannot interpret itself, if that was true than why so many different interpretations today? there was no such thing in the beginning of the Church.
and if anyone interpret the words of Christ and the Apostles different from the Church, they were banished from the Church and the Church gave final interpretation.

there is no individualism in teh early Church. there is no individualism today in the Church. this is a protestant idea of christianism. the Apostles never tought that Scriptures is an individual thing and neither did Jesus.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you know for a fact that they weren’t? Read the v. 2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. How do you get the idea from this v. that the traditions taught by word are any different than those written. But that actually is periferial to the main questions. I haven’t been able to get an answer from anyone else so I’ll ask you.

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.

1. What is there in this v. that you need interpreted?
   and
2. If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What more do you think is needed?

And where you get the idea that they are one and the same? Pure conjecture on your part. So I’ll ask again,where does Paul teach they are one and the same? If they are one and the SAME,why even bother to mention:

*hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. *

Key word: Whether. Conjunction: OR

So tell me how they are one and the same?

) If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Bad theology Richard. Paul is not teaching that scripture alone is all one needs or it contains everything for salvation.If that were the case,Jesus would have taught that written words alone contain all that is needed for salvation.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

St Paul the apostle never taught Sola Scriptura…for the verse in Timothy you are referring to…you need to take the whole context of what Paul is saying…you need to go back to the beginning of the paragraph to understand what he is instructing Timothy here…he is not saying Scripture alone…he is stating that Scripture is profitable for instruction…sometimes, due to one’s bias…you see something that is not supposed to be here…

Ok, let’s do that 2Tim3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Paul starts out talking about perilous men and he gives a number of characteristics that we should lookout for. Then he tells how we should act to combat these decievers

12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Here he shows us exactly how we need to protect ourselves. He says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
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.

Now Paul is talking about the old testament here. But notice what he says “knowing of whom thou hast learned them” Who was that that Timothy had learned of from his youth. Well it was Jesus of course. And he also learned of Jesus from Paul.

besides, when paul mentions scripture, he is not referring to the current Bible…only the Septuagint was available at his time, the New Testament Canon was not put together until the 4th century…you should also take into account that maybe two (or three) of the gospels have been written at Paul’s life time…John’s gospel would not be written till about the year 100(+/- a few years)…i suggest you go the Coming Home network, check their “Library” for various writings by former Protestant Ministers who had trouble dealing with this…it is very enlightening when you get to read their discovery of the truth.

2Tim3
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.

Ok, we need to read what is here not what we think is here. This says ALL scripture is given by inspiation of God. Now it is apparent that Paul did not know about all the writings that would eventually become “scripture”, but it is also apparent that the one that was doing the inspiring did know them. So, All scripture is inspired. Are you seriously contending that the entire new testament is not inspired? And pablope

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.

1. If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What more do you think is needed?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

pablope:
The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

So, you think that you NEED "The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Over and above faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order to be saved. So, then you believe that Paul and the apostles and all people up until the formation of this “deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” were lost.

 

[Nicea325]

So, you think that you NEED "The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Over and above faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order to be saved. So, then you believe that Paul and the apostles and all people up until the formation of this “deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” were lost.

So Richard,do you ever plan to answer me? Where does Paul teach the oral and written are the one and same? By you making such claim you basically are saying St.Paul believed (highly unlikely) the same as you,so please show us all where Paul states it is the one and the same thing?

 

[Cat_Herder]

So, you think that you NEED "The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Over and above faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order to be saved. So, then you believe that Paul and the apostles and all people up until the formation of this “deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” were lost.

Here we see the cumulative nature of heresies.

Richard is making the claim that the Bible contains everything that is necessary for salvation. Several people have pointed out that the Bible does not contain instructions for worship, instructions for conduct (i.e. definition of sin), administration of sacraments (e.g. marriage), and so on.

Richard’s answer is that none of these are necessary for salvation: he claims that the Bible teaches salvation by faith alone and that everything else is “over and above” this, ergo unnecessary.

This is the Scripture he will cite for that proposition:
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 3:20-28[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, he won’t go back a page where the same author, Paul, says in the same book:
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:1-11[/BIBLEDRB]

The works of the law to which Paul was referring are those of the Old Testament law. If those works could have saved there would have been no need for Jesus. And Paul explains that all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, will be judged based on their works, with whether we forgave our neighbor being given as an example (Cf. Matthew 6:15).

So we see that Richard subscribes to “sola scriptura” because he started with an invalid premise, salvation by faith alone. This is why pointing out to him the many things which Christians do that are not found in the Bible has been unavailing.

 

[joe370]

=Richard Kastner;7193264]So, you think that you NEED "The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Over and above faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order to be saved.

That’s just silly… We are saved by Jesus alone. Jesus is the head and savior of His Mystical Body, the church, and He is the architect and Cornerstone of His church against which the gates of hell will never prevail, and I am sure Jesus would want us to belong to the one church founded by Him almost 2000 years ago as opposed to a church founded by me or you or Martin Luther or any other man, hundreds of years after He established His church. If you don’t agree with that, well, that’s cool…

So, then you believe that Paul and the apostles and **all people **up until the formation of this “deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” were lost.

Why would the apostles and all those people, leading up to the reformation, be lost???

 

[pablope]

Luther’s translation did include the D-C’s. Luther’s position on them was not out of the norm through the centuries, including St. Jerome, and Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan

Yes…Luther initially did include the D-C books…it was later that they were removed.

I’m not convinced of the facts of this, by Luther’s own words: “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

Was this statement after he was prevailed upon not to remove the Epistle from the NT?

Luther’s inclusion of “allein” in his translation of Romans 3:28 he explains himself by:

• …if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”*
  If the intent had been to “change” the meaning, “alone” would also be in English translations. No English translation that I know of has “alone” in it. And Luther was not the first, by any means, to use alone in regards Roman 3:28.

I stand corrected if I am wrong. What I understood is he tried to insert a word to change the verse’s meaning to fit his position of Faith Alone.

I kinda like the Douay-Rheims. Which of the DR version-Protestant or Catholic?

Jon

 

[pablope]

So, you think that you NEED "The complete deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Over and above faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order to be saved. So, then you believe that Paul and the apostles and all people up until the formation of this “deposit of Faith…contained in the Oral Tradition, first, Letter (Scriptures) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” were lost.

Lost…they were never lost…they continued and still does continue to reside in the Catholic church…the Apostles’ successors in the Bishops, in union and led by the Bishop of Rome. Whatever gave you the idea these were lost? Jesus promised the HS and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it If it was lost, you mean Jesus broke his promise? Tell me, do you honestly believe that the HS would let this happen? That an all knowing God would not know what is happening to his church and would not act to prevent this from being lost? Just go the OT and read up the history of Israel.

 

[pablope]

Ok, let’s do that 2Tim3

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
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.

Now Paul is talking about the old testament here. But notice what he says “knowing of whom thou hast learned them” Who was that that Timothy had learned of from his youth. Well it was Jesus of course. And he also learned of Jesus from Paul.

2Tim3
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.

Ok, we need to read what is here not what we think is here. This says ALL scripture is given by inspiation of God. Now it is apparent that Paul did not know about all the writings that would eventually become “scripture”, but it is also apparent that the one that was doing the inspiring did know them. So, All scripture is inspired. Are you seriously contending that the entire new testament is not inspired? And pablope

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.

1. If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What more do you think is needed?

On 2Tim 3: 14-18…Timothy I think heard of Jesus only from Paul and was instructed by Paul. What Paul is stressing here, the emphasis of this text, is the strength of Oral Tradition that Timothy learned, from his father and mother and teachers and from St Paul himself. So this verse is actually not teaching Sola Scriptura…

I did not say only the OT is inspired. The NT is also inspired. What I am saying is Verse 16 cannot be used to justify SS, as NT did not come together until the 4th century. The question is: What is referred to as Scripture in this verse? What was the writes thinking when witha what he referred to as “Scripture” in the verse?

What more do I think is needed?
Rev 14: 13 which states…
13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

Faith and works…which are necessary for salvation for works will follow you till judgement day…as the verse above states.

and John 15:4…which states…

4"(A)Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

The need to continue to abide or remain in Christ, to continue to follow his Word…not to sin…and do good works.

So now, question to you: How do you abide in Christ?

Where in the Bible is it stated on how to continue to abide in Christ?

 

[joe370]

Richard, I believe, like Timothy, that scripture can make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. I believe that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is it your belief that all, each and every Christian needs is the inspired bible via their own unique authoritative interpretation?

1. What is there in this passage that you need interpreted?

There are none.

1. If holy scriptures, “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If they are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What more do you think is needed?

So, just the bible via my private interpretation of my bible is all I need - yes???

Could you please address my OP. You asked me to stop derailing my own thread and you are right; let’s stick with the OP at hand:

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 their authority, 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.

1. Is it your belief that Christians today (unlike in Paul’s day) - do not need to obey their leaders and defer to their authority?
2. If Paul (and the apostles) - in the first century, was not a sola scriptura advocate, and did indeed promote inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone via individual interpretation (each Christian as their own authority of their infallible bibles) - then why should I, or anyone else in the 21st century, embrace sola scriptura via individual interpretation, which is frowned upon by the bible? In other words: my interpretation of my bible, without deference to church or tradition is not a Pauline teaching or practice.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Hey joe, again, Paul was not teaching “sola Scriptura” here, and neither does the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

=diggerdomer

;7195063]Hey joe, again, Paul was not teaching “sola Scriptura” here, and neither does the Catholic Church.

I agree with you! I am just trying to understand why Richard and other non-Catholics don’t…