Non-Catholic View on 2Tim 3:16-17 - Apologetic Blog

[ahs]

Non-Catholics often point to 2Tim 3:16-17 as evidence for “sola Scriptura” (often times referred to as “SS” for short). And recently a new friend of mine brought it up as exactly such evidence for SS , stating that since Scripture says that Scripture makes us complete, that therefore “Scripture is fully sufficient and contains everything necessary that God wants us to know in terms of doctrine and theology…if something makes us complete, then we don’t need anything else”. He said that if we just look at the “plain language of the text”, we can see what Scripture is plainly telling us.

So, I looked at 2Tim 3:16-17 to make sure what he said is the same thing that Scripture says. 2Tim3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

“Where are you seeing Scripture ALONE?” I asked. “It looks to me that Scripture is “profitable”…“that a man…may be complete”. I do not see where it says that Scripture ALONE makes man complete all by itself. Where are you seeing that? “

I wanted to point out that nowhere does that verse (or ANY verse in Scripture) indicate that Scripture is the ONLY ingredient, so to speak, in what makes man complete…but that Scripture is profitable…that a man may be complete. And AMEN, by the way, Catholics believe that 100%! In the same line of thought, exactly as Paul is explaining it to Timothy, I can apply this to my physical person. Having an arm also makes me complete (physically), but does that mean that my arm, ALONE, makes me complete physically? No, it doesn’t. To be complete physically, I also need a head, a body, legs, the other arm… My arm is profitable…that I may be complete…but my arm is not the ONLY thing that makes me complete.

I also pointed out another critical point. If the language in 2Tim is evidence for “sola Scriptura”, then why isn’t James 1:4 evidence for “sola perseverance” (or endurance, or steadfastness…depending on the translation)? Let’s look at the passage in James and see what it says: “[2] My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, [3] because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; [4] and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” Verse 4 tells us, in an even more explicit language than found in 2Tim, that endurance (perseverance, steadfastness) makes us “complete, lacking in nothing”.

Now, no one believes that James teaches “sola perseverance”, (at least no one that I know of) but that’s the logical conclusion we have to come to if we say 2Tim teaches “sola Scriptura” based on the language used.

(continued below)

 

[ahs]

(second half)

But, my friend was very quick to point out something…even though Scripture says that endurance makes us complete, lacking in nothing, the “endurance” is only part of the picture…AND it flows from the testing of faith. So it isn’t the endurance ALONE that completes us. “AMEN!”, I said. But then he went on to say that, since the endurance flowed from a faith being tested…that it is the “faith that saves us”. More correctly, I pointed out, it is the” faith being tested”…or a “working faith” that saves us. That passage does not say ONLY that “faith produces endurance”, but “the testing of your faith produces endurance”. (And, AMEN to that…Catholics believe in salvation by faith!) But we must also not ignore the obvious here. Since we are saying that the plain language in 2Tim is evidence for “sola Scriptura”, we must look at the plain language here in James. James 1 does tell me that having my faith tested will produce endurance, but it also says that it is “endurance”, not faith, that makes me “complete, lacking in nothing”. So, according to James 1, what makes us complete…faith, or endurance? Scripture says “endurance” makes us complete. That is the plain reading of the text.

But, let’s take this reasoning he provided for James, and apply it to 2Tim. He said that, even though Scripture says endurance makes us complete, that it is really what leads to endurance. Likewise, even though Scripture says Scripture can make a man complete, it is really what leads to Scripture.

2Tim says Scripture is “profitable…that a man may be complete”. So then, what REALLY makes the man complete? By his reasoning, the answer would be whatever leads to Scripture. So what leads to Scripture…what is its source? Ultimately it comes from God…the Word of God…which Scripture tells us is not all written, but is actually a Person (cf. John 1), Who cannot be contained in a book (cff. John 1 and John 20:30, 21:25). So, 2Tim still does not teach “sola Scriptura” as he asserted, according to my friend’s own explanation. It teaches “sola Word of God”, (AMEN!) which we know means more than what is written because the Word of God is more than what is written…He is a Living Person…the Christ…God.

But, in reality, that STILL isn’t what 2Tim is saying (even though it’s true that the Word of God, the Christ, makes us complete). 2Tim is saying exactly what it says, that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. And taken in proper context, Paul is actually only talking about the OT (the Septuagint, or Greek/Alexandrian Jews’ translation, to be exact)…because he is speaking of the Scriptures that Timothy has learned in his youth (2Tim 3:1-17).

(Incidentally…my friend’s reasoning also contradicted his belief on “sola fide”, or “salvation by faith alone”…because if Scripture makes us complete (in the “complete” sense that he was arguing for) and equipped for every good work, then what room is there for the “faith alone”, which leads to good works? After all, I don’t need faith to do those works if Scripture has already made me completely equipped for them, do I?)

If anyone claims 2Tim 3:16-17 for teaching “sola Scriptura”, by the very logic and reasoning they would use to support that claim, they must also logically conclude that James 1 teaches “sola perseverance”. Otherwise, they are being logically inconsistent.

And always keep in mind that nowhere, ever, does Scripture make the claim that the ONLY Word of God we have been given is ONLY what is written in Scripture. In fact, Scripture explicitly and implicitly states the contrary (Lk 10:16, 2Thess 2:15, Jn 21:25, 2Tim 2:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rom 10:17, Mk 16:15, etc…cff. Mt 7:24, Mt 16:18, Jn 14:16, Mt 28:19-20, etc…).

And nowhere, ever, is there anything in Scripture that says or implies that what was passed down orally has ceased or been lost…leaving only what is written. Such a thought or belief [that the oral and Apostolic teachings have been lost, and the written Scriptures are all that are left] is a “tradition of man” (one that didn’t show up until AFTER the 1500’s) …and anyone claiming such should be called to task to provide their evidence, or explain why they think it is okay to believe this “doctrine of man”.

 

[Alizarin]

“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” – Mark Twain.

 

[pablope]

Non-Catholics often point to 2Tim 3:16-17 as evidence for “sola Scriptura” (often times referred to as “SS” for short). And recently a new friend of mine brought it up as exactly such evidence for SS , stating that since Scripture says that Scripture makes us complete, that therefore “Scripture is fully sufficient and contains everything necessary that God wants us to know in terms of doctrine and theology…if something makes us complete, then we don’t need anything else”. He said that if we just look at the “plain language of the text”, we can see what Scripture is plainly telling us.

So, I looked at 2Tim 3:16-17 to make sure what he said is the same thing that Scripture says. 2Tim3:16-17 says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Now, no one believes that James teaches “sola perseverance”, (at least no one that I know of) but that’s the logical conclusion we have to come to if we say 2Tim teaches “sola Scriptura” based on the language used.

(continued below)

Good points all.

May I add something also:

When this passage is brought up, I would also point out the passage before:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14-15 speaks of oral instruction Timothy received. So taken together with v16 and 17…it is indeed not Scripture alone. The whole passage takes on another meaning when including verse 14-15.

 

[ahs]

“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” – Mark Twain.

Good points all.

May I add something also:

When this passage is brought up, I would also point out the passage before:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Verse 14-15 speaks of oral instruction Timothy received. So taken together with v16 and 17…it is indeed not Scripture alone. The whole passage takes on another meaning when including verse 14-15.

Say, that’s a really neat point. Do you mind if Iincorporate your words into my blog (have not posted it yet on my blog)? I can cite you in any way you choose.

 

[pablope]

Say, that’s a really neat point. Do you mind if Iincorporate your words into my blog (have not posted it yet on my blog)? I can cite you in any way you choose.

By all means…and you do not have to cite me…

 

[ahs]

By all means…and you do not have to cite me…

Awesome!

So, would it be fair to say then, that 2Tim 14-17 teaches, NOT Scripture alone, but the oral teachings handed down to him, believed on the basis of whom it was that handed it to him, AND the Scriptures (Oral Tradition + Scripture, by the Authrity of those who teach it)?

That’s what I am seeing there.

 

[Doxiemom]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

Not much different I am sure than what the catholic church has done.

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

The whole of Scripture is taken as absolute TRUTH.Yes, there is allegory at times, but all that the catholic church sees as allegory is not accepted as allegory. It is accepted as what actually happened or is yet to a fulfilled prophecy.

So, before I am flamed by ya’ll, I will accept that we shall disagree most completely. I will never convince you nor do I desire to.

Feel free to argue against me amongst your self. I will read your posts. maybe you will change my mind.

 

[pablope]

Awesome!

So, would it be fair to say then, that 2Tim 14-17 teaches, NOT Scripture alone, but the oral teachings handed down to him, believed on the basis of whom it was that handed it to him, AND the Scriptures (Oral Tradition + Scripture, by the Authrity of those who teach it)?

That’s what I am seeing there.

Yes…and as v14 says… because you know those from whom you learned it, …the principle of Apostolic succession…

Recall also in Acts 13, Paul is ordained prior to going on his missionary journey.

 

[RaiseMeUp]

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

The whole of Scripture is taken as absolute TRUTH.Yes, there is allegory at times, but all that the catholic church sees as allegory is not accepted as allegory. It is accepted as what actually happened or is yet to a fulfilled prophecy.

So, before I am flamed by ya’ll, I will accept that we shall disagree most completely. I will never convince you nor do I desire to.

Feel free to argue against me amongst your self. I will read your posts. maybe you will change my mind.

Whats gets me is the whole idea of Sola Scriptura is both unbiblical and unworkable.
Secondly when some take something like sola scriptura so seriously, its kind of self defeating in the fact that the Truth of the Bible they go solely with is altered. You say nothing can be added or taken from scripture - Yet if you look into the history of early Christianity and when the bible was compiled into one book - old & new testament - It had 73 books. All considered to be Divinely Inspired - Guided by the Holy Spirit. It was man that altered the text and decided to remove books from the Bible. And of those books such as Maccabees provide scripture that speaks of purgatory and intercessory prayer through the saints - such as Jeremiah in II Maccabees 5:13 Onias then said of him, “This is a man* who loves his fellow Jews and fervently prays for the people and the holy city—the prophet of God, Jeremiah.” <---- Jeremiah was departed from his earthly life at this point.

Mary
Honor to Mary has biblical basis: Luke 1:28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you / Luke 1:42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear / Luke1:30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God

Purgatory
“I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.” - **Luke 12:59 **

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abides which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” - **1 Corinthians 3:11-15 **

“And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. With godliness… Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

 

[Zachary]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

Not much different I am sure than what the catholic church has done.

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

The whole of Scripture is taken as absolute TRUTH.Yes, there is allegory at times, but all that the catholic church sees as allegory is not accepted as allegory. It is accepted as what actually happened or is yet to a fulfilled prophecy.

So, before I am flamed by ya’ll, I will accept that we shall disagree most completely. I will never convince you nor do I desire to.

Feel free to argue against me amongst your self. I will read your posts. maybe you will change my mind.

If your seriously open, why wait for lightweights like us when Jimmy Aiken and friends have the heavyweight proof?

 

[JonNC]

=RaiseMeUp;11105369]Whats gets me is the whole idea of Sola Scriptura is both unbiblical and unworkable.
Secondly when some take something like sola scriptura so seriously, its kind of self defeating in the fact that the Truth of the Bible they go solely with is altered. You say nothing can be added or taken from scripture - Yet if you look into the history of early Christianity and when the bible was compiled into one book - old & new testament -** It had 73 books**. All considered to be Divinely Inspired - Guided by the Holy Spirit

Are you sure about this? You know that many eastern Bibles had/have more than 73 books. And the man who translated to Vulgate didn’t consider some of them inspired. The issue is not so cut and dried as one might think.

It was man that altered the text and decided to remove books from the Bible. And of those books such as Maccabees provide scripture that speaks of purgatory and intercessory prayer through the saints - such as Jeremiah in II Maccabees 5:13 Onias then said of him, “This is a man* who loves his fellow Jews and fervently prays for the people and the holy city—the prophet of God, Jeremiah.” <---- Jeremiah was departed from his earthly life at this point.

Purgatory, or prayer for the dead?

Mary
Honor to Mary has biblical basis: Luke 1:28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you / Luke 1:42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear / Luke1:30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God

Amen.

Purgatory
“I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.” - **Luke 12:59 **

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abides which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” - **1 Corinthians 3:11-15 **

“And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. With godliness… Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” - 2 Maccabees 12:43-46

Purgatory, as in an intermediate state/place, or purgation, cleansing at the moment of death?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Doxiemom;11105251]There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

This is true. Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines, etc. accountable to the one final norm, scripture. It is not an exclusion of either Tradition or the teaching role of the Church.

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

Where does scripture restrict Marian devotion? If it is not a doctrine that binds the conscience of the believer, and so long as it does not interfere was the sole mediatorship of Christ, it is not forbidden. The amillennial understanding of end times is as old as the Church itself, so I don’t believe that has been added.

Jon

 

[RaiseMeUp]

Are you sure about this? You know that many eastern Bibles had/have more than 73 books. And the man who translated to Vulgate didn’t consider some of them inspired. The issue is not so cut and dried as one might think.

This is a good read from Shameless Popery

II. The Deuterocanon Was Never Considered Scripture?

• While these books were read by some of God’s people, they were treated like popular Christian books in our own day, such as those by C. S. Lewis; they were never accepted as Scripture, for many reasons. * <---------- This argument from a protestant Pastor.

Try telling that to St. Augustine of Hippo, who Driscoll rightly describes as “one of the greatest theologians in church history.” Back around the 410s, in his famous book City of God, St. Augustine wrote this about the Old Testament canon:

Anonymous, St. Augustine (19th c.)
Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles—these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. 

There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

**St. Augustine leaves no question that all seven Books of the Catholic Deuterocanon are considered Scripture along with the rest of the Old Testament. And his testimony makes clear that they’re not even marked off in a separate section, but carry the full “authority of the Old Testament.”

As I’ve shown in the past, not a single Church Father ever used the 66-Book Protestant canon. Driscoll may think that the early Christians were wrong to consider these Books canonical, but it’s just indefensible to say that these Books “were never accepted as Scripture.” The evidence is unambiguous.**

 

[JonNC]

This is a good read from Shameless Popery

II. The Deuterocanon Was Never Considered Scripture?

• While these books were read by some of God’s people, they were treated like popular Christian books in our own day, such as those by C. S. Lewis; they were never accepted as Scripture, for many reasons. * <---------- This argument from a protestant Pastor.

Try telling that to St. Augustine of Hippo, who Driscoll rightly describes as “one of the greatest theologians in church history.” Back around the 410s, in his famous book City of God, St. Augustine wrote this about the Old Testament canon:

Anonymous, St. Augustine (19th c.)
Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles—these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. 

There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

**St. Augustine leaves no question that all seven Books of the Catholic Deuterocanon are considered Scripture along with the rest of the Old Testament. And his testimony makes clear that they’re not even marked off in a separate section, but carry the full “authority of the Old Testament.”

As I’ve shown in the past, not a single Church Father ever used the 66-Book Protestant canon. Driscoll may think that the early Christians were wrong to consider these Books canonical, but it’s just indefensible to say that these Books “were never accepted as Scripture.” The evidence is unambiguous.**

This is great, but it didn’t respond to my question. What about III and IV Macc?
Luther’s translation had 74 books, so I have no problem with the inclusion of the DC’s. The evidence is also there that many Catholics over the centuries question and disputed them, but to say that the canon always had 73 books is narrowly western.

Jon

 

[Semangelof]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

That was my experience with it growing up as well.

The way it was put to me using that verse was that the scripture was a safe zone, and while there may be things God breathed outside the Bible, church fathers, rabbi’s etc those things are in a different realm of trust. The idea of sola scriptura in the churches I grew up in meant that only scripture occupied the circle of ultimate trust. There was never a condemnation of things because they were outside the circle, just a cautionary warning about them. The Methodist church I grew up in even held to some traditions that were not mentioned in scripture. But even over those traditions they made a clear line between them and scripture. I think their purpose in it was not to exclude everything else, but rather to make a zone of assurance and safety.

Protestantism has been given an enormous tent so there are no doubt some variances great and small over it.

 

[Darryl_B]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

Not much different I am sure than what the catholic church has done.

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

The whole of Scripture is taken as absolute TRUTH.Yes, there is allegory at times, but all that the catholic church sees as allegory is not accepted as allegory. It is accepted as what actually happened or is yet to a fulfilled prophecy.

So, before I am flamed by ya’ll, I will accept that we shall disagree most completely. I will never convince you nor do I desire to.

Feel free to argue against me amongst your self. I will read your posts. maybe you will change my mind.

Without throwing 6 topics into a single thread and then running for the hills, I would ask, when Paul wrote to Timothy, was he talking about the Old Testament? Or was he also self referencing his own epistle. From Timothys infancy he has known the scriptures, does that include Thessalonians where you only get your rapture, or Revelation where you only get your literal(?) 1000 years?

 

[RaiseMeUp]

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament. As for Macc 3 & 4, for whatever reason they didnt make it into the OT. I have read that they are used in theology, but not in the liturgy.

 

[ahs]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
Many outside sources are used to get deeper meaning; such as other texts refered to in Scripture; old jewish writings and advise from rabbis as for jewish customs of the time.Root meanings of words are important. The places of biblical times and their individual histories are studied.

Not much different I am sure than what the catholic church has done.

What is meant is that nothing can be added or taken away. Such as Marian devotion; purgatory;(limbo when it was preached) denial of genesis as real history; denial of a rapture and a 1000 year reign of Christ. Denial of the coming Anti-Christ and false prophet.

The whole of Scripture is taken as absolute TRUTH.Yes, there is allegory at times, but all that the catholic church sees as allegory is not accepted as allegory. It is accepted as what actually happened or is yet to a fulfilled prophecy.

So, before I am flamed by ya’ll, I will accept that we shall disagree most completely. I will never convince you nor do I desire to.

Feel free to argue against me amongst your self. I will read your posts. maybe you will change my mind.

That was my experience with it growing up as well.

The way it was put to me using that verse was that the scripture was a safe zone, and while there may be things God breathed outside the Bible, church fathers, rabbi’s etc those things are in a different realm of trust. The idea of sola scriptura in the churches I grew up in meant that only scripture occupied the circle of ultimate trust. There was never a condemnation of things because they were outside the circle, just a cautionary warning about them. The Methodist church I grew up in even held to some traditions that were not mentioned in scripture. But even over those traditions they made a clear line between them and scripture. I think their purpose in it was not to exclude everything else, but rather to make a zone of assurance and safety.

Protestantism has been given an enormous tent so there are no doubt some variances great and small over it.

Well, I’ve heard 3 “different” versions of SS, and so far I have yet to see one that is 1) Scriptural or 2) that is tenable.

You’re welcome to give sola Scriptura any definition you like for discussion here. My bet is that it will either 1) not be Scriptural and won’t work, or 2) it will be a mirror image of “Scripture, as properly understood or interpreted via an authority who, alone, has authority to interpret and teach it”.

I’m willing to discuss. (Might be late tonight though, or tomorrow…got a storm rolling in here and my internet is weather sensitive. )

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.