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

[ahs]

Thank you, Randy Carson.

One explanation I heard in support of Luther’s decision was that he was accepting the Canon [of the OT] based on the argument from the Jews and accepted their reliability to decide on the proper Canon. (I don’t know if this a true or not, and I’ll fish for the source I am thinking of tonight and post the correct version.) If that’s the case, though, why didn’t Luther also reject the NT altogether? Why accept the decision of the people who reject Christ as Savior when it comes to authoritatively determining the OT Canon, yet reject their decision on the NT? It’s logically inconsistent.

 

[Semangelof]

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.

Well I have never been told by the church clergy that Scripture says that written scripture is the only source of for things from God. Not saying that someone out there hasn’t said that…just that I never heard it in my circles growing up.

As far as tenable I thought the Catholic church believed the same thing in regards to what I said. That scripture is the ultimate in trust. So that while a tradition beside scripture can be maintained, no tradition contrary to scripture can be maintained. Scripture being the ultimate authority, but also not the only authority. Is that not the case?

 

[bzkoss236]

Thank you, Randy Carson.

One explanation I heard in support of Luther’s decision was that he was accepting the Canon [of the OT] based on the argument from the Jews and accepted their reliability to decide on the proper Canon. (I don’t know if this a true or not, and I’ll fish for the source I am thinking of tonight and post the correct version.) If that’s the case, though, why didn’t Luther also reject the NT altogether? Why accept the decision of the people who reject Christ as Savior when it comes to authoritatively determining the OT Canon, yet reject their decision on the NT? It’s logically inconsistent.

One explanation I’ve read about the defense of using the Hebrew canon, despite it being written later, is that it was said the Jews were the keepers of the OT scriptures, and that it is by their authority that the OT canon should be determined.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One explanation I’ve read about the defense of using the Hebrew canon, despite it being written later, is that it was said the Jews were the keepers of the OT scriptures, and that it is by their authority that the OT canon should be determined.

This doesn’t hold water.

Jesus was rejected by the Jews. Therefore, the torch passed to the early Church.

 

[bzkoss236]

This doesn’t hold water.

Jesus was rejected by the Jews. Therefore, the torch passed to the early Church.

I agree

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, Randy Carson.

One explanation I heard in support of Luther’s decision was that he was accepting the Canon [of the OT] based on the argument from the Jews and accepted their reliability to decide on the proper Canon. (I don’t know if this a true or not, and I’ll fish for the source I am thinking of tonight and post the correct version.) If that’s the case, though, why didn’t Luther also reject the NT altogether? Why accept the decision of the people who reject Christ as Savior when it comes to authoritatively determining the OT Canon, yet reject their decision on the NT? It’s logically inconsistent.

While I am not convinced that Luther’s view of the OT canon was based on the so-called Council of Jamnia, the answer to your question is that Luther’s view of scripture is Christocentric, that the entirety of scripture is to point to Christ. That the NT points to Christ is obvious.

It is my sense that Luther, and others who questioned the DC’s, including Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, were not simply looking at the opinions of Jewish scholars only.

Jon

 

[ahs]

While I am not convinced that Luther’s view of the OT canon was based on the so-called Council of Jamnia, the answer to your question is that Luther’s view of scripture is Christocentric, that the entirety of scripture is to point to Christ. That the NT points to Christ is obvious.

It is my sense that Luther, and others who questioned the DC’s, including Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, were not simply looking at the opinions of Jewish scholars only.

Jon

So, does that mean Luther didn’t think the Dueterocanon pointed to Christ in some way that all the other books of the OT did? That doesn’t make sense to me…sounds like Luther just came up with some excuse that didn’t have him relying on the Jews (if this is really the case).

ETA: But then let’s put that back in perspective of 2Tim. Luther, if the above really is his position, is telling us that Paul got it wrong. And not only did Paul get it wrong, but the Holy Spirit didn’t really inspire Paul to write the 2nd letter to Timothy…unless the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say something that was wrong.

(See post #20 for context)

 

[Miriam1947]

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.

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.

A couple of points. The rapture is new theology and is not believed by most mainstream Christian churches and especially not by the Catholic Church.

The universe is not 6,000 or 7,000 years old. Science and reason are not against faith.

We don’t believe that Catholics deny the anti-Christ.

This book might be helpful to you:

**The Biblical Basis of the Catholic Faith **by John Salza.

You can find it here:

amazon.com/The-Biblical-Basis-Catholic-Faith/dp/1592761461

His website:

johnsalza.com

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;11107933]So, does that mean Luther didn’t think the Dueterocanon pointed to Christ in some way that all the other books of the OT did? That doesn’t make sense to me…sounds like Luther just came up with some excuse that didn’t have him relying on the Jews (if this is really the case).

Not necessarily. I was responding to the point about the NT. There are lots of historic factors involved in the disputes regarding the DC’s, all the way back to St. Jerome. Now whether or not St. Jerome submitted to the pope and kept them inisn’t the point. The point is there has always been dispute about them.

ETA: But then let’s put that back in perspective of 2Tim. Luther, if the above really is his position, is telling us that Paul got it wrong. And not only did Paul get it wrong, but the Holy Spirit didn’t really inspire Paul to write the 2nd letter to Timothy…unless the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say something that was wrong.

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

With due respect to Randy, I don’t see any controversy or contradiction regarding the practice of sola scriptura here. The ORAL teaching here refers to what St. Paul eventually wrote down, at least it includes such. There is nothing wrong with oral teaching, nor is it the case that the practice of sola scriptura would have been something needed in the Apostolic era. The Apostles themselves were there!

Jon

 

[ahs]

… The ORAL teaching here refers to what St. Paul eventually wrote down, at least it includes such.

Why do you believe that? Did Paul say that he was writing the very things he had taught orally? Was there any indication that anything that didn’t get written down was NOT taught orally and to be handed down regardless of whether it was written? From what I see of Paul, he admonished us to adhere to both oral AND written, without making distinctions between them and without suggesting that the really important stuff was certainly written and would suffice, to the exclusion of the oral.

There is nothing wrong with oral teaching, nor is it the case that the practice of sola scriptura would have been something needed in the Apostolic era. The Apostles themselves were there!

Jon

Of course the Apostles were there! And of course ss would not have been needed at that time. I dont’ think it’s needed now either, and I believe it actually serves to further sever the Church rather than bring it back to unity. SS relies on subjective reasoning…everyone is their own “pope”, as it were. You and I have even discussed in the past that the SS of Lutherans relies, ultimately, on the teaching authority of something other than Scripture. That’s not “SS”, that’s “S+t, under the authoritative guidance of someone who has authority to properly interpret S”.

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;11108394]Why do you believe that? Did Paul say that he was writing the very things he had taught orally?

Why would he write down things contrary to what he was saying orally?

Was there any indication that anything that didn’t get written down was NOT taught orally and to be handed down regardless of whether it was written? From what I see of Paul, he admonished us to adhere to both oral AND written, without making distinctions between them and without suggesting that the really important stuff was certainly written and would suffice, to the exclusion of the oral.

Read what I wrote again: The ORAL teaching here refers to what St. Paul eventually wrote down, at least it includes such. I was very clear to say that, obviously, there was more. That is not an issue. The issue is, how do we know what was said 2,000 years ago, that wasn’t subsequently written down?

Of course the Apostles were there! And of course ss would not have been needed at that time. I dont’ think it’s needed now either, and I believe it actually serves to further sever the Church rather than bring it back to unity. SS relies on subjective reasoning…everyone is their own “pope”, as it were. You and I have even discussed in the past that the SS of Lutherans relies, ultimately, on the teaching authority of something other than Scripture. That’s not “SS”, that’s “S+t, under the authoritative guidance of someone who has authority to properly interpret S”.

It is if one understands that the sola refers to what is the final norm - scripture, that teachers, doctrines, etc. are held accountable to. Hermeneutics, OTOH, is the job of the Church, not the individual, which disproves the notion that everyone is his own pope.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

It is my sense that Luther, and others who questioned the DC’s, including Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, were not simply looking at the opinions of Jewish scholars only.

Jon

Does is matter what “some” priests, bishops, cardinals or even popes “think” or “question” regarding binding authority?

Or is it what the bishops as a whole declare as binding?

 

[ahs]

Why would he write down things contrary to what he was saying orally?

Read what I wrote again: The ORAL teaching here refers to what St. Paul eventually wrote down, at least it includes such. I was very clear to say that, obviously, there was more. That is not an issue. The issue is, how do we know what was said 2,000 years ago, that wasn’t subsequently written down?

Okay, I misunderstood what you wrote. But you ask a splendid question: “how do we know what was said 2,000 years ago, that wasn’t subsequently written down”? The answer is, to my understanding, to rely on the pillar and bulwark of Truth to tell us. But what/who is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?

It is if one understands that the sola refers to what is the final norm - scripture, that teachers, doctrines, etc. are held accountable to. Hermeneutics, OTOH, is the job of the Church, not the individual, which disproves the notion that everyone is his own pope.

Jon

I think is actually proves the notion of everyone being their own pope.

First, what does it mean that Scripture is the “final norm”?

Second, if knowing the hermeneutics of Scripture is for an authority (the Church), then by what authority do individuals claim to have a right understanding when it disagrees with the Church? And if they can NOT claim such…and must adhere to the Church’s right understanding, then the Church must, logically, be able to infallibly interpret Scripture…otherwise, all interpretation is fair game. This also means that the Church, not the Scripture, is the final norm, because it is the Church, not Scripture, that decides what Scripture is “really” saying or not. You are describing “S+t, under the authoritative guidance of someone who has authority to properly interpret S”…not “sS”.

 

[JonNC]

Does is matter what “some” priests, bishops, cardinals or even popes “think” or “question” regarding binding authority?

Or is it what the bishops as a whole declare as binding?

Yes, it is important because it is obvious evidence that, prior to Trent, Catholics could freely dispute and question the canon of scripture. It is important because there are some who believe that Luther was doing something prohibited in this way. He was not. It is important because someone of the stature of Cardinal Cajetan would not have written his disagreement if belief in the 73 book canon was binding on the conscience of the faithful.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;11108589]Okay, I misunderstood what you wrote. But you ask a splendid question: “how do we know what was said 2,000 years ago, that wasn’t subsequently written down”? The answer is, to my understanding, to rely on the pillar and bulwark of Truth to tell us. But what/who is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?

The Church. So, which patriarchates do we believe regarding Tradition?

I think is actually proves the notion of everyone being their own pope.

First, what does it mean that Scripture is the “final norm”?

It means that all doctrine and teachings are accountable to scripture.

Second, if knowing the hermeneutics of Scripture is for an authority (the Church), then by what authority do individuals claim to have a right understanding when it disagrees with the Church? And if they can NOT claim such…and must adhere to the Church’s right understanding, then the Church must, logically, be able to infallibly interpret Scripture…otherwise, all interpretation is fair game.

As a Lutheran, I do not claim an authority to disagree regarding doctrines of the Church. For example, if I choose to believe that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is merely symbolic, that is outside Lutheran teaching. I can claim to be Lutheran, but I am not.
The problem with an infallible interpretation is, whose claim of infallibility should I believe. There are competing claims of infallibility.

This also means that the Church, not the Scripture, is the final norm, because it is the Church, not Scripture, that decides what Scripture is “really” saying or not.
You are describing “S+t, under the authoritative guidance of someone who has authority to properly interpret S”…not “sS”.

No. If I were to say that either Tradition or tradition were to scripture as the final norm, then you would be correct. The Church looks only to scripture as the final norm. In setting doctrine, the Church is bound to scripture. This is why Lutherans are not held to some of the Marian doctrines, because we do not find them explicit in scripture. Instead, they are adiaphora.

Jon

 

[garysibio]

“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? “

A minor criticism: At a job I once had we called these “comma statements.” The “, idiot” at the end of the sentence was implied. If you are on the receiving end it’s kinda off-putting. You may win the argument but you lose the person. Just sayin’.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, it is important because it is obvious evidence that, prior to Trent, Catholics could freely dispute and question the canon of scripture. It is important because there are some who believe that Luther was doing something prohibited in this way. He was not. It is important because someone of the stature of Cardinal Cajetan would not have written his disagreement if belief in the 73 book canon was binding on the conscience of the faithful.

Jon

I see, good point.
I’m not familiar with C.Cajetan’s disagreement and how strongly he made it public. And Luther was maybe not questioned by the Church, in his day, about his opinion on the DC. I personally don’t think Luther or C.Cajetan rejected any books put into the canon despite their opinions. They didn’t have the authority to do so. But this gives evidence of a need for Trent to put into stone what remained unbound in some minds.

But this was an interesting post from 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.

 

[JonNC]

I see, good point.
I’m not familiar with C.Cajetan’s disagreement and how strongly he made it public. And Luther was maybe not questioned by the Church, in his day, about his opinion on the DC. I personally don’t think Luther or C.Cajetan rejected any books put into the canon despite their opinions. They didn’t have the authority to do so. But this gives evidence of a need for Trent to put into stone what remained unbound in some minds.

But this was an interesting post from RaiseMeUp

I think you make good points.

On RaiseMeUp, the question is were these local councils binding on the whole Church. ISTM only Rome thinks so.

Jon

 

[bzkoss236]

No. If I were to say that either Tradition or tradition were to scripture as the final norm, then you would be correct. The Church looks only to scripture as the final norm. In setting doctrine, the Church is bound to scripture. This is why Lutherans are not held to some of the Marian doctrines, because we do not find them explicit in scripture. Instead, they are adiaphora.

But Jon, shouldn’t Scripture, or the interpretation thereof, also be held accountable to know what the correct interpretation is? If such is the case, then the interpretation of Scripture should be held accountable by Tradition (what has been taught), in which case Scripture isn’t the final norm. And which tradition of Scripture interpretation should be considered infallible is that which has been chosen as final say (“Thus saith God”) and bound to the faithful and kept throughout the history of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

But Jon, shouldn’t Scripture, or the interpretation thereof, also be held accountable to know what the correct interpretation is? If such is the case, then the interpretation of Scripture should be held accountable by Tradition (what has been taught), in which case Scripture isn’t the final norm. And which tradition of Scripture interpretation should be considered infallible is that which has been chosen as final say (“Thus saith God”) and bound to the faithful and kept throughout the history of the Church.

That would be “Tradition Alone”. Tradition as the final norm. The problem is whose definition of Tradition, and the fact is the early Church of which you speak is divided since 1054.

Jon