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

[bzkoss236]

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

No, Tradition is still held accountable by Scripture, but Scripture is held accountable by Tradition. They are on equal level and hold each-other accountable.

 

[ahs]

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

The ones that didn’t break unity with the Church established by Christ. From what I see in Scripture and in the ECF’s, that means the ones who are in union with the See of Peter, to whom alone the Keys to the Kingdom were given.

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

Well, I agree in so far as all doctrine must not contradict Scripture. But if you mean that all doctrine must be explicitly stated in Scripture, then you will have to show that very statement from Scripture, in order to be logically consistent in saying that Scripture is the final norm…that “all doctrine and teachings are accountable to Scripture”.

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.

But what about other Christians who DO feel free to disagree with Luther’s theology on the Real Presence? By what authority are you going to tell them they are interpreting Scripture incorrectly? By Scripture’s Authority? Or by Luther’s authority? And if it’s by Scripture…then show the Chapter and verse whereby Scripture claims such authority for itself. What I see if Christ telling His disciples to take matters to the Church.

The problem with an infallible interpretation is, whose claim of infallibility should I believe. There are competing claims of infallibility.

Sure, there are claims. Does that suddenly make sola Scriptura the right way to go? Are we assuming that SS is correct, because infallibility is contested? SS can be shown not to work, yet we are going to accept it because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are disputing Infallibility? Infallibility is necessary, because without it, you don’t actually know which books belong in Scripture, and which ones don’t.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Jon-

Many councils confirmed the canon of Scripture long before Trent, so I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that Catholics could question the canon prior to that time.

 

[rcwitness]

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

“ONLY” Rome, Jon!?! :knight2:

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Many councils confirmed the canon of Scripture long before Trent, so I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that Catholics could question the canon prior to that time.

Sure, Randy. They could and did. I’ve mentioned a couple. One could add Erasmus.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“ONLY” Rome, Jon!?! :knight2:

I didn’t mean that in a disparaging way, only that even Orthodoxy accepts the seven councils as ecumenical. Hippo, Carthage, etc. are not among them.

Jon

 

[pablope]

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

**

Well…this is what I always find somewhat disingenius…Jerome is always cited for what he opined on the DCs…yet, what is omitted is he always submitted or deferred to the judgement of the Church and bishops above him…and later on, he somewhat considered it sinful to do so.

As for Cardinal Cajetan…this is quote of his is always overlooked:

Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

And albeit, what is also omitted is that although Jerome and some did oppose or had contrary opinions on the DC books…it is what they did with this opinion…and contrast this with Luther’s:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

? *This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it. *

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure, Randy. They could and did. I’ve mentioned a couple. One could add Erasmus.

Jon

Let me rephrase.

Could they question the canon.? Sure.

Would it make much sense to do so? Well, not in hindsight, certainly. At some point, Catholics should have been able to look at the work of councils that came before them and have reasonable assurance that we knew what the canon was at that point in time.

 

[danieljokeefe]

what i have seen is that – all these scripture savy-- people – take this out of CONTEXT…

Saint Paul said this to timothy, and in the context of scripture (books) he was using-

it is the who,- what-- , why-- how – of applying to that culture–

it is just like on many of these forums–

the different “religious” scripture “quote” bible savy people “quote” saint paul–

of the gifts and manifestation of the Holy Spirit–

But they can’t even apply – the simple understanding to praying in tongues-- or prophetic interperation–

and they "rationalize " by human reason what Saint Paul is addressing – to timithy ?

i guess it goes back to the old saying–

those who can " do"

and those who can’t – teach-- scripture memorization–

of the few bible colleges i have attended – many times – the teachers are trying to teach – spiritual applications-- and understanding s

that they them selves – can’t quite get to – work, function – or manafest–

"speaking psalms, hyms, spiritual messeges, prophetic words – is not difficult-- if you find a group of christians who recognize what SAINT PAUL was REAlly TALKING ABOUT

IN 2 TIM 3;16-17

Chronicles 20:20 - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Chronicles%2020%3A20‎

Trust the Lord your God, and you will stand firm;

trust his prophets and succeed!” … God, and ye shall be established; believe his prophets, and ye shall prosper!

cheers :clapping:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed and is - Bible …

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly …

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version) - Bible Gateway
.‎
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (English Standard Version) - Bible Gateway

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 -

Paul describes the apostasy and perilous times of the last days—The scriptures guide man to salvation.

 

[JonNC]

Let me rephrase.

Could they question the canon.? Sure.

Would it make much sense to do so? Well, not in hindsight, certainly. At some point, Catholics should have been able to look at the work of councils that came before them and have reasonable assurance that we knew what the canon was at that point in time.

Maybe, but there were lots of really smart Catholics who looked at the history and saw issues with these books, and I’m including here the Antilegomena of the NT.
I have often said here that I’m not sure I agree with even Luther’s view of the DC’s, but I do feel he had every right before Trent to express his opinions - and that’s all he ever claimed them to be; his opinions.

Jon

 

[ezeekl]

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.” . . .

If you really look at the scripture quote, what it really says is that scripture makes us complete for good works. Throw the good works monkey wrench into the gears of the protestant machinery and see what happens. But the passage does not say that scripture makes us complete in doctrine or knowledge. And being profitable, meaning it is good to use, does not eliminate any other profitable things such as correct instruction or correct interpretation.

 

[pablope]

Maybe, but there were lots of really smart Catholics who looked at the history and saw issues with these books, and I’m including here the Antilegomena of the NT.
I have often said here that I’m not sure I agree with even Luther’s view of the DC’s, but I do feel he had every right before Trent to express his opinions - and that’s all he ever claimed them to be; his opinions.

Jon

Jon…where does Luther claim them to be his opinions only? But then the next question is…what became of those opinions? Where did they lead to?

 

[JonNC]

Jon…where does Luther claim them to be his opinions only? But then the next question is…what became of those opinions? Where did they lead to?

Lots of place in his preface. Here is one:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

Luther essentially allows the western canon to stand, by having translated and including all 73 books. The impact of the view of the canon by the Lutheran reformers (not just Luther), is in how we use these books, depending on whether they are universally attested, or disputed.

Jon

 

[ezeekl]

Lots of place in his preface. Here is one:

Luther essentially allows the western canon to stand, by having translated and including all 73 books. The impact of the view of the canon by the Lutheran reformers (not just Luther), is in how we use these books, depending on whether they are universally attested, or disputed.

Jon

The canon of scripture was formally defined at Trent in 1547. However, what Trent did was to ratify and confirm what had been the canon ever since 400 AD, a period of over 1,100 years. Luther’s real problem with the deuteros was that they contradicted his theology and of course, Luther thought his theology was spot on so the deutero’s had to go. Someone once remarked here that Luther’s theology was formed very early in his childhood as a result of being, what we would call today, an abused child. In reading some of what he wrote this sounds very plausible. It seems he recoiled from authority and wanted to be free of it. So Trent meant nothing to Luther. Armed with sola scriptura and private interpretation he was his own authority.

 

[JonNC]

The canon of scripture was formally defined at Trent in 1547. However, what Trent did was to ratify and confirm what had been the canon ever since 400 AD, a period of over 1,100 years. **Luther’s real problem with the deuteros was that they contradicted his theology and of course, **Luther thought his theology was spot on so the deutero’s had to go. Someone once remarked here that Luther’s theology was formed very early in his childhood as a result of being, what we would call today, an abused child. In reading some of what he wrote this sounds very plausible. It seems he recoiled from authority and wanted to be free of it. .

If you are going to make this charge, then you need to specify, with verification, which contradiction came from EACH of the seven DC’s, that he incidentally included in his translation (funny way to ensure that the “deutero’s had to go”.) Seven books, minimum seven contradictions, at least one from each book. Otherwise, the charge is false.

So Trent meant nothing to Luther. Armed with sola scriptura and private interpretation he was his own authority.

Of course Trent meant nothing to Luther. He died prior to the convening of the Council of Trent.

Jon

 

[ahs]

ezeekl,

A more fair question to ask would be, “Why did Luther relegate the Duet to an Appendix and call them apocrapha?”

While Luther allowed them to stay, he warned that they were NOT God-breathed, yet were still okay to read. He carried a harsher opinion of James’ Epistle, btw.

Another good question would be, why did Luther adopt the OT Canon of the same people that rejected Christ as Savior, when the Church had adopted the Dueterocanonicals? And why was Jerome’s opinion about the Duet given so much weight by Luther, yet his submission to the Authority of the Church skimmed over, especially when he clarified that he was not stating with any authority on the matter what his opinion was about the Deut? The position of Protestants who reject the Dueteros is logically inconsistent, unless they have some reason [other than the above] to believe these books are not God’s Word. Ultimately, I don’t think they CAN know…except to take someone else’s authoritative word on it. The question is, will they claim that the person telling them “those books are apocrypha” in infallible, or fallible?

 

[ezeekl]

If you are going to make this charge, then you need to specify, with verification, which contradiction came from EACH of the seven DC’s, that he incidentally included in his translation (funny way to ensure that the “deutero’s had to go”.) Seven books, minimum seven contradictions, at least one from each book. Otherwise, the charge is false.

First of all I do not need to do any such thing. Luther took the easy way out. He merely rejected the Septuagint version that the early church had adopted in favor of the shorter canon accepted by Jews. What I have to ask you is why you accept Luther’s opinion on the Old Testament canon but reject his opinion on the New Testament? If we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn’t (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, “I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle,” because he believed it “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” (Preface to James’ Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it “an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn’t the only casualty on Luther’s hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. Even St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of “the judgment of the churches” and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church’s apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.

Luther cherry picked the canon to select those writings that agreed with his theology. He had no authority to do so.

 

[kmcarl56]

No one can add to or take away from the words of the Holy Bible since it was divinely written by God Himself. Yet, some (if not most) people do not understand all of what they read in the Bible, nor how it applies to them in this age and society. They need instruction by learned men (and women) who have studied the Bible’s theology exclusively and extensively and in communion with their colleagues, so that their understanding will be increased and applied in life.

In Catholicism, the understanding is definitive and unchanging. The problem in some Protestant denominations is that there are great differences in the interpretation of what the Bible actually teaches us. Therefore, people remain ignorant and confused as to the true and righteous meaning of the verses they read, especially the allegorical segments in the Bible.

I think that only by constant study, inquiry, and prayer with help of a theological scholar (or by reading other materials) can one gain true understanding and live by the laws given to us by God.

 

[Goya]

There is a misconception concerning sola scripture.
…

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

Actually, there are multiple definitions of sola scriptura. That’s kind of a problem in and of itself.

So, to which authority are you appealing–or to what school of thought to you subscribe–for your particular definition of sola scriptura?

 

[Goya]

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.

Excellent post, Randy!

Though I think a few additional points are worth noting:

1. The Greek Septuagint was translated, with all 12 tribes of Isreal being duly represented–and as you pointed out, it included the DC’s;
2. The ‘re-thinking’ of the Hebrew scripture to which you refer, wasn’t sponteneuos, or arbitrily undertaken–it was compelled, due to the loss of the original scripture, upon the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans, and the resulting diaspora of the Jews–during which, the original Hebrew scriptures were lost.
3. In re-constituting the lost scriptures…they relied heavily (if not primarily) on the Septuagint.

Hence when folks suggest that the Septuagint was based on the original Hebrew Scripture–it is misleading. Yes, it was based on the original hebrew script–but that was lost. What folks refer to now as the ‘original Hebrew script’, is actually reconstituted–based on the Septuagint.

So the Septuagint is essentially the original vis a vis the [newer] ‘original’ Hebrew scripture.

…and again, it contained the DC’s, and was the ‘scripture’ known, used, and referred to, by Yeshua, and the Apostles.