Paul's Message in 2 Timothy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
*An Examination of Paul’s Instructions to Timothy *

Many non-Catholics hold to a doctrine of sola Scriptura which proposes that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. They also look to Paul’s second letter to Timothy as containing a passage that supports this doctrine. But does it? Let’s examine a broader sampling of verses from this epistle to see what the Apostles really taught.Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

Here we see that the “norm” or “rule of faith” that Paul proposes is not Scripture Alone (since only the Old Testament existed at the time of this letter) nor what Paul has previously written in his first letter to Timothy, but rather “the sound words that you heard from me”. How can we be sure of this? Well, a few verses later, Paul specifies even more precisely:And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)This verse provides ample evidence of the concept of Apostolic Succession for in it we see reference to four generations of believers at least three of which have responsibility for teaching – which is the mission entrusted to the Church by Jesus. These “generations” are 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would charge with teaching gospel message to 4) “others”.

A little further on, Paul tells Timothy:But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

Here, we find an implicit reference to the Catholic Church’s under standing of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition as follows:“remain faithful to what you have learned and believed **[Paul’s sound words delivered orally – Tradition],**because you know from whom you learned it **[Paul teaching with authority – Magisterium], **and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures [the Old Testament which is all that existed when Timothy was an “infant” – Scripture]

Finally, after giving Timothy clear guidance concerning the “rule of faith” contained in Paul’s oral teaching and instructing him on the importance of Apostolic Succession and the Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium formula, only then does Paul commend and clarify the value of scripture:“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)At no time in these passages does Paul suggest the concept of sola Scriptura nor would Timothy have derived this doctrine from the letters he received from the hand of the Apostle. Indeed, nowhere in all of the New Testament is the doctrine of sola Scriptura taught or implied. The Holy Spirit did not inspire any author to teach this “tradition of men”.
 
You seem to be suggest that we do not believe in preaching, teaching, and passing on the faith.:confused:
That is just bizarre to me?:confused:
 
Hi Randy,

2nd Timothy 2:15 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

I find it very interesting that Paul does not tell Timothy to “Carefully study” scripture alone here.

Coupled with the verses that you have cited I think he is making a very Catholic instruction to Timothy.
 
Randy Carson wrote ere we see that the “norm” or “rule of faith” that Paul proposes is not Scripture Alone (since only the Old Testament existed at the time of this letter)
SPOT ON 😉 👍 😉
 
*An Examination of Paul’s Instructions to Timothy *

Many non-Catholics hold to a doctrine of sola Scriptura which proposes that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. They also look to Paul’s second letter to Timothy as containing a passage that supports this doctrine. But does it? Let’s examine a broader sampling of verses from this epistle to see what the Apostles really taught.Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

Here we see that the “norm” or “rule of faith” that Paul proposes is not Scripture Alone (since only the Old Testament existed at the time of this letter) nor what Paul has previously written in his first letter to Timothy, but rather “the sound words that you heard from me”. How can we be sure of this? Well, a few verses later, Paul specifies even more precisely:And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)This verse provides ample evidence of the concept of Apostolic Succession for in it we see reference to four generations of believers at least three of which have responsibility for teaching – which is the mission entrusted to the Church by Jesus. These “generations” are 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would charge with teaching gospel message to 4) “others”.

A little further on, Paul tells Timothy:But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

Here, we find an implicit reference to the Catholic Church’s under standing of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition as follows:“remain faithful to what you have learned and believed **[Paul’s sound words delivered orally – Tradition],**because you know from whom you learned it **[Paul teaching with authority – Magisterium], **and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures [the Old Testament which is all that existed when Timothy was an “infant” – Scripture]

Finally, after giving Timothy clear guidance concerning the “rule of faith” contained in Paul’s oral teaching and instructing him on the importance of Apostolic Succession and the Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium formula, only then does Paul commend and clarify the value of scripture:“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)At no time in these passages does Paul suggest the concept of sola Scriptura nor would Timothy have derived this doctrine from the letters he received from the hand of the Apostle. Indeed, nowhere in all of the New Testament is the doctrine of sola Scriptura taught or implied. The Holy Spirit did not inspire any author to teach this “tradition of men”.
In another passage, Paul gives Timothy one of the keys to successful service to God. He says:“In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)
With these words, Paul teaches his young protégé that cleansing oneself from impurities or sins is an important part of preparing for service to God. In other words, personal holiness prepares one to perform good works; and this is IN ADDITION TO the study of scripture which commended in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Sola Scriptura? I don’t think so.
 
In another passage, Paul gives Timothy one of the keys to successful service to God. He says:“In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)
With these words, Paul teaches his young protégé that cleansing oneself from impurities or sins is an important part of preparing for service to God. In other words, personal holiness prepares one to perform good works; and this is IN ADDITION TO the study of scripture which commended in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Sola Scriptura? I don’t think so.
How in the world does this conflict, contradict, or disprove SS?
 
In another passage, Paul gives Timothy one of the keys to successful service to God. He says:“In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)
With these words, Paul teaches his young protégé that cleansing oneself from impurities or sins is an important part of preparing for service to God. In other words, personal holiness prepares one to perform good works; and this is IN ADDITION TO the study of scripture which commended in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Sola Scriptura? I don’t think so.
I see an incredibly consistent inability or refusal to accurately portray what is meant by Sola Scriptura.:confused:

The Israelites in egypt would have never left egypt with the abundance of straw found here.
 
How in the world does this conflict, contradict, or disprove SS?
As you well know, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the last, best hope for those who seek to prove that Scripture does teach SS.

However, other verses, including the one I provided above, indicate that Paul had more than scripture in mind when advising Timothy how to prepare himself for service to God. As I illustrated, only after referencing what would be called today the Tradition of his teaching and the Magisterium by which he teaches - only then does Paul mention the study of the scriptures.

Since “sola” indicates a “quantitative” dimension of the doctrine, the existence of other things that are necessary to the man of God (in this case, personal holiness) call into question the sufficiency of the Bible Alone to equip the man of God found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If that verse falls, then what is left for the proponents of this Lutheran invention?

It continues to astound me that Protestants, desperate to distance themselves from what they perceive to be the errors of the “Romish” Church, will eagerly accept the error of “sola scriptura” which is not historical, not Biblical and unworkable.

The Apostle Paul NEVER taught “sola scriptura” - though he had ample opportunity to do so if it had been part of his theology - nor did any other NT writer.

Therefore, the burden of proof is laid eternally at the feet of those who hold this false teaching, and despite many attempts, that proof has not been produced.
 
I see an incredibly consistent inability or refusal to accurately portray what is meant by Sola Scriptura.:confused:

The Israelites in egypt would have never left egypt with the abundance of straw found here.
Please sir, post a definition that we can all agree with.

I have the definition given by James White in his famous debate with Patrick Madrid…do you prefer another?

Let’s hear it.

Finally, given the reference made by Luther to the Book of James as “an epistle of straw”, I should think reminding us of that lunacy would be the last thing you would want to do.
 
I see an incredibly consistent inability or refusal to accurately portray what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?
 
As you well know, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the last, best hope for those who seek to prove that Scripture does teach SS.

However, other verses, including the one I provided above, indicate that Paul had more than scripture in mind when advising Timothy how to prepare himself for service to God.

Since “sola” indicates a “quantitative” dimension of the doctrine, the existence of other things that are necessary to the man of God (in this case, personal holiness) call into question the sufficiency of the Bible Alone to equip the man of God found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If that verse falls, then what is left for the proponents of this Lutheran invention?
NAU 2 Timothy 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from (a)these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, b)prepared for every good work.

NAU 2 Timothy 3:17 so that (a)the man of God may be adequate, (b)equipped for every good work.

Please get a lexicon out and take a look at the Greek words that in the NASB are translated as “prepared” in 2Timothy 2:21 and “adequate” in 3:17.

If you don’t have access to a lexicon, I will provide a little information:

See the following lexicon entry from Thayer for the word that the NASB translates as “prepared” in 2:21.
h`toimasme,non verb participle perfect passive nominative neuter singular

[Thayer] etoima,zw etoima,zw; future etoima,sw; 1 aorist htoi,masa; perfect htoi,maka (Matt. 22:4 L T Tr WH); passive, perfect htoi,masmai; 1 aorist htoima,sqhn; (e[toimoj); from Homer down; the Septuagint very often for !nEAK and !ykihe; to make ready, prepare: absolutely, to make the necessary preparations, get everything ready, Luke 12:47; of preparing a feast, Luke 22:9,12 (Gen. 43:15; 1 Chr. 12:39); with the dative of person, for one: of preparing a lodging, Luke 9:52 (Winer's Grammar, 594 (552); Buttmann, sec. 130, 5); a supper, Mark 14:15; also with a telic infinitive added, Matt. 26:17; followed by i[na (cf. Buttmann, 237 (205)), Mark 14:12; with the accusative of the thing: a[ htoi,masaj the things which thou hast prepared (as a store), Luke 12:20; (ti, dipnh,sw, Luke 17:8); to, a;riston, Matt. 22:4; to, pa,sca, Matt. 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:8,13; avrw,mata, Luke 23:56; 24:1; to,pon ti,ni, John 14:2f; xeni,an, Philemon 1:22; (sumbou,lion, Mark 15:1 T WH marginal reading, cf. sumbou,lion); th,n odo,n kuri,ou (by a figurative expression drawn from the oriental custom of sending on before kings on their journeys persons to level the roads and make them passable), to prepare the minds of men to give the Messiah a fit reception and secure his blessings: Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4 (from Isa. 40:3); 1:76; (i[na etoimasqh/| h odo,j tw/n basile,wn, Rev. 16:12); with the accusative of person, stratiw,taj, Acts 23:23; ti,ni tina, one for one, Luke 1:17; eauto,n, Rev. 19:7; followed by i[na (cf: Buttmann, 237 (205)), Rev. 8:6; htoimasme,nh wj nu,mfh, i. e. beautifully adorned, Rev. 21:2; htoimasme,nh eivj ti, prepared i. e. fit for accomplishing anything, 2 Tim. 2:21; Rev. 9:7; prepared i. e. kept in readiness, eivj th,n w[ran kai, hme,ran etc., for the hour and day namely, predetermined, Rev. 9:15. In a peculiar sense God is said etoima,sai ti, for men, i. e. to have caused good or ill to befall them, almost equivalent to to have ordained; of blessings: ti, Luke 2:31; Rev. 12:6; ti,ni ti, Matt. 20:23; 25:34; Mark 10:40; (1 Cor. 2:9); Heb. 11:16; of punishment: ti,ni ti, Matt. 25:41. (Compare: proetoima,zw.)*

Now the lexicon entry for the Greek word that the NASB translates as “adequate” in 3:17.
[Thayer] evxarti,zw
evxarti,zw: 1 aorist infinitive evxarti,sai; perfect passive participle evxhrtisme,noj; (see a;rtioj, 2); rare in secular authors; to complete, finish; a. to furnish perfectly: tina, passive, pro,j ti, 2 Tim. 3:17 (polemei/n … toi/j a[pasi kalw/j evxhrti,smenoi, Josephus, Antiquities 3, 2, 2). b. ta,j h`me,raj, to finish, accomplish (as it were, to render the days complete): Acts 21:5 (so avparti,zein th,n ovktamhnon, Hipp. epid. ii. 180 (cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 447f)).*

2 Timothy 3:16 - 4:1 16 (a)All Scripture is (1)inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for (2)training in righteousness; 17 so that a)the man of God may be adequate, (b)equipped for every good work.

Or, as you can see from the lexical information I have provided, scriptures make the man of God **COMPLETELY equipped for every good work.

Also, as you can see, cleansing oneself will make him ready to do good works.

So, cleansing oneself does not make one COMPLETE to do EVERY good work but the scriptures do make one COMPLETE to do EVERY good work.

Now, I have never seen a definition of SS that states that all one needs is the scriptures and absolutely nothing else. If your understanding of SS was true, why would there be siminaries, Bible studies, etc.?
 
Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?
Yes, that is the definition I would agree with. However you interpretation of that definition is wrong.
With these words, Paul teaches his young protégé that cleansing oneself from impurities or sins is an important part of preparing for service to God. In other words, personal holiness prepares one to perform good works; and this is IN ADDITION TO the study of scripture which commended in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
This is an obvious assumption by both sides, is it not?

For example, **we maintain that although Scripture is necessary and sufficient as a guide to live a godly life, it is insufficient as to whether or not I live a godly life.

** For, in addition to the guide, I must add my will. To use an analogy, a compass is sufficient to guide me to the north pole, but it is insufficient in actualizing my trip to the north pole. There are all sorts of other conditions that are to be met in the actualization of this trip.

As it pertains to living a godly life, we don’t believe in Scripture alone (we believe in Scripture + God’s grace + human volition). But certainly that doesn’t take anything away from the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide to live a godly life.
 
For an extended treatment of 2 Timothy 2:21 and the Greek words used there in comparison to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I would refer you to pages 116-118 of Not By Scripture Alone by Robert Sungenis.

As the author points out, the semantic range of hetoimazo is similar to that of artios and exartidzo. Thus, it appears that Paul is speaking of more than scripture when it comes to being prepared for “every good work”.

In this sense, then, it is not Scripture Alone that makes the man of God prepared. It is a component to be sure, but not the “sola” thing.
 
It seems to me that what you are demanding of the non-Catholic who adheres to his doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the clear and unmistakable statement within Scripture that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the believer; is that correct?

From 2 Timothy 1:13, you state:
Here we see that the “norm” or “rule of faith” that Paul proposes is not Scripture Alone (since only the Old Testament existed at the time of this letter) nor what Paul has previously written in his first letter to Timothy, but rather “the sound words that you heard from me”.
Could you elaborate on that statement?

Are you suggesting that the sound words that Timothy has heard from Paul are different words than what Paul has written, or would write in the future? Are you suggesting that there is some specific tradition that is being passed on orally that will be revealed in the future? If so, are you able to support any of your assumptions?

You continue by citing 2 Tim 2:2, and state with regard to that passage:
This verse provides ample evidence of the concept of Apostolic Succession for in it we see reference to four generations of believers at least three of which have responsibility for teaching – which is the mission entrusted to the Church by Jesus. These “generations” are 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would charge with teaching gospel message to 4) “others”.
Here, you demand of yourself a lesser proof from that which you seem to be demanding of the non-Catholic; IOW, for the non-Catholic, you seem to demand a scriptural verse which says, Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the believer; and yet, with respect to your assumptions concerning apostolic succession and the RCC, you are claiming that 2 Tim 2:2 gives ample evidence to that concept when the words apostolic succession appear nowhere in the verse; will you explain why it is that you demand lesser scriptural proof for your doctrinal beliefs, and absolute scriptural proof for the beliefs of non-Catholics?

You continue with your lesser standard of proof by citing 2 Timothy 3:14-15, and stating that in that verse:
…we [Catholics] find an implicit reference to the Catholic Church’s under standing of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition as follows:
Again, will you explain to me why an implicit reference is an adequate standard of proof for the Catholic, but an inadequate standard of proof for the non-Catholic?

It would be a good idea for you to purchase the book Sola Scriptura and read it.
 
Yes, that is the definition I would agree with. However you interpretation of that definition is wrong.
This is an obvious assumption by both sides, is it not?

For example, we maintain that although Scripture is necessary and sufficient as a guide to live a godly life, it is insufficient as to whether or not I live a godly life.

For, in addition to the guide, I must add my will. To use an analogy, a compass is sufficient to guide me to the north pole, but it is insufficient in actualizing my trip to the north pole. There are all sorts of other conditions that are to be met in the actualization of this trip.

As it pertains to living a godly life, we don’t believe in Scripture alone (we believe in Scripture + God’s grace + human volition). But certainly that doesn’t take anything away from the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide to live a godly life.
Gee, I’m tempted to call it a day since we have agreed on the definition of sola scriptura - a feat not all Protestants have achieved. 🙂

But pressing on:
  1. How can I know from the pages of scripture alone that the Bible itself is complete (containing nothing it should not contain nor omitting something that it should contain) and that every word found therein is “God-Breathed”? I have a Koran, a Book of Mormon and a JW Bible all seeking my attention. Obviously, I want to be sure that my “rule of faith” really is infallible! I have a Koran, a Book of Mormon and a Bible from some Jehovah’s Witnesses all begging for my allegience…how can I know for sure which to heed?
  2. Where does the Bible teach me this essential doctrine of sola scriptura so that I might know with certainty a) that I must look to the Bible only and b) that conversely, I must eschew all others that claim to be a “rule of faith”? Surely if the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, it must tell me these things, yes?
 
I don’t know if this will mean much in this thread, but when Paul say’s in 2 Timothy 3:14

‘But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it’

One of the things Timothy had just learned from Paul is mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:8

‘Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses’

Jannes and Jambres are not mentioned in Exodus, so what Timothy has just learned here is an oral tradition passed on from Paul.
 
Harold Camping who is the president of Family Radio in Oakland CA uses this verse:

Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

What he does with this is to extend “book” to the entire Bible. So, you are not supposed to add words to it, such as with tradition. And, thus, the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God.

Those who promote sola scriptura are particularly critical of the idea of traditions of men.

I think the idea of SS falls apart with a consideration of the New Testament. Many of the letters were written to existing communities which existed before those letters were written. You really have to bend reality too much to get around that.

And, you have to do quite an injustice to the Old Testament as well.

The first five books known as the Torah were written in Hebrew without vowels. So, even to read that scripture, there was quite a bit of teaching and tradition so that people would know what vowels belonged in there. This is well spelled out in Yaroslav Pelican’s book, Whose Bible Is It?

So, our english bibles have crystallized that oral tradition (supposedly) so that we can even understand the original writings. We assume a particular oral tradition even to read the Bible.

The Catholic Church has created a modern treatise on the subject from its point of view, Dei Verbum, a document promulgated at the Second vatican Council. This can be downloaded from the EWTN.com document library.

This is also conveniently summarized in the Catechism of the CAtholic Church, starting around paragraph 151 and going on to the end of that section.

EWTN has just finished replaying a six-part program from Fr. John Corapi on Sacred Scripture, which is available from EWTN (I think) or from his web site.

In that series, he eloquently explains the Church’s position this way, and I apologize for any over-simplification here. He uses an analogy (analogies always break down, keep in mind) to the Holy Trinity. He points out that the Trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When you get One, you get them all, inseparably.

The Church teaches that Divine Revelation consists of Scripture and Tradition, and they are inseparably linked with the Church’s magisterium. You cannot break them apart.

He emphasized this by holding up a Bible and the Catechism and saying that you cannot have one without the other. The Catechism is modern in composition, but summarizes the ancient teachings of the Church.

Sola Scriptura is an empty doctrine, concealing its true origin in the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church during the reformation.

While the separated brethren reject the authority of the pope and the Church, they merely substitute somebody else’s authority. In many cases, that is simply the interpretation of the person reading the Bible. And, that is anti-biblical, that well known verse in first or second Peter about his rejecting private interpretation.

Another counter-example is how the debate over the need for circumcision was handled in the early Church. It was definitely not a sola-scriptura decision. Wasn’t it settled by the council of Jerusalem?
 
Randy Carson,

Do you have a response to the questions I have posed to you, in post 16 (Edited by Moderator) :hmmm: ?

(Edited by Moderator)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top