Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

Not to mention that 2 Timothy was written by St. Paul no later than AD 67, while the Gospel and letters of St. John, along with Revelation, are most often dated after that…St. Paul was not referring to books not yet written.

Those writings could actually be dated in the late A.D. 40s to 60s but that’s irrelevant at this point.

So is not the Bible considered scripture?
Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

So is not the Bible considered scripture?
Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture.

This is circular reasoning medwigel.

.

.

Medwigel . . .

So is not the Bible considered scripture?
Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture.

.

Cathoholic . . .

How do you know from the Bible, that 2nd Timothy is part of the Bible?

.

Medwigel

So is not the Bible considered scripture?
Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture.

.

.

But how do you know 2nd Timothy is part of the Scriptures?

Because All Scripture is inspired.

How do you know this?

From 2nd Timothy 3.

How do you know 2nd Timothy itself is part of the Scriptures?

Because all Scripture is inspired.

How do you know that?

From 2nd Timothy.

But how do you know 2nd Timothy is Scripture?

Because “all Scripture is inspired.”

Etc. etc. etc.

 

[bobperk]

If Paul wrote 2 Timothy in AD 67 (at latest) but other books like Revelation and the Gospel / letters of John were written after that (most commonly accepted dating), how would he have known they were Scripture?

 

[medwigel]

If Paul wrote 2 Timothy in AD 67 (at latest) but other books like Revelation and the Gospel / letters of John were written after that (most commonly accepted dating), how would he have known they were Scripture?

This verse holds a prophetic meaning to cover scripture yet to come during his time
The same way Isaiah 53 is prophetic about the coming of Christ. The book of Isaiah was written way before Jesus came but he was able to outline His ministry.
In the same way, Paul is making provisions for scripture that was yet to be written via divine inspiration.

 

[bobperk]

Quite a stretch of the imagination! Your theory might be more believable if Paul plainly predicted future scripture. So how do you know by those verses that Paul clearly meant Revelation, John etc.?

 

[medwigel]

Quite a stretch of the imagination! Your theory might be more believable if Paul plainly predicted future scripture. So how do you know by those verses that Paul clearly meant Revelation, John etc.?

Isaiah preached about something wouldn’t happen for several centuries. So what makes his account of things to come more believable?
When the Jews pointed out that they were waiting for a Messiah who would fulfill Isaiah 53 I’m pretty sure many said, “quite a stretch of the imagination”.
I’m sure Paul did not think that he was the only one being used by God. He was aware of the writings and teachings of his counter parts of the day.

 

[bobperk]

Well for one, Jesus fulfilled what Isaiah wrote. It was evident after his death and Resurrection. But after John and Revelation were written, what would cause someone to connect those books to 2 Timothy?

 

[medwigel]

what would cause someone to connect those books to 2 Timothy?

Because it says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,”, and John and Revelation were both given by inspiration of God, so it fits the criteria that Paul has set for “All Scripture”.

 

[bobperk]

What a stretch. So he was writing a letter to Timothy and referring to Scripture that was not yet written? And again, who made the decision that John and Revelation were inspired by God? Paul would much more likely have had in mind Sirach and Wisdom over John and Revelation when he wrote 2 Timothy.

 

[Gorgias]

And many non-Catholics still question these books and whether they are truly words inspired vs words written by godly men.

True. It’s just a coincidence that the doctrine in those books is doctrine that the Reformers refused to accept, right?

In any case, it’s the authority of the Church that gave us the canon of Scripture, and when the Reformers rejected the authority that Christ gave the Church, it’s not surprising that they rejected what the Church had already authoritatively declared. Anyway, you can absolutely say “I don’t believe in such-and-such”, but you cannot in good conscience make the claims you’re attempting to make (i.e., “the Church never declared these books canonical”).

Just because the Catholic church has accepted it doesn’t mean that the doubt over the text and the debate about text has gone away.

In non-Catholic circles? Of course not. That wasn’t your claim, however.

Even the Jews reject these books as scripture.

Do Jews make doctrine or declare dogma or interpret Scripture in your denomination?

In any case, even if they did reject them (and keep in mind that scholarship has concluded that there really wasn’t any such thing as a ‘Council of Jamnia’, per se), they rejected them after Pentecost, and therefore, the Church already existed and already had authority. So, the Church already believed in those books as Scripture, so no Jewish council would have had authority over them.

These books were written in the 400 years in between Malachi and the birth of Christ which was a period known as the silent years, where both Jewish and New Testament sources agree that there was no devine prophetic utterance at that time.

Again, please be specific: what you’re really saying is that Reformation sources claim that there was no Scriptural utterance in that time. Essentially, you’re making a circular argument here: Reformation theologians claim the books aren’t Scriptural, and as a result, they claim that there was no divine prophetic utterance, and therefore (you claim), because there was no divine prophetic utterance, the books aren’t canonical.

So if there was no devine inspiration when these books were written then they do not hold the same weight as the Old and New Testament.

You can’t use the conclusion of an argument as a premise for the argument.

 

[medwigel]

So he was writing a letter to Timothy and referring to Scripture that was not yet written?

It’s called prophesy.
Just like Isaiah is able to write about Jesus even though he never met Him.
These writers are not writing under their own power but under the power of the Holy Spirit 1 Peter 1:21, and the can include prophetic elements.

 

[medwigel]

Reformation theologians claim the books aren’t Scriptural, and as a result, they claim that there was no divine prophetic utterance, and therefore (you claim), because there was no divine prophetic utterance, the books aren’t canonical.

First, the argument over the authenticity of these books as scripture DID NOT start with the Reformation.
And you have to follow the bouncing ball with the one argument:

• Divine utterance did not exist in the time that these books were written
• Therefore anything written in that time could not have been divinely inspired

Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546—Catholicism’s response to the Reformation.

Some teachings found in the Apocrypha appear to be unbiblical and even heretical, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45–46) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9). The New Testament teaches that after death comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and that salvation is by grace and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Some stories in the Apocrypha seem fanciful or even unethical (for example, Judith asks God to help her in a falsehood, Judith 9:10-13).

 

[Gorgias]

First, the argument over the authenticity of these books as scripture DID NOT start with the Reformation.

Agreed. However, it was already decided and declared by the Church prior to the Reformation.

And you have to follow the bouncing ball with the one argument:

• Divine utterance did not exist in the time that these books were written
• Therefore anything written in that time could not have been divinely inspired

Wait a minute, though: how do you know that divine utterance did not exist in that time period? You can’t just make the bald assertion that it’s true without having something to support the claim!

@Cathoholic wants you to ask your pastor a question. This might be a good one to ask him. “Excuse me, Pastor Bob! How is it that we know that there was no divine utterance in the 400 years before Christ’s birth? Is there a verse of Scripture you can point me to, which makes this claim?”

Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546—Catholicism’s response to the Reformation.

Not true. The Church decided to state it again it at that time, and precisely because folks were making claims to the contrary. The Church didn’t define the canon at that time – it merely reiterated what the canon was.

Some teachings found in the Apocrypha appear to be unbiblical and even heretical, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45–46) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9). The New Testament teaches that after death comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and that salvation is by grace and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)

“Some teachings”? By whom? Reformation theologians? Prior to these teachings, the Church had already decided that these books were part of the canon and were “good for teaching”.

Some stories in the Apocrypha seem fanciful or even unethical (for example, Judith asks God to help her in a falsehood, Judith 9:10-13).

People pray to God for all sorts of ungodly things in the Bible. This isn’t a good reason to reject the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546—Catholicism’s response to the Reformation.

First of all, the Catholic Church has never affirmed ANY “Apocrypha” as Scripture.
It is Protestants who have RE-DEFINED Deuterocanonical books as “Apocrypha”.

Medwigel. If I can show you Catholics affirmed Deuterocanonical books as Scripture BEFORE Trent . . . . would you change your mind? (Do facts matter to you?)

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546 . . .

This is just flat-out wrong.

From a prior post of mine with minor variations . . .

The Council of Florence took place about a hundred years before the “Reformation”.

Protestants like medwigel often ignore this fact.

The Catechism itself (p. 721 Green version) refers to the Council of Florence as an Ecumenical Council.

(Unfortunately bringing any of this out won’t matter for many people which makes me wonder why they bring up the Trent issue anyway.)

I mean really. If the Canon wasn’t defined until Trent and then “those Catholics ADDED the Deuteros just to attack us Protestants” . . . and then . . .

. . . this is found untrue . .

. . . . . by reading Papal statements in the 300’s, and Papal statements in the 400’s and by reading the relevant sections of the Decree of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. [all of which were ratified by the Bishop of Rome], and ALSO the Council of Basel in 1445 A.D., and incidentally, the Second Council of Nicea in Canon 16, just matter of factly quoted Sirach 1:25 explicitly referring to it as "SCRIPTURE” in 787 A.D.(!). . .

. . . WHY bring up the Trent objection?

“Trent” doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter to Protestants if the Catholics “invented the status of Deuteros and tossed them into the Canon at Trent” or not, does it?

Why bring up the Trent objection when you couldn’t care less if Catholics REALLY DID teach today’s Canon long before the Reformation?

From the Council of FLORENCE 1431 to 1445 AD. (parenthetical addition mine) . . .

THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1431-1445 A.D.) It (the Council) professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

 

[Cathoholic]

We will also see the Protestant appeal allegedly to the Jews (but “which Jews”? As the Jewish people had different Canons) . . .

.

ROMANS 3:2 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

.

This “oracles of God” entrusting is allegedly why Protestants accept the Pharisees school of Jamnia (Javneh). (Oftern wrongly called the “Council” of Jamnia.)

But which Jews were now entrusted by the time of this fake “Council”?

The Jews who became Christians? Such as Peter, Paul, etc. OR . . .

. . . Or the Jews who rejected Christ and thrust the word of God away from themselves (think Pharisees)?

Medwigel would have you believe it is the Jews who REJECTED Jesus that have this authority. But this is yet another un-Biblical tradition of men being presented by medwigel.

WHY think the Pharisees were still the authentic custodians of oracles by the time Jamnia rolled around (in almost 100 A.D.)?

Should we ask the Pharisees to give us the New Testament Canon too medwigel?? No.

They “thrust it (away) from” themselves and thus it was "“taken away”.

Consider what Jesus said . . .

.

MATTHEW 21:43b, 45 43b the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. . . . 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

.

St. Paul likewise says . . .

.

ACTS 13:46 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

.

And WHY reduce “oracles of God” down to Scripture ALONE when the Bible doesn’t?

Especially when oral testimony WAS considered oracles of God too?

The people knew this was the case with John the Baptist.

John the Baptist’s testimony didn’t have to be written down first to become an “oracle of God”.

Medwigel is attempting to give people here un-Biblical traditions of men that make void the commandments of God, then fool YOU, the reader into accepting them as medwigel has accepted them.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

Even the Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognize the Apocrypha as belonging in the Bible until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546 . . .

This is just flat-out wrong.

Medwigel has three choices here.

.

1. Silence.
2. Make excuses and continue to defend what he now KNOWS is wrong.
3. Affirm the Catholic teaching on this as true and disavow his Protestant sources and/or pastor.

.

We will soon see how medwigel responds to these facts about the Deuterocanon and the Catholic Church (and his Protestant sources).

And remember. There is a New Testament Deuterocanon I explicitly asked about (I think I asked about it several times) that medwigel has been ignoring too.

 

[medwigel]

Wait a minute, though: how do you know that divine utterance did not exist in that time period? You can’t just make the bald assertion that it’s true without having something to support the claim!

Amos 8:11-12 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord, But shall no find it.”
There is also Micah 3:4-8
Daniel 11 lists a series of prophesies of what will happen during this period of silence as well.

 

[medwigel]

WHERE in the Bible is the verse that lists the New Testament Canon?

Answer to your question from my Pastor:
Such a verse can’t exist since most of the books were written independently of each other.
Therefore we have a table of contents that lists the canon.
My Pastor then refers you to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21.
And if that is not good enough he has referred you to 2 Timothy 2:14.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

If you would like for me to ask my Pastor a question for you, you need to ask a real and clear question.

.

I did.

WHERE in the Bible is the verse that lists the New Testament Canon?

Cathoholic from here . . . .

But how do you know 2nd Timothy is part of the Scriptures?

Because All Scripture is inspired.

How do you know this?

From 2nd Timothy 3.

How do you know 2nd Timothy itself is part of the Scriptures?

Because all Scripture is inspired.

How do you know that?

From 2nd Timothy.

But how do you know 2nd Timothy is Scripture?

Because “all Scripture is inspired.”

Etc. etc. etc.

Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura Sacred Scripture

medwigel . . . So is not the Bible considered scripture? Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture. This is circular reasoning medwigel. . . Medwigel . . . So is not the Bible considered scripture? Paul did not say “some” scripture or “old” scripture, he said “ALL” scripture. . Cathoholic . . . How do you know from the Bible, that 2nd Timothy is part of the Bible? . Medwigel So is not the Bible considered scripture? Paul did not say “some” …

.

Medwigel from the last post . . .

Answer to your question from my Pastor:

Such a verse can’t exist since most of the books were written independently of each other.

Therefore we have a table of contents that lists the canon.
My Pastor then refers you to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and . . .

.

.

.

How does your pastor know that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is part of Scripture?

we have a table of contents that lists the canon

(That is the tradition I talked about earlier. “tradition” if you exclude the Deuterocanonicals. “Tradition” or “Apostolic Tradition” if you INCLUDE THEM which medwigel’s pastor won’t which is WHY I stated earlier this begins at the Reformation).

.

A dramatized version of the exact same discussion . . .

.

But how do we know the table of contents is correct?

Because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us all Scripture is inspired.

But how do we know 2nd Timothy is “Scripture”?

Because it is listed in the table of contents.

But how do we know the table of contents is correct?

Because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us all Scripture is inspired.

But how do we know 2nd Timothy is “Scripture”?

Because it is listed in the table of contents.

.

Your pastor’s answer medwigel is an illustration of the exact circular reasoning fallacy I told you that you would get.

The “table of contents” is not inspired or infallible medwigel.

The AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH . . . the Catholic Church which RECOGNIZED the table of contents . . . IS INFALLIBLE in certain spheres (this is one of them) medwigel.