Posted on 01/03/2010 1:53:57 PM PST by NYer
Again, you add to 2 Timothy 16-17 a meaning that is not present.
I understand you to be claiming that if you use all scripture and nothing else to form a man, he will be thoroughly equipped as a Christian. However, 2 Timothy 16-17 only states that scripture is a component of being thoroughly equipped - not that it is the only component of being equipped. In fact, the Church is more important than the Word itself, for without the Church, the Word would not be handed on. In fact, the Church was what Jesus founded first at Pentecost, and later on that Church understood that certain newer written testaments about Christ and the early Church were actually the Word of God.
Now his does not demean the Word, but it simply acknowledges that we receive the Word through the Church, and have done so since the beginning.
“no sxcreen name” refused to answer a simple question several times and instead absurdly inquired if I was a moslem to avoid answering a tough question.
He later responded to you, not to me, with an answer.
That is how FR works - when you are discussing something, you ping the person.
I did not add a thing. My bracketed comment is biblical commentary, which is a universally accepted practice of biblical commentary.
If you thought I was adding words to the scripture, then you are mistaken. Brackets are a typical grammatical device that tell the reader: “Attention: This is not part of the text, this is a comment made by the editor.” I guess you did not ever learn about brackets.
In any event, it is a fact that
“all scripture” does NOT mean “only scripture”
which was the poinmt made in my bracketed commentary.
My point is made by your FAILURE to come up with a bible passage that states that the ONLY thing profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness is the Bible. In fact, the Bible refutes the very idea that the Bible is the ONLY such thing.
It is YOU who have violated the bible proscription about changing or adding to scripture by taking the words “ALL SCRIPTURE” and CHANGING them to mean “ONLY SCRIPTURE”
“ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
2 Timothy 16 (Bodleian_Girl Version):
“ONLY SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
In this very obvious context I corrected YOUR non-biblical attempt to change the passage by inserting my comment in brackets:
“All [not only] scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
Well, misunderstandings of my comments aside, at least I know you both agree with me that 2 Timothy 16 (KJV) does NOT say:
“ONLY scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
and from that we all know that other things (beside scripture) can also be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
The Bible says that all scripture is given so that the man of God may be prefect and thoroughly furnished.
Why do you think you need to add to “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished?”
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Wow. I guess that settles that, then.
It might help if someone would explain why the Catholic Church is so threatened by the literal historical truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Just what in there is so terrifying?
Just why are you afraid of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, Salvation?
I grew up with Friday fish.
I asked the priest and he told me it was to keep the fishermen from going bankrupt. Seemed as good a reason as any to me.
Did you find it difficult to accept evolution and higher criticism?
When I got to that passage, I quit reading.
We have more in common with other Christians than we have differences, and that part of this article is good. But the author JUST COULD NOT AVOID THE TEMPTATION to be be patronizing and insulting. SO all of his effort at explanation is wasted because of his attitude.
The Catholic Church in the United States has some very distinctive attributes as opposed to the Catholic Church in other countries. In most of the world the Catholic Church is the church of everyone--rich and poor, nobility and peasant, intellectual and simpleton. But in the United States the Catholic Church occupies a very small niche: immigrant, urban, liberal (in the old sense), and very, very, very intellectual--and unfortunately that means snarky. The Church that baptizes totem poles out of compassion for "indigenous pipples" can't seem to tolerate Southern hicks who believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis are as literal and historical as the rest of the Bible.
Nineteenth century liberal Protestant criticism has been adopted as a distinguishing characteristic of Catholic identity, coming right after Mary and the papacy.
zot
No they will not. For one thing, the Catholic Church doesn't want them. The Catholic Church's attitude towards the rural American Heartland Protestant is identical to the attitude of Hollywood to the same demographic. The Catholic Church is actually happy that Fundamentalists are Protestants rather than Catholics. One of its selling points to intellectuals is that "don't confuse us with those inbred morons." Evolution is now the third distinguishing mark of Catholicism, right after Mary and the papacy.
I was a Fundamentalist convert to Catholicism. I knew six years of nothing but pain as I tried my best to remain loyal without feeling like I was disowning my own ethnic group.
I can understand a religion wanting to limit itself to the "beautiful people." But I cannot understand a religion doing so while claiming to be "universal" and actually having millions of illiterate peasants as members in other countries. What is there about American "rednecks" that makes them less desirable than Guatemalan peasants?
Actually, it's also very similar to the Jewish Tradition that G-d wrote the Torah before He created the universe, using it as the "blueprint" of creation. This Torah was, in the 26th generation of the world, dictated to Moses letter for letter, and Moses wrote it down. However, Catholic apologeticists don't like to dignify Fundamentalist Protestants by comparing them to Jews, and they enjoy causing the maximum amount of pain, so they compare them to moslems instead. Well . . . there is the fact that Catholics tend to think that all Jews are "Reform," since Catholicism's view of the Bible is closer to Reform than it is to authentic Judaism ("Orthodoxy").
2.He says that fundamentalists want their religion to be simple, like Moslems do. That much I can't really argue with.
Well now, Billy Bob can't help the fact that G-d didn't give him the deep intellect of a Guatemalan peasant, can he?
zot
Hey ZC - all are welcome. God Bless us, everyone!
Don’t understand your question. Please elaborate, thanks.
As a thankful Catholic who’s also a proud redneck I’ve seen the exact opposite of your assertion in reality. Poor, “redneck” fundamentalist raised folks convert to Catholicism by the dozen at our parish every year. I know. I was one of them, thanks be to God!
God is Good!
Actually, the ancient Hebrew obviously knew that the earth was round.
Is. 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
Job 26:10
He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Prov. 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...
First, what 2 Tim 3 shows is that scripture is ‘sufficient’.
“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
NYer says, “Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17.”
Umm...well, if you are being taught by an Apostle, such as Paul, OK. If Paul had endorsed Purgatory, Penance, Mariology, Indulgences, Transubstantiation, Priests, etc, then we wouldn’t have a dispute. The Catholic Church used to teach that its traditions came from the Apostles, but finally gave up that claim because it was so laughable.
Catholic ‘sacred tradition’ is NOT from the Apostles, and doesn’t claim to be. Yet the Apostles taught the “whole counsel of God”.
As for scripture, Paul explicitly teaches that
1 - “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” They couldn’t do that if they were not sufficient for the task. And yes, the scripture Timothy learned as a child was the Old Testament, which is also what the Bereans searched to see if Paul preached the truth.
2 - “All Scripture is God-breathed” - it derives its authority, not from the Church, but because it is the breath of God. It is infallible, because it comes from the mouth of God.
3 - When it is used “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, the result is a “man of God...thoroughly equipped for every good work”.
Scripture is not exclusive, as NYer says. It is not the only way God reveals Himself, but it IS ‘sufficient’. It isn’t lacking doctrine that instead needed to be ‘unfolded’ over the next 2000 years. If it were not sufficient, then the man of God would NOT be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” by its use!
And if Christians needed that follow-on doctrine, such as Purgatory, Indulgences, and Mariology, then the Apostles did NOT teach the full counsel of God.
This is NOT an argument against the church, but it IS an argument against the Roman Catholic Church & its unfolding doctrine & dogma.
Please remember that the word ‘church’ used in scripture did not entail a hierarchical structure headed by the human Vicar of Christ. It means congregation...an assembly, usually religious - although the word is used for a riot in Acts.
I am not arguing that the Bible should be tossed in a person’s lap, and then the person abandoned. However, the church - the assembly of Christians - uses scripture “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. Why? “So that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
What the church - the assembly of saints - is NOT supposed to do is add additional doctrine & philosophy, and say these new teachings are dogma & doctrine. That would violate the Apostle John’s instruction:
“8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” - 2 John
Please think about what James White said in debate with Patrick Madrid:
“Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And 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. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
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.”
The full debate - both sides, can be found here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
It is a long read, but worth it for those interested in BOTH sides. James White and Patrick Madrid are both powerful supporters of their differing views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.