Skip to comments.Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Posted on 07/11/2010 10:58:32 AM PDT by NYer
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
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 perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
Sunday discussion ping!
Traditions equal man made religion or more accurately superstition.
At the time that Paul wrote this, what traditions could he have been talking about? He was talking about the Jewish precepts that are in line with the his teachings and teachings of Christ. He certainly wasn’t talking about the traditions of Rome, which came from paganism, was he?
I don't see any apostles today walking around.... These were chosen men, ‘the twelve’, specifically selected by Christ. Their work was to clarify and help put away the various ‘pagan beliefs’ prominent at that time, as well as help the church to teach and set straight the arguments and differences accordingly. They did not have the New Testament in it's entire....we do.
Yah'shua rebuked the Pharisees because they impugnedshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
scriptures with man made tradition.
"It is written"
See Deut. 29:27; Jos. 1:8; 8:31; 10:13; 23:6; 2 Sam. 1:18; 2 Ki. 23:21; 2 Chr. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 35:12; Ezr. 3:2, 4; 6:2, 18; Neh. 6:6; 8:15; 10:34, 36; Est. 1:19; 8:8f; Ps. 40:7; Isa. 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; Dan. 9:13; Matt. 4:4, 6, 10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31; Mk. 1:2; 7:6; 9:12f; 11:17; 14:21, 27; Lk. 2:23; 3:4; 4:4, 8, 10; 7:27; 10:26; 19:46; 24:46; Jn. 6:31, 45; 8:17; 12:14; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 13:33; 15:15; 23:5; Rom. 1:17; 2:24; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3, 9, 21; 1 Co. 1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19; 9:9f; 10:7; 14:21; 15:45; 2 Co. 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10, 13; 4:22, 27; Heb. 10:7; 1 Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 1 Jn. 2:21; Rev. 1:3
Try the very end of the last book:
Rev 22: 18-19 “I warn anyone that hears the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, G-d will add to him the plagues described in this book. And, if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, G-d will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
There is no difference in spurious additions made by some pope, or Joseph Smith. Both are of the same category.
The Bible can be confusing to some for instance the writings of James seem to sometimes be the opposite of Paul's until one learns that James is talking to strictly Jews (Israel) and Paul is talking to the new Church (bride of Christ) This is important when you get to "works" vs "grace". That is why there is a verse telling us that we should "rightly dividing the word".
Matt 15: 3 - 9 “Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of G-d for the sake of your tradition? For G-d said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to G-d,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus, you nullify the word of G-d for the sake of your traditions. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
Jesus has a word for people that place tradition on equal ground with Scripture: hypocrite.
How does James writing to the tribes in dispersion modify the meaning of “so you see that (a) man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”?
I think it is an extra-Scriptural interpretation to go from "traditions of men" to "All traditions are merely traditions of men." In other words, that interpretation is NOT "sola Scriptura.
We see their successors, whom they appointed.
There was no codified bible. In Mark 13:31, we read that heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
It is a man-made tradition to apply a verse about one book or scroll in a collection of scrolls to every scroll in that collection.
The Catholic Church just can’t get over the fact that the Word of God alone can free men’s souls and they no longer have power over their salvation
Gal. 2:7 ...when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter (and the other Apostles)
This should be interesting..I think I’ll just read along here for a while..
This is what Jesus had to say about the additional teachings “traditions” of the institutional sects of the day:
Matt 16:6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Herod in Mark) (In Luke 12, just Pharisees, and again, Jesus had a name for this kind of additional yeast in the bread: Hypocrite!)
I think that would also apply to modern day equivalents. Be on your guard against that added ingredient that changes the nature of the bread of Life? Yes.
Lol! We were there from the foundation of the Church.
The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or "Scripture," thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
We can also look at any "tradition" created after the Bible was written was NOT a tradition that the Bible spoke of, and was just an elaborate contrivance of man and given "authority" BY MAN.
God gave us his word to read. To instruct us, to convey his love for us and to us.
Much like a person sends a love letter to another. A person can read it for what the writer intended, but hug it regularly or kissing it or waving around your head 3 times, pumping it up and down 5 times and back and forth in front of you 6 doesn't make it ANYMORE meaningful. The writer might think its cute or endearing, but still meaningless. Same with any manmade traditions.
God gave us his Word. He also gave us (our jewish bretheren) certain traditions. Anything else is man made.
DITTO. The ones that advocate scripture only, tend to throw the child molesting ministers out immediately, the ones who believe in additional doctrines and question strict interpretation of scripture tend to keep and move their child molesting ministers around. I think following scripture and not adding additional doctrines is a better way.
I am so grateful for the Reformation after coming to FR and reading these religious threads. Further research to seek the truth of and origins of what the catholic church is today was a profound eyeopener of where so much of their practices and beliefs are rooted...mindboggling to say the least.
As I have stated before...you and I are far apart in our beliefs so you should not be surprised I will not agree.
And what oral teachings are these, and by what proof do you have that they come from the apostles themselves?
Mark 7: 13 Jesus said.... "Thus you nullify the word of G-d by your traditions that you have handed down. AND YOU DO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS."
Ouch...that’s gotta hurt if they have any sensitivity to the truth at all. If it doesn’t then they are beyond the sensitivity the spirit gives us to discern.
refer to posts: #6#7#8#10#17#21
Very nice to have stated this....and factual.
I have found it interesting in cult studies etc. that one of the common ideas from those who have entered and came out of them is the individuals, who were Christians and fell for the lies, wanted “more” than that which Christ and scripture offered. They wanted signs and experiences of a supernatural kind because our society today values this far more than “faith” and “belief”.
Okay. Then it's a man made tradition that by "you" Jesus means to refer to Catholics as well as Pharisees AND/OR that by 'many such things' he means "all such things."
“We see their successors, whom they appointed.”
You cannot appoint eyewitnesses to Christ.
As a matter of fact, I pretty much agree. It just is funny (as well as being a man-made tradition) that the BIBLE says “not by Faith alone,” and a whole bunch of people say “by faith alone.” Clearly it is a wee bit more nuanced.
“According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible).”
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.”
The Savior did not mention your tradition.
This was the problem Luther had and the start of the reformation. Luther didn't simply decide he didn't like the Catholic church, he saw discrepancies between what the church was teaching and what was in the Bible.
Now you can try to villify Luther if you want, but its hard to objectively argue facts. Luther saw a discrepancy and voiced it. The Catholic church didn't like it and ordered him to recant. He refused, under expulsion and threat of death.
Next, when the printing press came about, the Catholic chuch feared it because of the loss of absolute control of the people. Now the people could read for themselves, and not rely on the priests. It also exposed the teachings that weren't congruant with the Bible.
There a different kinds of tradition. The dating of the NT Scripture varies, but most scholars agree that the writings of St. Paul are the earliest. There may have been a logion of Jesus sayings prior to St. Paul’s writings. There were a large number of apostles that were eye witnesses to the “Jesus event” and a few of them, Such as St. Matthew and St. John wrote down these events. These writings have been accepted as authoritative over time. They are reliable and sufficient for salvation and sanctification. The great teachers and councils of the church used Scripture to judge the teachings and practices of various people and groups. They are the ONLY reliable source, for they are the record of the only ones that were actually present with Jesus. I would call this Holy Tradition, and all other traditions must conform to this standard, including those traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
I wouldn't even begin to attempt to vilify Martin Luther. He does this on his own. It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:1426 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
What does Scripture say about adding words?
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18)
Oops, that is from the Book of Revelation which was rejected by Martin Luther.
The Bible itself tells us that there is tradition. That all the things did not get written down.........last chapter of John.
Care to re-read it now?
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books
Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Donts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible
Sure He did! The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition."
Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No. With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles. In fact, only the Apostles Sts. Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the ONLY authority to be followed in the Christian religion?
I think I’ve presented myself adequately in other posts.
Where is that in Scripture?
Any tradition created AFTER Christ, then was not a tradition and therefore just a man made creation with no authority or meaning other than as a discipline or superstition.
Jesus told him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
He left off the part that I am sure He mean’t to say. Something like “Unless you keep to the traditions of a church that will come to be in about 300 years.”