Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

cna ^

[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.

[fish hawk]

That is why non believers are quick to say that the Bible is full of mistakes and opposites which both can't be true. Mainly their problem is that without the Spirit, it is impossible to understand God's Word, and why it is so important for us to study to show thyself approved. I had big problems with that years ago but now I have learned (still learning)to separate the circumcised from the uncircumcised , works form faith, and law from grace.

[Nosterrex]

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.

[NYer]

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.

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 2:14–26 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.

[Salvation]

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?

[Salvation]

Right on!

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 Don’ts 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

[NYer]

The Savior did not mention your tradition.

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?

[mountn man]

I think I’ve presented myself adequately in other posts.

[NYer]

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

Where is that in Scripture?

[mountn man]

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.

[Grunthor]

“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.”

[mountn man]

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

So your saying that the Catholic church does have power over mens salvation???

[Salvation]

Vut you still haven't addressed this specific Scripture -- John 21:25:

John
Chapter 21

23

¹³ So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just "What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)"

24

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, ¹⁴ and we know that his testimony is true.

25

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

[Salvation]

So are you saying that you do not believe the Apostle John and what he wrote -- that all things could not be written down? Hence, Catholics know that there is such a thing as HOLY Tradition where the world of God was handed down from one person to another.

Do Christians Need Only the Bible?
[T]radition and [t]radition (and just what is the difference?) [Ecumenical]
What is Holy Tradition?
Why Does The Catholic Church Accept Traditions? [Ecumenical]

A Return to Tradition: A new interest in old ways takes root in Catholicism and many other faiths
Scripture Is Tradition
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
The Importance of Tradition Today
The Place of Custom and Tradition

Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Holy Tradition: The Road That Leads Home
On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
Tradition and Reform

APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk

[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II

[mountn man]

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?

WHAAAAATT???? I don't think the writers of the Gospel were thinking of creating a New Testament. They were writing down history and Christs teachings to pass along. Likewise Paul, the majority writer of the NT, wrote letters to the different churches to inspire and teach and rebuke. It was later that all these letters were gathered together. Each one of these people were eyewitnesses to Christ, and wrote down their experiences and learnings.

What would carry more weight with you, a letter from a loved one, or vague remembrances from someone else just told to you?

The Bible gives us clear "traditions" to uphold, baptism and communion, also the Jewish holidays. Anything else is strictly add on that the stupidstitous like to claim.

I have an important question for you. Is the Bible the inspired, infallible word of God?

[Uri’el-2012]

Interesting; that members of the Roman "church"
reject the very words of Yah'shua condemning
them for rejecting His Word and impugning it
with their man-made traditions.

Mark 7:1-23 is very instructive on traditions of
the Elders impugning the Holy Word of YHvH.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[mountn man]

So are you saying that you do not believe the Apostle John and what he wrote -- that all things could not be written down? Hence, Catholics know that there is such a thing as HOLY Tradition where the world of God was handed down from one person to another.

So what exactly is it that you Catholics "know" through you're "traditions"

AND most importantly HOW DO YOU KNOW IT?

Traditions are/can be good for disciplines but not for additional teachings to OR instead of the Word of God.

Just because John said all things weren't able to be written down, doesn't give license to create things out of entire cloth AND THEN claim authority or holiness to them.

[Salvation]

[johngrace]

If Pope Sylvester did not bless a council you would not have the New Testament that you read. Something to think about?

[mountn man]

So your saying that without the Catholic church nothing God accoplished would have been accomplished?

[Uri’el-2012]

Imperious hubris (the sin of Satan : Pride)

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach