Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jun 24, '12, 11:20 am
CutlerB's Avatar
CutlerB CutlerB is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2012
Posts: 1,551
Religion: Catholic
Default Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across "The Berean Call" by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he's trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?

Quote:
Question: It seems to me that Karl Keating, in The Usual Suspects , demolishes...the major foundation of the Reformation and Protestantism, “sola scriptura.” He points out, as did Cardinal Newman more than 100 years before, that “for Timothy, Scripture was [only] the Old Testament....If Paul’s comment [2 Timothy:3:16, 17—the favorite Protestant ‘proof’ text] really implies sola scriptura, then it implies that the Old Testament alone is sufficient as a rule of faith. Does any Christian believe that? Of course not” (pp 52, 53). I challenge you to try to refute this conclusive argument.

Answer: It is amazing that Catholics have praised Newman’s pitiful fallacy for more than a century. For Timothy the Bible was only the Old Testament? Hardly. This is Paul’s second epistle to him, so Timothy has both First and Second Timothy. Moreover, that this is Paul’s last epistle is also clear from his statement, “I am now ready to be offered...my departure is at hand....I have finished my course” (2 Tm 4:6,7). Clearly, then, all thirteen of Paul’s epistles were in existence.

And so was the book of Acts, authored by Luke. It must have been written prior to Paul’s death or it would have recorded his martyrdom. Likewise for the gospel of Luke, the “former treatise” (Acts:1:1); and also Peter’s two epistles, because in his second, Peter refers to Paul and his epistles (2 Pt 3:15,16) as though the latter is still alive. In existence also were the gospels by Matthew, Mark and John—written by those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses” and had “set forth in order a declaration of those things [concerning Jesus] which are most surely believed among us” (Lk 1:1, 2). In fact, far from the Old Testament being all that was available, the entire New Testament, except for the three epistles of John and Revelation, had been written.

But even if none of the New Testament had been written, Paul’s expression “all scripture” surely refers to all of the Bible, not just to what had been written up to that time. When Solomon writes, “every word of God is pure” (Prv 30:5); the Psalmist writes, “the word of the Lord is right” (Ps:33:4); “thy word is settled in heaven” (119:89); “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (138:2); or Isaiah says, “the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Is 40:8)or “trembleth at [thy] word” (66:2); or Jesus says, “blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Lk 11:28), etc., etc., no one would imagine that reference is being made only to scriptures which had been written up to that time.

As for whether this passage teaches that God’s Word is sufficient, Keating avoids 2 Timothy:3:17 which states, “That the man [or woman, boy or girl] of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” It couldn’t be clearer that nothing else is needed for instruction in living the Christian life and being all that God wants us to be.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 24, '12, 11:59 am
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 17,037
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

The answer ignores the point that at the time Paul's writing was not scripture. The Bible as we know it did not exist. Timothy would not have known what a Bible was. He would have only have known Scripture and that Scripture would have been what we now refer to as the Old Testament. Paul wrote letters which later became declare inspired by God. Would Timothy reading a letter say "Ah ha this is inspired Scripture'? No that is why this argument fails. They put hind sight into it. We now know that it was inspired by God but not then.

The argument that Timothy would have meant the whole Bible even if it hadn't been yet written is putting words into his mouth. Of course, he meant only the Old Testament. Of course we can see that it applies to all Scripture now. But to be solo scripture means you cannot add to what he was saying. He didn't say all scripture now in the future. I wonder if he would have even thought there would be new scripture.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 24, '12, 12:04 pm
tabycat's Avatar
tabycat tabycat is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2012
Posts: 2,997
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Dave Hunt is a Bible Only Christian. He, like other Bible Onlys, either forget, ignore, or don't know that God used fallen humans to write and compile the Bible. His veiwpoint works only with other Christians that agree with him. I'm not sure that Hunt knows (or does not what to know) that when Paul was writing the New Testament had not been written or compileled.

Dave Hunt is a well known antiCatholic. The best thing we can do for him (and others like him) is to pray for them
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 24, '12, 12:18 pm
Spirithound Spirithound is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: December 11, 2006
Posts: 5,521
Religion: Catholic, Latin Rite
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutlerB View Post
Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across "The Berean Call" by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he's trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?
2Tim 3:16 says "All Scripture is useful" or profitable. And v.17, "That the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped". How does someone become "thoroughly" prepared, from something that is only "useful"? By being trained by someone in authority to interpret the Scripture.

Sola Scriptura necessarily is an individualistic process, and those are the churches that it bears. In a church, either one person has authority to define what they believe, or everybody has the authority to strike out and form their own church.
__________________
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.

A forum for Discerning the Priesthood is now open!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 24, '12, 12:39 pm
Todd Easton Todd Easton is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2004
Posts: 3,269
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Which sacred writings was St. Paul talking about in 2 Tim 3:15-17? He clearly had in mind those sacred writings with which Timothy had been acquainted from "infancy." (2 Tim 3:15) So, which sacred writings were available at the time of Timothy's infancy? Since Timothy was already a well-spoken-of disciple (Acts 16:1-2) before the first New Testament writings appeared,* Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament.

* 1 Thessalonians is generally regarded as the first of the New Testament writings to have been written and Timothy is one of the named senders of that letter. (1 Thes 1:1)

Last edited by Todd Easton; Jun 24, '12 at 12:49 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 24, '12, 12:50 pm
SPH1 SPH1 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 872
Religion: Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Not to mention that Hunt's theology doesn't work, considering all of the conflicting scriptural interpretations in Protestantism. It gets him nowhere.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 24, '12, 2:11 pm
pablope pablope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2010
Posts: 7,331
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutlerB View Post
Hi everyone,

searching the Internet for things on Sola Scriptura, I came across "The Berean Call" by Dave Hunt. Now, Mr Hunt seems obnoxious to me, to be honest, but the point he's trying to make in this article somehow seems to make sense. Can anybody get this straight and/or refute it?
Quote:
Question: It seems to me that Karl Keating, in The Usual Suspects , demolishes...the major foundation of the Reformation and Protestantism, “sola scriptura.” He points out, as did Cardinal Newman more than 100 years before, that “for Timothy, Scripture was [only] the Old Testament....If Paul’s comment [2 Timothy:3:16, 17—the favorite Protestant ‘proof’ text] really implies sola scriptura, then it implies that the Old Testament alone is sufficient as a rule of faith. Does any Christian believe that? Of course not” (pp 52, 53). I challenge you to try to refute this conclusive argument.
Quote:
Answer: It is amazing that Catholics have praised Newman’s pitiful fallacy for more than a century. For Timothy the Bible was only the Old Testament? Hardly. This is Paul’s second epistle to him, so Timothy has both First and Second Timothy. Moreover, that this is Paul’s last epistle is also clear from his statement, “I am now ready to be offered...my departure is at hand....I have finished my course” (2 Tm 4:6,7). Clearly, then, all thirteen of Paul’s epistles were in existence.
How does he know? Does he provide verified timelines of writing?

Besides, Timothy does not have authority on his own to declare what is to be inspired or what is to be in the Bible, neither does Paul. Only the Pope does...and Peter makes such a pronouncement in one of his epistles. But Peter does not name which epistles....so it is hard to determine which were already written when Peter's epistle was written. Keep in mind, Peter was executed ahead of paul.




Quote:
And so was the book of Acts, authored by Luke. It must have been written prior to Paul’s death or it would have recorded his martyrdom. Likewise for the gospel of Luke, the “former treatise” (Acts:1:1); and also Peter’s two epistles, because in his second, Peter refers to Paul and his epistles (2 Pt 3:15,16) as though the latter is still alive. In existence also were the gospels by Matthew, Mark and John—written by those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses” and had “set forth in order a declaration of those things [concerning Jesus] which are most surely believed among us” (Lk 1:1, 2). In fact, far from the Old Testament being all that was available, the entire New Testament, except for the three epistles of John and Revelation, had been written.


He has the facts wrong....John's gospel was written around AD90. Peter was executed around AD62 or so.


Quote:
As for whether this passage teaches that God’s Word is sufficient, Keating avoids 2 Timothy:3:17 which states, “That the man [or woman, boy or girl] of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” It couldn’t be clearer that nothing else is needed for instruction in living the Christian life and being all that God wants us to be.

Funny....but he does not or fails to mention V14......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,

Which speaks of oral instruction. Taken as a whole......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 servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


It is oral and Scripture....and he fails to mention...that the term man of God.....does not refer to a layman...but that term, used here and taking into account the context and culture and usage of this term at the time the epistle was written....refers to someone called to the ministry...or the priesthood.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 24, '12, 2:34 pm
Credo ergo sum Credo ergo sum is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 18, 2011
Posts: 882
Religion: Considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Easton View Post
Which sacred writings was St. Paul talking about in 2 Tim 3:15-17? He clearly had in mind those sacred writings with which Timothy had been acquainted from "infancy." (2 Tim 3:15) So, which sacred writings were available at the time of Timothy's infancy? Since Timothy was already a well-spoken-of disciple (Acts 16:1-2) before the first New Testament writings appeared,* Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament.
This! How could Timothy have known Paul's letters from infancy?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 24, '12, 3:08 pm
Jacob Morgan Jacob Morgan is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Posts: 22
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

If someone wanted to join the US Army, would they a) go to the nearest recruitment center of the US Army, or B) put together their own "authentic" army based on their interpretation of what they read in Johnny Trumain or in a Thomas Paine pamplet?

They would say that they are just simple honest 1776 US Army men, going to the orignal source as it plainly reveals itself. That would quickly splinter into the flint lock only group and the three-corner hat only group, and the group that insisted the signal corps only being drawn from the ranks of silver smiths. The modern US Army, with helicopter thingies and such, are clearly innovations not referenced anywhere in any of Gen. Geo. Washington's writings. Somewhere before the war of 1812 a great apostacy occured.

I grew up in a church like that, I recall once being told that if a group of people found the Bible and just followed it, well they'd have a church just like that one. Hogwash. If someone found a Bible for the first time they wold A) conclude it was the history of a Church once made--they'd have no suspiction that it was a set of Popular Mechanics blue prints on do-it-your-self church making, and B) they would want to know the provenance of that book if they were to take it seriously.

A lot of the fundamentalist Bible thumpers are from a prior era when every respoectable middle class America belived, or at least honored, the Bible. With that assumption, there was no need to say where it came from or why one should belive it, just a race to simplify and individualize the interpetation. Those days are gone.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 25, '12, 9:24 am
Gamera Gamera is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2007
Posts: 2,327
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Paul's letters to Timothy emphasize that Timothy should accept what he has "heard," not just what he has "read."
__________________
Imagine if the cars without pro-life bumper stickers were the ones that stood out. Is there a pro-life bumper sticker on your car?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jun 25, '12, 10:33 am
fhansen fhansen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2007
Posts: 7,244
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Can somebody get this straight and refute it?

Hunt also misses the fact that scripture can't be easily interpreted or fully understood without the Holy Spirit edifying the authority of His choice. The Ethiopian Eunuch couldn't understand scripture without the help of Philip, a leader of the Church. Likewise Hunt can't hope to adequately understand scripture without the Church. Now I'm not suggesting that Hunt is a eunuch, except that, by analogy in the spiritual sense, he's at a severe disadvantage when it comes to knowing God's will because he's missing the essential organ God's provided for that purpose, the teaching authority of the Church, aka the Magisterium.
__________________
"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections." - Saint Augustine

"It is love alone that gives worth to all things." - St. Teresa of Avila
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Tags
bible, dave hunt, karl keating, sola scriptura, tradition

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3895Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3463Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:15 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.