What was it about the CC that you thought was not in line with scripture?
If my son was a basketball player, and I told him “Drinking milk is profitable for basketball, to build up your bones and give you good health. That you as a basketball player may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to be a great player.”
You would know that I am saying that drinking milk is helpful, but it is not all that is needed to become a great basketball player.
The same is true for this passage, Paul is telling Timothy that Scripture is profitable to make the man of God a better Christian.
But Paul also tells Timothy in other passages to pass on the traditions to others.
This is a both/and situation, not either/or, both scripture and sacred tradition.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, and those who think that it does are not falling in line with whole picture of scripture. They are taking proof texts out of context to reinforce their un-biblical points.
[quote=LuvHim]We first need to realize that one must fully comply with scripture…
This might sound funny, but don’t you first have to show this in Scripture.
This is an excellent example, thanks. I am also aware that the “scripture” Paul was speaking about was the OT, since he probably did not realize that he was in the process of writing the NT.
You know, that’s true! We better not cook our goat in milk…
Not in its mother’s milk, anyway.
You need to look at catholicscripture.com–john salza’s web site–click on his arguments against sola scriptura–He explains that in greek the verse in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 would read “every scripture…” In the protestant interpretation this would prove to much–it would be every single verse in the Bible would be sufficent.–which is ludicraus. --also if sola scriptura was a Christin doctrine–some fathers of the Church would have taught it—the Protestant interpretation of sola scriptura didnt come around til the 16th century—In order for sola scriptura to be true one would have to argue almost like a mormon would argue-(mormons believe there was a complete apostocy and that Christianity in its fullness disappeared until Joseph smith restored it) Sola scriptura really cant be true because there is no record at all of Christians believing it for 1500 years— Jesus said he will be with His Church even til the end of time.
Sola Scriptura was invented because the Protestants, having broken the line of Apostolic Succession did not have tradition. And if they tried to use it, it would refute them.
For the same reason, Protestants reject the Kharisma of Infallibility. If they accept it, it immediately nullifies their argument that the Church had fallen into error. And having rejected it, they cannot turn around and claim it.
When dealing with anti-Catholic interpretations of Scripture, always ask, “But you could be wrong, right?” If your opponent agrees, you’ve won the debate. If he disagrees, point out that he’s claiming infallibility (that’s what “infallibility” means, “can’t be wrong.”)
If all scripture is inspired, then is the Koran inspired?
Is the book of Mormon inspired?
Were the rest of the Apocrypha books in the first few centuries of the church inspired?
If “all scripture” is inspired how do we determine which scripture 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is refering to?
In fact is 2 Timothy inspired?
If all scripture is inspired and it is all that is needed to make the Man of God complete, how does the man of God know which inspired scripture he should be following to complete himself?
At the time 2 Timothy was written there was no New Testament. The only recognized Scripture was the Old Testament.
The Deuterocanonicl books of the Old Testament were accepted by Christians and Jews when Timothy was written as being Inspired.
Were all of those Christians and Jews wrong?
If they were who should they have gone to to find out which books were inspired and which ones weren’t?
And if they were wrong was it because the Holy Spirit was lying to them?
If the Jews who were “the oracles of God” and the christians who followed the disciples that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth" were both wrong about those scriptures when Timothy was written–who was right?
Did Jesus lie when He said that the Holy Spirit would “lead them into all truth”?
And why is there no historical record of christians in the 1st century not accepting the deuterocanonical books?
Did Satan fool the Christians–the Jews–erase all the evidence–and God let all of that happen?
By letting it happen how does that square with Jesus saying “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” when referring to His church?
The Protestant Canon is ludicrous!
How can people be honest with themselves when they know the facts?
And these are the people who claim to believe in sola scriptura?
It sounds to me more like Sola Choose-Ola and “I will intepret because even though the Holy Spirit didn’t speak to all of those people when Timothy was written in the 1st century–now He speaks to me and people that believe like I do”!
Do people really believe like that?
I have never heard a Protestant demonstrate how any Catholic doctrine or tradition is in conflict with Scripture. The only objection they can make is that doctrines not explicitly declared in Scripture are invalid, but then of course their own standard for measuring orthodoxy is diametrically opposed to itself since Scripture cannot be construed to say that (and in fact lends legitimacy to the Catholic position of following Sacred Scripture and Tradition).
Am I missing something?
No, but most Protestants are. Most have never heard of Apostolic Succession.
On the question of “Sola Scriptura” I would ask the question, What is the fullness of God’s Revelation? A book, or more accurately, a collection of books known as the bible?
To me the fullness of God’s Revelation is not a book, it is a person, the Son of God made man. Jesus did not stand on street corners in Jerusalem handing out tracts, he was fully present to all who would listen with his full human nature as well as his divine nature. He was even transfigured before a few witnesses to prove he was much more than mere humans could understand. The apostles were witnesses to the preaching of Jesus and passed on that faith to all succeding generations. Some of that faith was written and accepted into the canon of Scripture, and some of it remained oral tradiion that was common knowedge to all the early Christian communities.
Paul acknowleges in First Corinthians when he speaks of the Eucharist that he is passing on what was passed on to him. He was not present at the Last Supper, nor did he read about it in the gospels that were not yet written. He received that faith from the oral teaching of the other apostles.
What we do not understand about God is due to the our own limits, not His failure to tell us.
If you will excuse a little levity, I would also ask another question. If you were present on the day of Pentecost when Peter spoke to the crowds and all heard him in their own language, what would be the proper response? Should those people have accepted baptism from the Spirit filled apostles? Or should they have said, “That sounds interesting, but I have to wait until the book version comes out in 50 years.”