Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94377 | ||
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory). First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation." He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15). Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition! |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | DarcyA | 94382 | ||
What is apostolic tradition? I thought savation comes be believing in Jesus and repenting (Excepting the free gift of salvation.) Now there is some kind of tradition. Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. If the Bible is the world of God which I am sure it is isn't that enough instead of putting someones tradition into it? |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | EdB | 94390 | ||
DarcyA Apostolic verbal traditions in most cases refer to hard to understand passages that many feel were clarified and passed on by the Apostles. Things like are tongue for today or not, How should we baptize, should children be baptized and etc. Basically the things that divide the Protestant denominations. Back when the church was under Papal rule these things problems were settled by the Pope declaring or reciting an Apostolic verbal tradition. This was made easier and became more authoritative by the belief that the Pope was a direct descent of Peter. However as church power became more of a factor in world other factors were allowed to enter into play. Soon things were being done for the wrong reasons power and riches. The reformation came into being to clean up the church. However instead of fixing the problem it allowed itself to be divided from the church. Now instead of one man determining the correct interpretation of a Bible passage we had many. Most claim sola scriptura but in fact their decisions are influenced by past teachings, basis, prejudices, and other things. We see it here on the forum we have good men and women arguing the meaning of scripture not because they one is evil and one is good but because BOTH sides have let outside influences fog the true meaning of the verse. Today these questions get argued and in many cases the church divides into another denomination. At last count I think there was over 1600 different protestant denominations. I'm not sure that this is a better solution. EdB |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | DarcyA | 94395 | ||
Okay, thanks. But my opinion is this the apostles were not perfect for they were Human. When they wrote the scriptures they were inspired by the the Holy Spirit. But I believe other than that they did have some false when it comes to certain doctrines. For example it took a long time for the early church to go to the gentiles, Peter ended up going to the gentiles kicking and screaming. Although Jesus did say to go out into ALL the world and preach the gospel. I think peter that that just meant Israel hince that was once faase "doctrine" He held. Also I think if God thought the bible wasn't good enough He would have use other means today. As goes for different denominations I see them in the bible too for example you had the church at Cornith with its problems ect. and then you have the Galatian Church which had there problems ect. I don't think different denominations is completely a bad thing. Take for instance that this group over here don't believe in the gifts of the Spirit but over here you do, I personally wouldn't feel very good if I had this person speaking in tongues and I didn't believe in it. It would be unconfortable. PS Not saying I don't believe in tongues. |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | EdB | 94410 | ||
DarcyA That is why if you read my first post in this series I said the only thing we have that is 100 percent reliable is the Bible. EdB |
||||||