Scripture does not itself contain the list of books to be in the canon -- that comes from tradition.
wrf3 | 10.13.05 - 12:48 pm | #

wrf3:

That is a very good point. I agree-- that is a Protestant tradition. However, the fact that Luther at one time objected to the book of James demonstrates what may be a surprise to many Protestants: it is not really a binding tradition in the sense of Catholic tradition (obviously Luther didn’t think so.) That is, the Protestant view of the canon is really that it is a fallible collection of infallible books, rather than an infallible collection of infallible books.

Of course, some Protestants elevate this tradition to a Catholic-like sacred tradition by assuming, even though there is no scripture to back it up, that the construction of the canon was infallible. That's OK--but if you are a Protestant who believes that there is no possibility whatsoever that a book made it in that doesn't belong, or that one that belongs didn't make it in--then you should be a little kinder to our Catholic friends when criticizing sacred tradition.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 2:48 pm | #

At least Prots agree on the 66-book canon. Ask ten (conservative, traditionalist, non-Foxian) Catholics which dogmas of the Catholic Church are infallible and you'll be lucky to get as few as seven or eight different lists in reply.

To me, it's like being asked "How do you know your father didn't sire any other children you don't know about?" Answer: "I can't say infallibly that he didn't, but show me anyone you claim is a long-lost half-sibling and I'll check the family resemblance".
Tom R | 10.13.05 - 10:17 pm | #

The citation for 2 Tim 3 is, as always, wrenched from its context; the citation begins with a sentence fragment. The full sentence reads:

Remain, then, in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing those from whom you have learned, for from infancy you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

(The part in bold is what your citation omitted.)

The first part of the sentence speaks not of what Timothy has learned from the Scriptures, but of what he has been personally taught by others - that is, what he has received by tradition. St Paul tells Timothy to remain in those teachings which he has received person-to-person. And it is only by remaining in what we have received - that is, by being faithful to the tradition - that we are able to understand the Scriptures rightly.

Thus the oft-cited 2 Tim 3:15 is not an argument for Sola Scriptura, but an argument for Scripture in the Tradition.
Chris Jones | 10.25.05 - 6:17 pm | #

but an argument for Scripture in the Tradition

Considered also, of course, that at the time Paul was writing to Timothy, there was not yet a New Testament, as the gospels were not even written... So the Sacred Scriptures must mean the Old Testament, read in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which was handed down by His apostles to the faithful.
Petra | Homepage | 11.07.05 - 2:50 pm | #