Why are these not considered scripture?-mosly for Catholics

[ancoda]

My DH's company has a company wide web community similar to this one that contains a religious discussions forum.
They have been got into a discussion recently about which Bible was the true bible which lead to a discussion on what makes something be scriptures. A Catholic man came on and posted that 2 Timothy 3:16 spells out what makes something a scripture.
So my husband asked the following?

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it gives a very nice defenition of what scripture is.

Scripture is:
1) given by inspiration from God
2) used to create church doctrine
3) used to correct people who are misunderstanding church doctrine
4) used to teach the gospel to others

So why do the Apostle's creed, the Nicene creed, and the Catechism not qualify as scripture?

Someone else came on and says just because it fits 2 Timothy 3:16 does not make it scripture, just that it has to fit 2 Timothy 3:16 to be able to be scripture.

So can any of you please either answer his first question or better explain how you define something as scripture?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by ancoda

My DH's company has a company wide web community similar to this one that contains a religious discussions forum.
They have been got into a discussion recently about which Bible was the true bible which lead to a discussion on what makes something be scriptures. A Catholic man came on and posted that 2 Timothy 3:16 spells out what makes something a scripture.
So my husband asked the following?

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it gives a very nice defenition of what scripture is.

Scripture is:
1) given by inspiration from God
2) used to create church doctrine
3) used to correct people who are misunderstanding church doctrine
4) used to teach the gospel to others

So why do the Apostle's creed, the Nicene creed, and the Catechism not qualify as scripture?

Someone else came on and says just because it fits 2 Timothy 3:16 does not make it scripture, just that it has to fit 2 Timothy 3:16 to be able to be scripture.

So can any of you please either answer his first question or better explain how you define something as scripture?

Within Christianity what is Scripture was decided by the early Church councils. They wanted texts that were, not just inspired by God like nature inspires a poem, but actually from God in a special way. They looked at a number of things - were they authentic as they defined it, did they accord with the teachings and understanding of the Church? Some texts were rejected, for example, because it was felt that they had been written under false pretenses, or were gnostic and so not compatible with the message of Jesus.

The Creeds were created by men - they were not inspired by God in the direct way Scripture was - they were created through a theological process based on Scripture and the Church's understanding of it.

[lilyka]

the only logical conclusion I can draw about timothys reference to scripture is that the scripture Timothy was talking about had to have been the Old testement. as the new testement was not there yet. he can't refer to something that isn't. and it was not "new testement" because obviously, he was writing it at the time (unknown to him.)

and while what he said certainly applies to all scripture, it doesn't mean that anything that isn't scripture won't meet those reqirements. he doesn't say scripture is the only thing to meet those requirements. it sounds to me more like he was saying what certainly could not be included in church scriptures...like he was figting heresy. actually after reading the entire passage thats exactly what it sounds like. he was simply fighting false doctrine and heretical writings that would try to lead people astray. he was saying that it may look like scripture but unless it meets these tests (notice it has to line up with church doctrine, which church doctrine was already solid - not the other way around) it is likely not real scriptureand not something you should follow. what was church dontrine was unquestionable. what was going to be formed into connonized scripture, which letters and accounts and relevations were ok was a lot less solid.

first of all we have to remember that the new testement did not fall from heaven and start the church. the church had been moving along quite nicely without it. if a problem arose an elder (bishop/priest/etc) would address it according to church doctrine (hence the epistles. letters from church leadership to address problems, cheer successes in specific churches at a specific time. the gospels were around but there werte many of them. some were obviously heresy and rejected but others were just iffy. but they were passed from one place to another but not considered scripture. at a point all these accounts and letters and revelations were looked at by the bishops and they struggled for years which to offically accept, which to unofficially allow and which to consider outright heresy. and even those changed about for quite a while. it was a very long process.

the nicene creed does not need to be scripture. it was handed down at an ecummenical council to all the churches. it was agreed upon long before what was going to be cannonized scripture. it was a part of church practice so ingrained that it didn't need to be made more obvious(as well as worship order, communion, babtism etc...none of these things are specifically spelled out but were pretty standard up until the protestant reformation 1500 years into it.) scripture is a part of our life. not all of it. it is a glimpse of the church. not the fullness of it. the epistles are not historical documents or a how to handbook for the church. they address a few things. a few things that did not need a council. so there was no offical ruling until the church decided to cannonize the letter. the gospels recount the life of Christ (and our church are considered a bigger deal than the epistles) put their stamp of approval on these things for all time just in case the cropped up in another church.

I fully believe that Gods hand was in this and those are things he specifically wanted us to know and He wanted to seal. but just because it is not in the Bible or not scripture doesn't mean he did not want us to absolutely go with it. i believe the decisions made in the councils are just as holy and just as God ordained as what is in scripture. the things the church had been doing for years, like the creeds, sacerements etc were not supposed to change at all. we didn't need to write them down. , they had been the standard, the only standard for hundreds of years. those things were obvious and a given (or so it seamed)

also