If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[joe370]

Hey Richard Kastner…

Ok, you seem to be under the impression that oral tradition and the written word are two different things. I find no evidence for this. In fact in Galations Paul states Gal1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Interesting… oral tradition and the written word are not two different things?

As for deference to the church leaders we have to ask just who they are. You give Heb. 13:17 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

You seem to think that this is your church?

Do you believe it is your church?

I’m guessing, but v. 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. identifies them as those that preach the word of God which if I’m not mistaken is a name given to the bible. Here’s some more identification of these people Eph.4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

So it does not matter which church we defer to???

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Go to MLB, not NFL. If you want to sit with intelligent, thoughtful, analytical, more professional folks or people with some class, go baseball. If you want a drunken, f-bomb-pumping, stoned, burly, angry, weird bunch of thugs, go to an NFL game! If you want the full-on apocolyptic, trashy, locker room, drunken stench of total mayhem and the lowest dregs of the earth, go to a Raiders game! LOL

No not yet, I don’t think it will happen soon either unfortunately because I have 1 yr old daughter and God has blessed us with another pregnancy. My wife is due on the 24/04/2010.

But if I ever do come I would love to go to a ball game or NFL match. Just for the experience.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard Kastner…

Quote:
As for deference to the church leaders we have to ask just who they are. You give Heb. 13:17 17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

You seem to think that this is your church?

Do you believe it is your church?

Quote:
I’m guessing, but v. 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. identifies them as those that preach the word of God which if I’m not mistaken is a name given to the bible. Here’s some more identification of these people Eph.4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

So it does not matter which church we defer to???

I’m not sure what your motive is in asking these two questions. If I believe it is my church, which by the way I do, would I also believe that it didn’t matter which we defer to. I can only think that you are being sarcastic and somewhat condescending here. I think that it is quit clear from what I have posted that the church Paul talks about is ANY church that preaches the word of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. Whether by mouth, oral tradition, or written word, epistle.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m not sure what your motive is in asking these two questions. If I believe it is my church, which by the way I do, would I also believe that it didn’t matter which we defer to. I can only think that you are being sarcastic and somewhat condescending here. I think that it is quit clear from what I have posted that the church Paul talks about is ANY church that preaches the word of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. Whether by mouth, oral tradition, or written word, epistle.

The Catholic Church “preaches the word of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.” Correct?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Catholic Church “preaches the word of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.” Correct?

Are you saying that your oral tradition is something different than what Paul taught by his epistles?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Are you saying that your oral tradition is something different than what Paul taught by his epistles?

It is what Paul taught alongside his epistles. He didn’t just write to the churches. He visited them and preached to them and in so doing explained what he meant in the letters.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It is what Paul taught alongside his epistles. He didn’t just write to the churches. He visited them and preached to them and in so doing explained what he meant in the letters.

Well, it’s pretty clear what Paul taught in his epistles. 1Cor2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And if you are saying that the CC by it’s oral tradition does not teach anything that Paul did not teach in his epistles, then I guess the OP has been resolved.

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today, then it had to be teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, since there cannot be two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same verse. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.

If Paul is preaching by word of mouth the same gospel that he preached in his epistles and it is clear from his own writings that he is, then he is not contradicting himself as the OP says and the deference to the church authority that the OP refers to as I have shown by a little closer look at scripture is actually deference to the word of God. So, while Paul does not expressly teach the principle of SS, that principle is certainly implicite in his and the other writers of the bible ie 1Cor2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well, it’s pretty clear what Paul taught in his epistles. 1Cor2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And if you are saying that the CC by it’s oral tradition does not teach anything that Paul did not teach in his epistles, then I guess the OP has been resolved.

I didn’t say that. Your entire position is a wager that everything the apostles taught was committed to the epistles. There is no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of Biblical evidence that goes the other way.

But you have a bigger problem. 2 Tim 3:16 does not say that “only” scripture is inspired by God, nor does it say that Scriptiure is “necessary,” but merely useful or profitable.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim. 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

There is no Scripture that says that everything the apostles taught is in Scripture, so your statement that “everything the apostles taught is in scripture” is a tradition of men. Oops.

 

[david2nd]

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul Called by God
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ…this could help ya Joe.

again: acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Cat_Herder]

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—

The Catholic Church has been around since the Gospel has. Your church has not. New church, new and different gospel.

 

[david2nd]

The Catholic Church has been around since the Gospel has. Your church has not. New church, new and different gospel.

what does that add to your salvation? i didn’t recall reading anywhere where Jesus came solely to institute catholic church. the only thing in the bible that looked similar to catholic church are the pharisees and Sadducee of the old, like how their priest are adorned with fine rob and are revered. last time i checked, Christ was without a place to lay his head.

 

[Cat_Herder]

what does that add to your salvation? i didn’t recall reading anywhere where Jesus came solely to institute catholic church.

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[reteeks21]

what does that add to your salvation? i didn’t recall reading anywhere where Jesus came solely to institute catholic church. the only thing in the bible that looked similar to catholic church are the pharisees and Sadducee of the old, like how their priest are adorned with fine rob and are revered. last time i checked, Christ was without a place to lay his head.

Nonsense. The words of Jesus taken out of context, ignoring the actual words of Jesus, and a distorted view of Jesus’s attacks on tradition.

 

[adrift]

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

You have a brand new account. How would you know that?

That is what I was wondering.

 

[Church_Militant]

what does that add to your salvation? i didn’t recall reading anywhere where Jesus came solely to institute catholic church. the only thing in the bible that looked similar to catholic church are the pharisees and Sadducee of the old, like how their priest are adorned with fine rob and are revered.

Really?
I’ll let some of the articles from my blog answer.
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

it’s funny how this threas says “non catholics” but you get banned when you post anything defending the bible truth

Bible truth? How is your position based on the Bible? You have offered nothing of scripture, just polemic comments.

BTW, we Catholics are far from the only people who wear vestments, so what?

As for getting banned, it’s never the facts that get people banned.

The sad fact is that a great many n-Cs are badly deceived into believing that their particular interpretations of scripture and resulting doctrines are the same as the New Testament and early church when in fact it has been demonstrably proved to be false.

The above article on the Eucharist is a good example, as well as the one on the different gospel.

Nonsense. The words of Jesus taken out of context, ignoring the actual words of Jesus, and a distorted view of Jesus’s attacks on tradition.

Exactly!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Your entire position is a wager that everything the apostles taught was committed to the epistles.

Everything that is needed was.

There is no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of Biblical evidence that goes the other way.

Sure there is. I just got done posting a rather lenghthy post showing several passages with just such evidence.

I didn’t say that.

This is what you did say

It is what Paul taught alongside his epistles. He didn’t just write to the churches. He visited them and preached to them and in so doing explained what he meant in the letters.

This is saying that you believe that Paul by word of mouth merely clarified what he wrote in his epistles

But you have a bigger problem. 2 Tim 3:16 does not say that “only” scripture is inspired by God, nor does it say that Scriptiure is “necessary,” but merely useful or profitable.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim. 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

2Tim.3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

No, but it does say that ALL scripture is inspired by God and it is able to make us wise unto salvation, that it can instruct us in righteousness, not ours but Jesus’, and that it can lead us to perfection in Jesus. I guess I need to go back to my original question. What more than this is needed?

There is no Scripture that says that everything the apostles taught is in Scripture,

This kind of statement borders on the ridiculous. There is non that says it isn’t either.

so your statement that “everything the apostles taught is in scripture” is a tradition of men. Oops.

You have quote marks around this “everything the apostles taught is in scripture” I don’t know where you got this from, but it wasn’t from one of my posts.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is saying that you believe that Paul by word of mouth merely clarified what he wrote in his epistles

Who made you the infallible interpreter of me? You could just ask me what I meant.

No, but it does say that ALL scripture is inspired by God and it is able to make us wise unto salvation, that it can instruct us in righteousness, not ours but Jesus’, and that it can lead us to perfection in Jesus. I guess I need to go back to my original question. What more than this is needed?

I gave you a list of six universal Christian practices that were not in the Bible and you haven’t addressed a single one of them.

This kind of statement borders on the ridiculous. There is non that says it isn’t either.

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is saying that you believe that Paul by word of mouth merely clarified what he wrote in his epistles

Who made you the infallible interpreter of me? You could just ask me what I meant.

No, but it does say that ALL scripture is inspired by God and it is able to make us wise unto salvation, that it can instruct us in righteousness, not ours but Jesus’, and that it can lead us to perfection in Jesus. I guess I need to go back to my original question. What more than this is needed?

I gave you a list of six universal Christian practices that were not in the Bible and you haven’t addressed a single one of them.

This kind of statement borders on the ridiculous. There is non that says it isn’t either.

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7706&albumid=1087&dl=1288241759&thumb=1

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Who made you the infallible interpreter of me? You could just ask me what I meant.

So, are you saying that this does not mean

It is what Paul taught alongside his epistles. He didn’t just write to the churches. He visited them and preached to them and in so doing explained what he meant in the letters.

And if you don’t mean what it says,why post it? Why not post what you do mean?

I gave you a list of six universal Christian practices that were not in the Bible and you haven’t addressed a single one of them.

How many of those Christian practices are necessary for our salvation Cat? The bible tells us that “the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2Tim3:15

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7706&albumid=1087&dl=1288241759&thumb=1

AGAIN, EVERYTHING THAT IS NEEDED IS IN THERE.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

Not quite… Let me explain…

Everything that is needed was.

When it comes right down to it - the real issue is not the Scriptures - but, who is interpreting them. Apparently, there are several imporant areas where seemingly learned people decided that their private interpretation was all that was needed. Since there was nothing that they could find in Scripture to say they were wrong … they felt they must have been right.

Here are four examples on such disasters - effectively basing themselves on either SS or the apparent infallability of individual insights;

50 AD - Council of Jerusalem.
Issue: one had to become a Jew first and then become a Christian. Obviously, Scripture teaches that Christ was a Jew as were the 12 Apostles.
Resolved: Peter ends the matter with the first infallable decision he made as recorded in Acts 15. We do not have to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses to follow Christ. What makes this such a profound decision is that had Peter merely went with Scripture - he could only have found support for what the Judiazers were claiming! This is evidence of the guidance from the Holy Spirit.

325 AD - Council of Nicaea .
Issue: Jesus Christ was not God
Resolved: Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father. The Trinitarian belief (not patently obvious to some from Scripture) was established. Additionally the Nicaen Creed was established which lists the various articles of faith that Christians (and…that would be Catholics - since this is 1350 years before the Reformation). While Scriptural referencs can be identified - there were many who had come up with their own version of what to believe. It was the Catholic Church in this Council that established the elements of faith. It is the Catholic Church today that makes the definitive pronouncements of what is to be believed. Without such a source to make the ‘final call’ on a matter, you would wind up with the 20,000+ Protestant cults, clans, groups, assemblies, unions - all claiming to be a church and all disputing with one another citing the authority of the Bible as their source.

381 AD - First Council of Constantinople .
Issue: clarified the wording on the Nicean Creed involving the Holy Spirit and condemned the heresy that Christ did not have a human will and human soul (Apollinarism)
Resolved: The Holy Spirit is totally God, a Unique Person in the One God. Now Scripture is not necessarily clear about human soul of Christ - and, could probably have been a bit clearer about His human will. But, some individuals decided on their own that they - and not the Catholic Church - could resolve this matter on their own.

431 AD - First Council of Ephesus
Issue: There were two persons in Christ and Mary was not the Mother of God
Resolved: The Partiarch of Constantinople was teaching heresy and was condemned - Christ has two nature (God and human) and one Person (Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) uniquely positioned in Jesus Christ. Mary is the Mother of Christ - Who Is God and it must be concluded that Mary is the Mother of God. Now, it is very interesting that Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the same thing (Luke 1:41-43)

None of these Councils were convened like we have conventions and parties - the Catholic Church was under active attack by - not by stupid or illeterate people - but, very intellegent people who could read the Bible in seveal languages! But, just reading the Bible isn’t enough - here are classic examples of serious error that had to be corrected. In my opinion, Scripture provides a lot - but, it does not provide it all! To claim that Scripture provides all that necessary is to put yourself in the same boat as those early Catholics who thought they knew better than the Chruch that Christ founded on Peter (Matt 16:18).

God bless