I sent you a PM a little while ago. I told you in that PM to feel free to start a thread on this, and I’ll discuss it with you. I have the Catholic edition of Logos, so I can certainly do some looking. Last night, in fact, I already came across an interesting comment from Tertullian. But now that I think of it, I’ll start the thread. I’ll call it “The ECFs: SS or STC?”
Cool!
Only if STC is, in fact, the preexisting position. We’ll delve into that in our other thread.
OK, you’re not conceding the point. But I already gave you evidence which you seemed willing to work with that it STC was preexistent, including summaries of the history of doctrine by recognized authorities in the field, the Ecumenical Councils, and the EOC reaction to SS.
The thread sounds great, but how will you include the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church? They are also a witness to the faith and practice of the ancient church. This is, after all, what we are trying to establish.
SS–and you have yet to address this issue squarely–does not mean “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.” It means, by of the nature of reading a text,
my interpretation of the Bible
alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith. So again the
factual question: is this what is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils so that it is more reasonable to abandon STC?
That’s your conclusion of SS, but it’s not historically what it means.
To me this sounds like a non-answer. I realize that is what you assert. But how do you show that the ultimate rule to determine of the content of God’s revelation to all humanity is not your individual interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013? You have yet to spell this out.
But what does this show? SS does not deny the need for teachers, oral teaching in the church, etc. Also, let’s stick to what the text actually says. Paul does NOT say that it’s his teaching plus the Scriptures that are sufficient; he just says Scripture.
I’m assuming you’re not going to address the rest of the data I presented from Paul.
What the other data from Paul I cited and that of the rest of the NT shows is that the oral tradition of teaching and preaching of the word in the Church beginning with the apostles and Pentecost, that saved people, that was the word of God, worked conjointly with Scripture in the Church to hand on divine revelation. It was never Scripture alone, and absolute never Scripture interpreted by the individual to call into question the tradition taught by the church that they received and lived in as members of the body of Christ.
The NT view of Scripture in relation to the apostolic tradition of preaching and teaching is expressed by Luke in the introduction to his Gospel (1:3-4): “I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke’s written gospel serves to reinforce and spell out what he or “eye witnesses and ministers of the word” taught, not call it into question. Paul’s letters likewise reinforce, reaffirm, and further spell out some things he taught, not call them into question. Scripture and Tradition are not in an antagonistic relation with each other unless one has already adopted sola scriptura.
Actually Paul does say his teaching AND the scriptures (=OT) are sufficient. Look at the context: Paul’s warning Timothy about false teachers and the lies they spread (3:1-9, 12-13). He then launches into what Timothy has and needs to protect himself and teach others the truth. “You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance . . . . But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
AND that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Then he notes the inspiration of scripture and its purposes and concludes that with all of these Timothy has all he needs.
No, of course not. But if your mom packed everything you needed for camping in your backpack, not just the flashlight, then you’d be fully equipped. That is the meaning in 2 Tim. 3.
As per the above and the rest of Paul’s teaching and practice regarding how God’s word, the gospel, is transmitted, I think not. You can’t take one verse in isolation from the import of a whole paragraph let alone all of Paul’s teaching and absolutize it.
If I may suggest a methodological principle which I affirm; and it would help to know where you stand with it. To understand what an author teaches on a subject, what he is trying to get across, one must explore and take into consideration all that he teaches, and portrays, and practices that is germane to the area under investigation. Call it the principle of total evidence. This includes literary and historical context. Ultimately this also includes forming a view of import of all the NT authors’ teaching.
