Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics.

[T_More]

Nick, who decided what constitutes Sacred Scripture, namely, the New Testament, that you are quoting from? I have news for you, it was an “organization” other than the WTBS. Think about the implications of that.

I’ll ask you what I’ve asked many other JW’s that come on this site and have refused to answer. From where did Charles Taze Russell receive the authority to interpret scripture?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Where in the Bible exactly does it tell us there are three persons in one God?

That is a good question. And in fact the Bible doesn’t tell us exactly.

Nor does it say exactly that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Nor does it say that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. Nor that He picked the Watchtower as God’s channel of communicaton to mankind. Nor that the heavenly calling ceased at a particular date, and so on.

These are all inferred doctrines. Doctrines never explicity stated but arrived at by a process of reasoning, using indirect scriptural evidence. Reasoning using various interpretive assumptions, which a person may or may not agree with.

The doctrine of the Trinity is also an inferred doctrine, not explicity stated as such, but derived from reasoning on the scriptures. Trinitarians believe that the reasoning is strong, and supported by the written beliefs of the earliest Christians, so that it was not something unkown to them. The formal doctrine was defined later, in response to various challenges to it in subsequent years.

There are similarities between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society. Both claim to be the authoritative interpeter of scripture. Catholics accept the Church’s interpretation because the scriptures belong to the Church, and hence it is up to the Church to say what they mean. The Watchtower believes that the scriptures belong to them, to the 144,000 and the governing body. Proper interpretation of scripture therefore belongs to them, not to the individual.

I don’t know how many individual Catholics know the reasoning and history of the Trinity, and likewise, I don’t know how many Witnesses really understand the reasoning of many of the Watchtower doctrines, but they are accepted because the Witness accepts the authority of the Watchtower to declare what scripture means, even if that intepretation changes over the years…

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

Thank you for that. I will try my best not to make a dash for the exit door when the heat is on. I will check responses periodically. I respect all Catholics and have had great discussions with priests and nuns in Italy.

I hope you are ok with the use of the abbreviation “JW”, and it is not offensive to you? It just is easier to type that, but I will refrain if you find it distasteful.

Rinnie,You ask me to show you where exactly does the Bible state that Scripture alone is to be the final authority for Christ followers? Didn’t one of his faithful followers the Apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “…Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·pol′los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.”

This is a curious verse to use to support Sola Scriptura.

St. Paul is stating not to go beyond the things that are written–yet, he clearly could not be speaking of the Bible, right? For it was not written yet.

He must have been referring, then, to the Old Testament.

Are you saying that your church proclaims that only the OT is inspired?

 

[firstmode]

John 17:

10 All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory. 11 Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name;** now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are. 12 During my time here, I protected them by the power of the name you gave me.**

 

[pablope]

Rinnie,

Paul wrote at 2 Timothy 3:15-17: “From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

No mention here of oral tradition fully equipping us. What is making us wise for salvation? Isn’t it the “holy WRITINGS?” What, then, are we to conclude when we see human tradition being given an equal rating with God’s inspired Word, and when, even though contrary to the Bible, tradition is accepted and followed instead of the Bible?

Respectfully,

Nick

Actually, let us go back to 2Tim 3: you are missing verse 14.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (King James Version)

[SIGN] 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;[/SIGN]

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.

Verse 14 speaks of oral instruction, oral tradition, knowing who taught you. So, it is not just the written, it is both oral and written…“which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

God’s word was first spoken, then some of it committed to writing, but not all of it, as testified to in the last chapter of John. So the Word is both oral and written.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

You ask me to show you where exactly does the Bible state that Scripture alone is to be the final authority for Christ followers? Didn’t one of his faithful followers the Apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “…Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·pol′los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.”

n Acts 17:2, 3 it tells us: “According to Paul’s custom….he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references (from the Scriptures).” Paul wrote at 2 Timothy 3:15-17: “From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

No mention here of oral tradition fully equipping us. What is making us wise for salvation? Isn’t it the “holy WRITINGS?” What, then, are we to conclude when we see human tradition being given an equal rating with God’s inspired Word, and when, even though contrary to the Bible, tradition is accepted and followed instead of the Bible?

True, there were some traditions, or teachings, that Paul urged Christians to maintain, but these were based on the Scriptures and were totally in harmony with them. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)

Sincere truth seekers do what Luke wrote of the Beroeans: “They were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11, 12)

Of course, Christ himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” (Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27) Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching.

I think you know what I believe when it comes to God’s identity. Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High. (Psalms 83:18) Jesus Christ is God’s Son, “the Son of the Most High.” (Luke 1:32) God’s spirit is God’s applied power in action and since it comes from God it can be spoken of as God himself.

Respectfully,

Nick

How in the world did you get out of me saying stick to the teachings of the early Father that are either WRITTEN or WORD OF MOUTH to be scripture alone? What do you think word of mouth is? That is Oral scripture that is passed down and not written in the bible.

Oral Scripture is called Sacred Tradition and only the Catholic Church has it.

 

[NickBatchelor]

I see the point you are endeavoring to make but it doesn’t matter. God did not stop inspiration with the Old Testament. The apostles of Christ received the holy spirit and Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. What they wrote was inspired by God and rightly considered to be Scripture.

Furthermore, the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, allows for the translation, “All [Or, 'Every”] Scripture inspired of God is beneficial," since the Greek has no “is” between “Scripture” γραφὴ] and “inspired” θεόπνευστος]. The “is” can be understood and translated into English to say “All Scripture IS inspired of God,” but literally the Greek says, “All Scripture [or, “Every Scripture”] inspired of God is beneficial…” and some versions of the Bible do translate it this way (New King James Version, Revised English Bible, etc.).

In other words, God inspires what He wills, and that inspiration did not stop with the Old Testament writings. God continued to pour out His spirit on the apostles of Jesus Christ. What God caused to be inspired and written down in the New Testament is also Scripture, and beneficial for Christians.

I hope you are ok with the use of the abbreviation “JW”, and it is not offensive to you? It just is easier to type that, but I will refrain if you find it distasteful.

This is a curious verse to use to support Sola Scriptura.

St. Paul is stating not to go beyond the things that are written–yet, he clearly could not be speaking of the Bible, right? For it was not written yet.

He must have been referring, then, to the Old Testament.

Are you saying that your church proclaims that only the OT is inspired?

 

[NickBatchelor]

As I said, there were some traditions, or teachings, that Paul urged Christians to maintain, but these were based on the Scriptures and were totally in harmony with them. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)

Is there “an unwritten word of God over and above Scripture”? I have no problem with tradition oral instruction as long as tradition and oral instruction (from the mouth) does not conflict with truth. It must be based on God’s Word, the sacred documents.

Incidentally, never once did Jesus in his ministry quote from oral traditions to support his teachings, but always his appeal was to the written Word of God with expressions such as, “It is written,” “Did you never read this scripture?” and, “What is written in the Law?” (Matt. 4:4-10; Mark 12:10; Luke 10:26)

Jesus’ apostle John does tell us that there were things that Jesus did that are not recorded, but indicates that the things vital to everlasting life have been written down. (John 20:30, 31) No, Jehovah God did not leave the preservation of the “word of life” in the insecure hands of oral tradition, but, by inspiration of holy spirit, he caused it to be “written for our instruction,” that “through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Philippians 2:16; Romans 15:4)

How in the world did you get out of me saying stick to the teachings of the early Father that are either WRITTEN or WORD OF MOUTH to be scripture alone? What do you think word of mouth is? That is Oral scripture that is passed down and not written in the bible.

Oral Scripture is called Sacred Tradition and only the Catholic Church has it.

 

[NickBatchelor]

Certainly someone could orally be taught God’s Word but it must be based on the Scriptures. The same is true when we preach, we are encouraged to do so orally but the basis of such teaching is on the written inspired Word given to us from God. This is what we consult, this is how we measure truth.

Actually, let us go back to 2Tim 3: you are missing verse 14.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (King James Version)

[SIGN] 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;[/SIGN]

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.

Verse 14 speaks of oral instruction, oral tradition, knowing who taught you. So, it is not just the written, it is both oral and written…“which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

God’s word was first spoken, then some of it committed to writing, but not all of it, as testified to in the last chapter of John. So the Word is both oral and written.

 

[NickBatchelor]

This was a very fair and balanced comment. True, there are some teachings in the Bible that are implicit. I commend you for bringing out that the Trinity doctrine is NOT an explicit teaching of the Bible. Strange to me for something that is suppose to be “the central doctrine” of Christianity. After pouring hundreds of hours studying this doctrine I find many unsubstantiated Trinitarian assertions based on nothing more than Greek philosophy. Never do I find the idea of a triplex God in Scripture. I agree with you that many do not really understand how the Trinity doctrine developed over the years and was formulated. I firmly believe it was an idea foreign and absent to first-century followers of Christ.

That is a good question. And in fact the Bible doesn’t tell us exactly.

Nor does it say exactly that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Nor does it say that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. Nor that He picked the Watchtower as God’s channel of communicaton to mankind. Nor that the heavenly calling ceased at a particular date, and so on.

These are all inferred doctrines. Doctrines never explicity stated but arrived at by a process of reasoning, using indirect scriptural evidence. Reasoning using various interpretive assumptions, which a person may or may not agree with.

The doctrine of the Trinity is also an inferred doctrine, not explicity stated as such, but derived from reasoning on the scriptures. Trinitarians believe that the reasoning is strong, and supported by the written beliefs of the earliest Christians, so that it was not something unkown to them. The formal doctrine was defined later, in response to various challenges to it in subsequent years.

There are similarities between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society. Both claim to be the authoritative interpeter of scripture. Catholics accept the Church’s interpretation because the scriptures belong to the Church, and hence it is up to the Church to say what they mean. The Watchtower believes that the scriptures belong to them, to the 144,000 and the governing body. Proper interpretation of scripture therefore belongs to them, not to the individual.

I don’t know how many individual Catholics know the reasoning and history of the Trinity, and likewise, I don’t know how many Witnesses really understand the reasoning of many of the Watchtower doctrines, but they are accepted because the Witness accepts the authority of the Watchtower to declare what scripture means, even if that intepretation changes over the years…

 

[T_More]

I firmly believe it was an idea foreign and absent to first-century followers of Christ.

Nick, have you read the Early Church/Ante Nicene Fathers? You know, the ones mentioned in the “Insight on the Scriptures” volumes? They utterly refute this statement of yours.

Nick, please answer my question. Who decided what makes up Sacred Scripture, ie, the Bible? Let me help you out. It was decided by an “organization” 60 years after DEFINING (not INVENTING) the Trinity. Do you realize, then, that that would mean you as a JW, accepting this canonization of Sacred Scripture, would be drinking milk from an apostatized cow? Every time you go in field service you are toting a book from door to door that was decided upon by someone else.

Who is the Church that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 16 founded upon Peter that would never fail? Who is the Church that Paul spoke about in 1 Tim.3:15 that he described as THE pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[NickBatchelor]

I have heard this one before. Nicea simply accepted what was already considered canonical by Christians at the time. Popular use, not Nicea, made the decision. To answer your other questions let’s examine some Scriptures together and then I’ll make a few remarks.

1 Corinthians 2:15 (English Standard Version)

15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

As all true Christians are spiritual people, they have the right to judge whether an interpretation is correct or not. Further, they have a responsibility in the discovery of the meaning. He must seek out the intended meaning of the author. He goes about this by using good reliable tools. Witnesses have come to believes the study tools of the WTBTS are just that, reliable. This is not to say that Bible study tools outside of us are not reliable. There are many fine Bible dictionaries, Bible handbooks, word study books, encyclopedias, and so on. However, most do contain theological bias. But of course, you would argue that ours does as well. Therefore, we have to determine for ourselves, who is right and who is wrong, and Jehovah will sort it out in the end.

2 Peter 1:20 (English Standard Version)

20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.

The right of all spiritual Christians to interpret Scripture does not mean private interpretation is the established meaning for the true Christian community. This is known as Reader Response. This is where you hear “I think this means,” “I believe this means,” “this means to me,” and “I feel this means to me.” The problem with this is that the text loses its authority; God and His authors lose their authority over the intended meaning of the text. When God inspired the writer, to express His will and purposes, there was the intention of one meaning, what the author under inspiration meant by the words he used. If anyone can come along and give it whatever interpretation pleases them, then God’s authority over the meaning is lost, and there is no real meaning at all. Jehovah God has always charged some with the administration of His Word. In the time of Abraham, the Patriarchs. In the time of the Exodus, Moses and the seventy. In the time of the kings, prophets and priests. In the time of the first century Christians, the body of older men in Jerusalem.

You will note that in many cases, it involved His choosing one outstanding person of faith, who then built upon that: Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Ezra and Nehemiah, Peter, Paul and John. You will also notice that it went well when God’s people followed the lead of these ones that were selected. When they did not follow their lead, it did not go so well. We accept Charles Taze Russell as being a person of outstanding faith, who was chosen by God. We do this just as the followers of Luther chose him, just as the followers of Calvin followed him, just as the followers of Arminius followed him, bringing about Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians. However, we believe the good fruit is reflective of the identity of which person is reflective of a spiritual person, a person of outstanding faith. We believe our history is imperfect, but if sat beside the others, we have scratches in our organizations, while the others are damaged beyond repair, totaled.

1 John 4:1 (English Standard Version)

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

This text is quite clear that each spiritual Christian has the obligation to test anything that gives the appearance of being contrary to Scripture. This is exactly what Charles Taze Russell did, and found them wanting: hellfire, Trinity, immortal soul, purgatory, etc.

Acts 17:11 (English Standard Version)

11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

We have kept the primary doctrines that Russell established with the original Bible Students. Some we have tweaked, because we have followed the advice of Acts 17:11. As the research teams have grown in knowledge of the original languages, manuscripts, history and so on, they have had to humbly make adjustments. But again, they have kept almost all of the basic core findings of Russell and the International Bible Students as they were called at that time.

Nick, who decided what constitutes Sacred Scripture, namely, the New Testament, that you are quoting from? I have news for you, it was an “organization” other than the WTBS. Think about the implications of that.

I’ll ask you what I’ve asked many other JW’s that come on this site and have refused to answer. From where did Charles Taze Russell receive the authority to interpret scripture?

 

[T_More]

Certainly someone could orally be taught God’s Word but it must be based on the Scriptures. The same is true when we preach, we are encouraged to do so orally but the basis of such teaching is on the written inspired Word given to us from God. This is what we consult, this is how we measure truth.

How did Christianity spread before Scripture was written, compiled and made available to the faithful? Where in Scripture does it attest to itself as being the sole and final authority?

 

[kaneata]

This was a very fair and balanced comment. True, there are some teachings in the Bible that are implicit. I commend you for bringing out that the Trinity doctrine is NOT an explicit teaching of the Bible. Strange to me for something that is suppose to be “the central doctrine” of Christianity. After pouring hundreds of hours studying this doctrine I find many unsubstantiated Trinitarian assertions based on nothing more than Greek philosophy. Never do I find the idea of a triplex God in Scripture. I agree with you that many do not really understand how the Trinity doctrine developed over the years and was formulated. I firmly believe it was an idea foreign and absent to first-century followers of Christ.

How about John 20:28-29 “Thomas replies, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
Here Thomas is very clearly saying that Jesus is God. That gives us part of the Trinity.

And then Matthew 28:19 Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…" All three are used.

 

[NickBatchelor]

Answering SteveVH comment:

“Lenny, ask your JW friends why they wear wedding rings. These are also pagan in origin.”

Ahh…I see you brought up “wedding rings” and since I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses can I say a few words? First off, a study of the subject would likely leave you confused as to the origin and meaning of the wedding ring; the claims are many, the facts muddled. Even if the Bible does not directly mention wedding rings, it is plain that Jehovah’s servants could wear rings. (Job 42:11, 12; Luke 15:22)

But what if people in one’s land believe that a wedding ring symbolizes a couple’s unbroken faith, love and devotion? Christians do not attach any symbolic meaning to a wedding ring, even though they cultivate these qualities in marriage, and even if many in the world are hypocritical in claiming to manifest such. A wedding ring ensures nothing. It merely serves public notice of married estate. It is not improper for a Christian to give evidence of his or her married status by wearing a wedding ring, be it on the right hand, as in Germany, or on the left. Yet this is not a necessity where it is not a legal requirement. So the couple can decide what to do in accord with their financial situation and personal preferences.

Many sincere Christians have asked the question “should I wear a wedding ring” out of a desire to avoid any custom of which God might disapprove. A Catholic prelate John H. Newman wrote: “The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, . . . sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” (An Essay on the Development of the Christian Doctrine, 1878)

While the facts prove that many of the current religious practices Newman lists definitely were adopted from pagan worship, is that true of the wedding ring?

Actually there are conflicting ideas as to the origin of the wedding ring. Here are a few examples: “Originally . . . the ring was a fetter, used to bind the captive bride.” (For Richer, for Poorer) “The ring is a relatively modern substitute for the gold coin or other article of value with which a man literally purchased his wife from her father.” (The Jewish Wedding Book) “The wedding ring is supposed to be of Roman origin, and to have sprung from the ancient custom of using rings in making agreements.” (American Cyclopædia) “Various explanations have been given of the connection of the ring with marriage. It would appear that wedding-rings were worn by the Jews prior to Christian times.” (The International Cyclopaedia.)

Just by looking at these few examples it can be seen that the precise origin of the wedding ring is uncertain. Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.

Of course, our concern is greater as regards the use of wedding rings, since this relates, not to minor secular matters, but to the marriage relationship, which the Christian rightly views as sacred before God. Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were originally used as part of false religious practices and still retain such religious significance. As has been shown, the historical evidence does not allow for any definite conclusion on this. What does the Bible say about the use of rings?

The Bible shows that some of God’s servants in the past wore rings, even ones that had special meaning attached to them. Wearing a signet ring could indicate that one had received authority to act in behalf of the ruler who owned it. (Genesis 41:42; Numbers 31:50; Esther 8:2, 8; Job 42:11, 12; Luke 15:22) So, while wedding rings are not mentioned, these true worshipers clearly did not qualm against using rings for more than mere adornment.

Some persons say that a wedding ring represents one’s unending love and devotion in marriage. The increasing divorce rate in many lands where married persons usually wear a wedding ring proves that this meaning is more imagined than real. Nonetheless, for the majority of persons, including Christians, in lands where wedding rings are common, the ring is an outward indication that the wearer is a married person. In other localities the same point is shown in a different way, such as by a woman’s wearing a certain style of clothing.

Of course, a wedding ring is by no means a Christian requirement. One Christian might decide not to wear a wedding ring, because of conscience, personal taste, cost, local custom, or some other reason. Yet another Christian might decide to indicate his married status by means of a wedding ring. So, in the final analysis the decision is a personal one, to be made in accord with the conscientious views one holds. But Christmas and other pagan celebrations are definite and directly connected to the gods of the nations which God most certainly does detest.

 

[PRmerger]

I see the point you are endeavoring to make but it doesn’t matter. God did not stop inspiration with the Old Testament. The apostles of Christ received the holy spirit and Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. What they wrote was inspired by God and rightly considered to be Scripture.

Exactly! And the only way you know that what Paul wrote is inspired, as opposed to say, the Epistle of Barnabas is because an outside entity–not the Bible–told you. It took a Church to discern what was theopneustos for you, Nick.

That’s my point.

 

[PRmerger]

Furthermore, the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, allows for the translation, “All [Or, 'Every”] Scripture inspired of God is beneficial," since the Greek has no “is” between “Scripture” γραφὴ] and “inspired” θεόπνευστος]. The “is” can be understood and translated into English to say “All Scripture IS inspired of God,” but literally the Greek says, “All Scripture [or, “Every Scripture”] inspired of God is beneficial…” and some versions of the Bible do translate it this way (New King James Version, Revised English Bible, etc.).

Agreed.

The question is, though, how does what know what constitutes “Scripture”. Is the “Gospel of Thomas” Scripture? How do you know?

In other words, God inspires what He wills, and that inspiration did not stop with the Old Testament writings. God continued to pour out His spirit on the apostles of Jesus Christ. What God caused to be inspired and written down in the New Testament is also Scripture, and beneficial for Christians.

No disagreement with you here, Nick.

This is quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

We just want to know how you know which of the early Christian writings were theopneustos, and which weren’t, except for the Catholic Church discerning this for you, Nick!

In other words, one cannot look at a text and say, “This is inspired” and “This is not inspired” on its own. One needs a Church to be the authority on this.

 

[PRmerger]

INo, Jehovah God did not leave the preservation of the “word of life” in the insecure hands of oral tradition

This is not quite true. Read Acts 20:35. St. Paul states that Jesus claimed, “It is better to give than to receive”…yet the Gospels record* not a single instance of Jesus proclaiming this.
*
How did St. Paul know this? [SIGN1]Through the Oral Tradition handed down and preserved by the Holy Spirit. [/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly someone could orally be taught God’s Word but it must be based on the Scriptures.

Do you have a Bible verse that states this, Nick?

 

[thecone137]

Rinnie,You ask me to show you where exactly does the Bible state that Scripture alone is to be the final authority for Christ followers? Didn’t one of his faithful followers the Apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “…Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·pol′los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.”

I see the point you are endeavoring to make but it doesn’t matter. God did not stop inspiration with the Old Testament. The apostles of Christ received the holy spirit and Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. What they wrote was inspired by God and rightly considered to be Scripture.

Furthermore, the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, allows for the translation, “All [Or, 'Every”] Scripture inspired of God is beneficial," since the Greek has no “is” between “Scripture” γραφὴ] and “inspired” θεόπνευστος]. The “is” can be understood and translated into English to say “All Scripture IS inspired of God,” but literally the Greek says, “All Scripture [or, “Every Scripture”] inspired of God is beneficial…” and some versions of the Bible do translate it this way (New King James Version, Revised English Bible, etc.).

In other words, God inspires what He wills, and that inspiration did not stop with the Old Testament writings. God continued to pour out His spirit on the apostles of Jesus Christ. What God caused to be inspired and written down in the New Testament is also Scripture, and beneficial for Christians.

Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”.