Since Cachonga has withdrawn from the thread, this is mainly for interested third parties reading now and in the future.
You misunderstand me. We know that not everything was written down. However, my position is that, since God is the author of Scripture, we can know that what IS written down IS sufficient (see 2 Tim 3:16).
2 Timothy 3:16-17 has to be the most abused passage in the New Testament. If Paul were really teaching the doctrine of Scripture alone here, this learned writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would have contradicted himself elsewhere: in Ephesians 4:4-8,11-16 and 1 Timothy 3:15 (on the latter, see “
Biblical Proof of Church Infallibility and Disproof of Sola Scriptura in One Bible Verse”).
As far as the ECF’s, you mentioned Irenaeus. I showed in another thread (or maybe a PM) that he believed that Jesus was about 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this was taught by John and other Apostles (Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII). The problem with ECF’s is that they can make mistakes (as Irenaeus proves).
Irenaeus didn’t believe this. Mark Bonocore explains
here.
In regard to “written-only teaching”, did Jesus overcome Satan in the wilderness with tradition or the written word?
It was rhetorically most appropriate for Jesus to rebut Satan with Scripture: the Devil was employing it against Christ first.
Did Jesus prove that the Corban rule was a tradition of men by quoting another tradition, or by comparing it to the written word?
If Jesus meant to teach Scripture alone as the remedy to Jewish “traditions of men”, isn’t he contradicting himself in Matthew 23?
[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”
Mark Bonocore and Art Sippo look at this issue
here.
Did Phillip convince the Ethiopian eunuch with tradition or by the scriptures? Did the Bereans test the teachings of Paul against tradition, or the written word? The written word doesn’t change!
These examples actually disprove Scripture alone. Note this portion of the account in Acts 8:
[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
[31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Without the intervention of Philip, the Ethiopian eunuch would have never figured out based on Scripture alone that Isaiah was (1) discussing anything relevant to his own life or (2) making prophecies that had finally been fulfilled.
As for Acts 17, if these Bereans had relied on their interpretation of Scripture alone, perhaps none would have been converted. “Novel traditions of men!” these `Protestants’ would cry. “You contradict the Word of God here, there, and everywhere.” The
case of the Thessalonians is instructive.
Can you say the same for your “traditions”? I find many of your “traditions” that contradict Scripture (just as Jesus did with the Corban rule). Tradition is good and useful, but when it conflicts or contradicts Scripture, it should be considered a tradition of men!
Would you condone the addition of a book to the New Testament? If not, you have one tradition of men to dispense with, i.e., the New Testament must contain only the twenty-seven books of today. Nowhere within its pages does the New Testament outline the current canon.
You missed my point. The tradition Paul was referring to was the Gospel. What part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks of Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception (I’m trying to stay on topic, but there are many other dogmas that could be included in this question).
The body of tradition which Paul was discussing was more expansive than you make out:
[13] But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
For the Apostle to the Gentiles, “be[ing] saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” is just as important as the gospel, strictly defined. If the perpetual virginity of Mary is part of “the truth”, the audience is obliged to accept it in order to “be saved” as readily as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, whether or not this doctrine is “taught… by word of mouth or by letter”.
