What is “All Scripture” Among Friends?

[Frank Sophia]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit. . .that's how we do it in this boogey-down forum.

You're going to have to explain this...
How does presenting bible verses lack biblical merit?

 

[Clare73]

You're going to have to explain this...

That explains a lot. . .

How does presenting bible verses lack biblical merit?

Present what I've stated which you think is in error, and demonstrate from Scripture that error.

 

[Frank Sophia]

Present what I've stated which you think is in error, and demonstrate from Scripture that error.

I have already done this... you have established that Peter says Paul shares the same authority as the Torah...

I have provided both Hebrews 7:1-28 and 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 which are widely accepted to be penned by Paul to assert that as Christians we should not be focusing on the Torah at all...

I have also gone on bringing up the whole of Galatians and establishing that it is the first Christian scripture historically to provide it precedence when it asserts that anything contrary is not Christian and thus cursed...

You are not arguing with me, this is your fundamental misunderstanding here.

 

[Clare73]

I have already done this... you have established that Peter says Paul shares the same authority as the Torah..

I have provided both Hebrews 7:1-28 and 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 which are widely accepted to be penned by Paul to assert that as Christians we should not be focusing on the Torah at all...

And there you have it. . .

In the penchant for experiences and loosely sliding around in the word of God written, you get it exactly backwards because you dismiss the discipline of staying close to the words written, regarding such discipline as legalism. . .e.g., 2 Pe 3:16 which neither states, nor goes to "focusing on the Torah," but goes only to the level of the authority of Paul's letters; i.e., that authority which the word of God written enjoyed in the OT, and to which word written Jesus completely submitted (see post #50).

I have also gone on bringing up the whole of Galatians and establishing that it is the first Christian scripture historically to provide it precedence when it asserts that anything contrary is not Christian and thus cursed...

You are not arguing with me, this is your fundamental misunderstanding here.

And I establish Romans as the first "Christian Scripture" to provide comprehensive presentation of the basic gospel, God's plan of salvation and righteousness for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike (Ro 1:16-17); i.e., justification by faith, as well as presentation of guilt, sanctification and security.

Likewise, you are not arguing with me, this is your fundamental misunderstanding here.

 

[BobRyan]

Haha, the second one to declare Peter infallible.

I never say Peter is infallible, or Paul is infallible - as we both know.

Rather I quoted texts showing that all scripture is inspired by God and having God as its author - it is infallible even if Peter writes it.

I don't see this as the confusing part in my POV -- Not even sure that this is the part others object to.

 

[concretecamper]

Rather I quoted texts showing that all scripture is inspired by God and having God as its author

No you didnt.

All Christians believe scripture is His Word, you need not do any demonstration of that

What you did is attempt to drag NT writings into Paul's statement of "all scripture is inspired by God". It fails miserably no matter how many times you try it. Paul was not referencing any NT writings.

 

[Clare73]

No you didnt.

All Christians believe scripture is His Word, you need not do any demonstration of that

What you did is attempt to drag NT writings into Paul's statement of "all scripture is inspired by God". It fails miserably no matter how many times you try it. Paul was not referencing any NT writings.

Peter's statement (2 Pe 3:16) placing Paul's writing on the same level of authority as the God-breathed writings of the OT (2 Tim 3:16) indicates that the early church was beginning to view Paul's writings as Scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

Peter's statement (2 Pe 3:16) placing Paul's writing on the same level of authority as the God-breathed writings of the OT (2 Tim 3:16) indicates that the early church was beginning to view Paul's writings as Scripture.

but don't use it to say 2 Tim 3:16 refers to anything but the Tanahk, the scripture Timothy knew from his youth.

 

[newton3005]

What you did is attempt to drag NT writings into Paul's statement of "all scripture is inspired by God". It fails miserably no matter how many times you try it. Paul was not referencing any NT writings.

Paul defined what the Scriptures are, which is everything that either is the Word of God or inspired by God. 2 Peter 3:16 establishes that all Scripture, by Paul's definition of what the Scriptures are, includes the NT Scriptures at least to the extent that they are the Word of God or God inspired. That is not to say that any of the NT is not the Word of God or God inspired, but I think anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures would be hard-pressed to deny that the NT is the Word of God or God-inspired. Peter seems to believe that Scripture that amounts to the NT is, and for our purposes and in the time starting from Peter, Peter is part of those Scriptures too.

 

[concretecamper]

, but I think anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures would be hard-pressed to deny that the NT is the Word of God or God-inspired.

Of course the NT is the Word of God, where did you get the idea that anyone said they are not?

 

[newton3005]

Of course the NT is the Word of God, where did you get the idea that anyone said they are not?

I'm glad we agree on that. So, the NT is part of the Scriptures.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm glad we agree on that. So, the NT is part of the Scriptures.

Of course, but the NT was NOT what Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16

 

[Clare73]

but don't use it to say 2 Tim 3:16 refers to anything but the Tanahk, the scripture Timothy knew from his youth.

It refers to all Scripture, including the NT.

 

[concretecamper]

It refers to all Scripture, including the NT.

No one in my entire time on this forum has been able to demonstrate this claim. I guess this time is no different.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Rather I quoted texts showing that all scripture is inspired by God and having God as its author

No you didnt.

Yes I did ... see?

Luke 24:27 we have "all the scriptures"
25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures."

So it is reasonable that the term as used in the NT refers to the OT canon of scripture known to Jews at the time of Christ as we see in Luke 24. And when you link it to vs 15 - the scriptures that Timothy was reading in childhood - it is pretty certain that this is the primary reference.

Other translations say "as they do with the REST of scriptures"

2 Tim 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. NASB

Which means Peter is including the writing of Paul in "the rest of scriptures" . Where the "rest of scriptures" includes the OT and other inspired writings of the NT age.

Acts 17:11 they "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" must be the OT text primarily until more NT letters would be added.

Paul himself makes the point that his words were being accepted as "The word of God".

1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe.

I don't think 2 Tim 3 makes the claim that only those things God has inspired in the past are scripture or are useful for doctrine. The text is not arguing against current revelation but is making the case for sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition. It is not trying to create an "end point" for when scripture stopped being produced as inspired by God.

I agree that this is not a text about Paul attempting to marginalize one group of scriptures as compared to another or an attempt to diminish NT scripture.

All Christians believe scripture is His Word,

you seem to be determined to contradict your previous statement

you need not do any demonstration of that

And yet I did just in case someone was skimming over those scriptures

What you did is attempt to drag NT writings into Paul's statement of "all scripture is inspired by God".

Paul's statement is a NT writing. And Paul himself states that his words were accepted "For what they were" -- 'The WORD of God" 1 Thess 2.

It fails miserably

You have free will you can reject all the texts you like.

But for the rest of us...

1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe.

 

[Clare73]

No one in my entire time on this forum has been able to demonstrate this claim. I guess this time is no different.

I unclearly misspoke. . ."Scripture" is both the OT and the NT. . .the ones Timothy "knew" were only the OT.

 

[concretecamper]

I quoted texts showing that all scripture is inspired by God and having God as its author

no you haven't. All you have showed is that Paul said the Tanakh is inspired text. And a feeble attempt to show how Peter declared Paul "on par" with scripture.

If you could somehow show me in scripture where the NT either as individual books or as a whole is declared inspired by God, then you'll have something. Until then, you will need to admit that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Clare73]

no you haven't. All you have showed is that Paul said the Tanakh is inspired text. And a feeble attempt to show how Peter declared Paul "on par" with scripture.

If you could somehow show me in scripture where the NT either as individual books or as a whole is declared inspired by God, then you'll have something. Until then, you will need to admit that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

See post #67 for Biblical indication of such.

 

[concretecamper]

See post #67 for Biblical indication of such.

strike 2

 

[Clare73]

strike 2

Non-responsive. . .