PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
And as said, Paul was the manner of man who preached Scriptural Truths, reasoning from the Scriptures, to which he appealed, and did not presume ensured personal veracity, thus he could validly exhort, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1) who also taught Scripture as being the authoritative word of God.The most straight forward thing that Scripture says about itself is Paul writing to Timothy -- "16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Keep in mind that Paul does not write this passage to a community of believers but rather to the young man he has groomed to be his successor and receive his governing and teaching authority as an apostle -- the only time "man of God" is used in the NT..
And Paul points to Scripture as the instrumentally enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
And thus when Paul also tells Timonthy that For bodily exercise profiteth little: but Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, (1 Timothy 4:8) then you would say Godliness is simply useful?And I whole-heardtedly agree that Scripture is profitable (newer translations say 'useful') for someone in that role to teach, reproof, correct and train those those they shepherd. That is a no brainer. ]
Certainly even non-inspired words can be useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, yet not necessarily so, and such cannot be the standard for what is doctrine and righteousness. But you are ignoring is that the only substantive class of Divine revelation that is said to be wholly inspired of God is Scripture, which thus is the sure standard as the assured word of God.But what the text does not say is that only Scripture is good for these things, or that Scripture is sufficient for all things. "Useful" in no way equates to "sufficient"
The inspired oral words such as the Lord and apostles preached also was also the word of God, but the validity of the claim to be so required conformity to the established word of God, the Scriptures, to which oral preaching appealed.
In addition, no other source of Divine revelation is given the manner of affirmation as the written word, even as the Law (broadly speaking) being perfect, converting the soul; sure, making wise the simple; right, rejoicing the heart; pure, enlightening the eyes; clean, enduring for ever; true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:7-10)
And not other source of Divine revelation is instrumentally affirmed as enabling the man of God to be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:17)
And writing is God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
Which is sound, except under the premise that the church cannot err, that its own basis for veracity rests upon this premise, versus Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. There is judicial authority, such as SCOTUS has, and to which souls are bound to obey or else suffer the consequences, but which authority does not mean they will always be right. When they are wrong, then dissent is valid, even though they suffer consequences.But when a question about what a particular verse means relating to a doctrinal question, I defer to the authority of the church.
But perhaps you disagree, under the premise that the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture must be infallible.
So based upon the few Greek words in the text, tell me how this means that Scripture is subject to the church, rather than the church being grounded upon its Truth and supporting it, which is the only understanding supported by the rest of Scripture.Paul tells Timothy things about the church too you know -- specifically that it is the 'pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15).
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, (Ephesians 3:9-10)He tells the Ephesians that it is through the church that the manifold wisdom of God is made known (Eph 3:10).
Meaning contextually not by progressive church teaching, but by the very existence and nature of the church as being the one new man, the revelation of which - not speaking of comprehensive doctrine but this new man mystery - was "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:5)
Then tell me how many Bible verses your church has infallibly defined? And I will show you examples of variant interpretations of even church teaching by RCs, which abound!So I defer to the church in how to understand those matters of doctrine that apply to all believers.
Which is why he prostituted his mind to support Rome even with absurd arguments.G.K. Chesterson once said that "A Catholic is a person who has plucked up courage to face the incredible and inconceivable idea that something else may be wiser than he is."
Last edited:
Upvote
0