Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We have Paul commending two ways of accepting teaching; by word and by scripture.
Apparently however another passage praising the reading of scripture means we should ONLY accept written teachings.
You're responsible for what you write.Not my fault.
We have Apostolic SuccessionHow do you know the church is guarantor. It couldn't even keep from splitting, no matter who you blame. Some guarantor you picked there.
We're not dealing with absolutely anything. Just because I doubt one thing is genuine doesn't mean I doubt all things. Stick with the debatebtw, how do you know anything is genuine?
Again, try and stay focusedWho authorized Jesus? Self authorized? God authorizes God? Dang circles again!
You consistently make that false claim that I believe it is all we shoud do.
Now, if you can accept evidence & not simply deny it when it's in your face, that would be realy keen.
Show me where Paul teaches accepting teaching by word and by scripture?We have Paul commending two ways of accepting teaching; by word and by scripture.
Apparently however another passage praising the reading of scripture means we should ONLY accept written teachings.
You can continue to ignore PaulApparently only to you as you for at least the one hundredth time, substitue "ONLY accept written teachings" for ONLY scripture is a reliable standard.
Show me where Paul teaches accepting teaching by word and by scripture?
Show me where Paul teaches accepting teaching by word and by scripture?
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else.
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
The written 'teachings' ARE the oral teachings in written 'form'.
So we're all set.
Show me where Paul teaches accepting teaching by word and by scripture?
Why ask for more than you provide? Isn't that a double-standard?I do this all the time. Note I always provide you proof.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)
If you can offer more than opinion that would be great.
*snip*
Traditions, tradition here
.
You alleged that I add assumptions & you based that false accusation on your own assumptions about my beliefs that you consistently misconstrue & misrepresent, & now you try & shuffle subjects at the same time. You are a master of confusion.
Yes, that was pointed out and shown.
Straw-man. No one has argued Paul made things up.Even if one can't see that, it's not like Paul would have "made it up"
None have argued that there's teaching missing. It's there in oral and written form.The apostles didn't leave anything out.
Lastly, no one knows what those presumed oral teachings are anyway, it's not like they're written down.
Well I noticed that in the scripture it is the word "or". So we see that we are to stand fast the traditions whether by word OR by or Epistle. I do not see the word "and" in the scripture.. This makes such a difference. For we do not have the oral word of the Apostles since they are no longer here giving the word Orally. Now we have the epistle to which is why this alludes to Sola ScripturaI do this all the time. Note I always provide you proof.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)
If you can offer more than opinion that would be great.
Straw-man. No one has argued Paul made things up.
John's last verse of his last chapter of his gospel says specifically not everything was written down.
I've gone over this with MamaZ as well. The Bible doesn't contain formulae for things such as the nature of the Trinity, the unity of God and Man in Jesus etc.
Maybe you think that the various Councils made things up because the formula for each issue isn't in the Bible
Cough, cough. Then you do agree Paul's letters are authorized/authenticated by Paul. IOW scripture self-defining.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?