G
Guest
Guest
unred typo said:
And where do we find these "words of Christ"? Where do we find His teachings?
If you want to merely read the words of Christ and His teachings, why do you follow the "book of Jasher"?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
And where do we find these "words of Christ"? Where do we find His teachings?
If you want to merely read the words of Christ and His teachings, why do you follow the "book of Jasher"?
Unred, that is a confusing tangle of attacks on the authority of the scriptures. It is all nearly off topic. I suspect your doing this unintentionally, but you really are changing the subject. Your challenges to scriptural authority are really of a very different nature then what this thread is about.
First, this is a discussion is about the bible as the sole authority. This has been answered by using 2Tim 3:16-17 (and other texts). Your question shows a basic failure to understand what 2Tim 3:16-17 actually asserts. The text is about the origin of scriptures. You question concerning the book of Jashur is a question about the extent of the scriptures. The two questions are not the same. I would suggest that you start a different thread with your questions on the extent of the scriptures.
Second, your questions regarding the "word" are also off topic. That question is again different then the question of this thread, and also the question you present above. In the context of 2 Tim 3:16-17 the word "logos" simply does not occur. Again, if you wish to address that topic you could actually start a 2nd thread. I would be happy to be a part of such threads (time permitting). I will even tell you where I would start with such a question. 1 Cor 15:54 uses the term "written" (grapho) with the term "word" (logos).
unred, I know I am not a mod, but would it not be better to make your attacks upon higher views of the scriptures in a different thread? You could start two new threads with your topics rather then hi-jack this thread.
U
unred typo
Guest
I apologize for not making myself clear. I don’t see that my question is off topic however.
Here you admit that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the Bible, but about the origin of ‘scriptures’. I am attempting to ask you why you feel this is an appropriate passage to use in connection with the Bible and in this thread as proof that the Bible is the Sole Authority. The words ‘Bible’ and ‘scriptures’ are not interchangeable in the context of this thread, as you have just pointed out by your rejection of any reference to other scriptures not contained in the Bible.
I beg to differ. My comments about the word address the issue of what is the sole authority. The Bible does not claim for itself ‘sole authority’ but the Bible itself does assert that the word of God, that was made flesh and dwelt among us, has been given all authority by the father himself. Your implication that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is talking solely about the Bible simply doesn’t wash. Nice try.
You brought up the 2 Timothy reference. I am merely challenging your use of it to prove that here is where the Bible claims that it is the ‘sole authority.’ 2 Timothy speaks of the scriptures, not the Bible.
francisdesales
Member
aLoneVoice said:
I rarely go to other links. If people cannot defend their concepts, I have no desire going elsewhere and analyzing them and arguing with someone who did not even write the article.
I have argued with Protestants over this for years. I have not found one single thing that was even slightly convincing in the least. This is not the case with, say, "man has no free will". there are verses that seem to imply that in the Scripture, and a Calvinist can try to hold onto the idea from such verses, even if it means ignoring others. However, on Sola Scriptura, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
God naturally foresaw these discussions. Don't you think He would have put at least ONE verse that explicitly stated that the Scriptures would be the ONLY yardstick in the end for Christians to follow and use to measure what they believe? That is enough for me to discount this idea. Elsewhere in Scriptures, I find verses that tell me that there are OTHER means of perfecting the Christian. I find human authority being established by GOD HIMSELF.
Really, it is a dead issue. And unless YOU can bring something to the table to show it is true, I have no desire chasing around and ingesting more junk food. If you think it is a great argument, summarize it and post it.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
aLoneVoice said:
I cut out the rest of your post because it is based on false presumptions. Note, I left in YOUR bolding, which is where I have the problem with... How ironic.
In NO translation, including the Greek, do I find what you wrote in the bold letters. Your last phrase conveniently adds "the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work". Is this what the "man of God" does? Invent stuff and calls it "Scriptures"?
The key words that you add to change the Word of God to suit your own fantasies are "thoroughly" and "every". Thus, your argument is null and void, because the ACTUAL Scriptures don't say that...
Here are some examples of translations of this verse. Where on earth did you get yours?
---------
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
King James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV - 2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT - 2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV - 2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV - 2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB - 2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - 2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV - 2Ti 3:16 - Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
American Standard Version 1901 Info
Young - 2Ti 3:16 - every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby - 2Ti 3:16 - Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Webster - 2Ti 3:16 - All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV - 2Ti 3:16 - Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,
-----------
THESE ARE ALL PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS! Would you like some Catholic ones? They say the same thing..
NOWHERE is the sense of your last bolded sentence present in ANY of these translations.
Either you have found some translation of Scriptures that says what YOU want it to say, or you are just manipulating the word of God to win an argument. I won't say what that would make you, in more earthy words, but if you want to have serious conversation about the Word of God, do not post something, telling me it is Scriptures, when it is not.
Please refrain from such arguments - it merely lowers my opinion of you. I can accept that you are Protestant, and I enjoy fellowship with a number of them here. It is hard to imagine that this was an honest "mistake" when you claim to be a pastor. You should know better. I cannot respect someone who pulls this crap. Please stop it.
unred typo said:
Here you admit that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the Bible, but about the origin of ‘scriptures’. I am attempting to ask you why you feel this is an appropriate passage to use in connection with the Bible and in this thread as proof that the Bible is the Sole Authority. The words ‘Bible’ and ‘scriptures’ are not interchangeable in the context of this thread, as you have just pointed out by your rejection of any reference to other scriptures not contained in the Bible.
I beg to differ. My comments about the word address the issue of what is the sole authority. The Bible does not claim for itself ‘sole authority’ but the Bible itself does assert that the word of God, that was made flesh and dwelt among us, has been given all authority by the father himself. Your implication that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is talking solely about the Bible simply doesn’t wash. Nice try.
You brought up the 2 Timothy reference. I am merely challenging your use of it to prove that here is where the Bible claims that it is the ‘sole authority.’ 2 Timothy speaks of the scriptures, not the Bible.[/quote:29ffe]
Unred, the meaningless drivel that you posted above is based upon your failure to distinguish between questions concerning the authority of the scriptures, and the extent of the scriptures. The question of "sola scriptura" does not actually answer or even address questions as to the extent of the scriptures. To cover up your lack of ability to distinguish between the two questions (extent and authority) now you invent this completely new conversation on the false dichotomy between the terms "bible" and "scriptures." Now I could attempt to go through the history of the transmission of the scriptures from manuscripts found in scrolls, to a codex, and then finally after Gutenburg the modern book (and what we call the bible), but that too would hijack the whole point of this thread. I am really not interested in such nonsense. You did not even begin to challenge what I wrote, but just went off on some tangent. Please explain why do you think 2Tim 3:16-17 is a passage written by Paul to address the extent of the scriptures? And why do you think that in this context, it is addressing questions concerning the logos?
francisdesales
Member
mondar said:
Mondar,
I know you are not addressing me, but unred, but I would like know why you think unred's question does not apply here.
Let's make an incredible leap of fantasy here... Let's pretend you are correct, and that Sola Scripture is indeed true. Now, for the sake of discussion, the next question, obviously, would be
What is Scriptures?
In the context of Paul's writing to Timothy, it could ONLY refer to the Old Testament, probably the Greek Septaugint. This is implied by Paul's writing about the Scriptures that Timothy had been taught from his YOUTH. Much of the New Testament was not written in Timothy's youth, no matter how conservatively you date the writing of the Gospels and the other Pauline epistles.
Thus, the question "what is Scriptures" is a natural and formative question. IF ALL Christians are to follow ONLY the Scriptures, then WHAT IS these Scriptures? Are the Mormon writings "Scriptures" that are inspired by God? At what point do we cut off the definition of "Scritpures"?
Unred's question is legitimate. Can you answer it, or do you just intend on brushing aside his legitimate question by your demeaning language?
Regards
U
unred typo
Guest
Do you know the Greek form of the word ‘chutzpah’? Never mind, that would be off topic, wouldn’t it? I’m an idiot who can’t understand, read or write English, let alone Greek, so why don’t you simply *SIMPLY* tell me where in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 the Bible *BIBLE* says it *IT* is the Sole *SOLE* Authority? I hope that is clear and on topic.
G
Guest
Guest
Francis - Did you READ 2 Tim 3:17?
I am pretty sure that if you re-read my post I wrote 2 Tim 3:16-17....
Does the Roman Bible not have verse 17? Here let me show you from a few verses:
2 Timothy 3:17 (New American Standard Bible)
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (Amplified Bible)
17So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (King James Version)
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:17 (New International Version)
17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (New King James Version)
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Hope that is enough. Do not accuse me of adding to Scripture.
I am pretty sure that if you re-read my post I wrote 2 Tim 3:16-17....
Does the Roman Bible not have verse 17? Here let me show you from a few verses:
2 Timothy 3:17 (New American Standard Bible)
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (Amplified Bible)
17So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (King James Version)
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:17 (New International Version)
17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:17 (New King James Version)
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Hope that is enough. Do not accuse me of adding to Scripture.
Unred, one of the problems in this thread is that you have probably not ever read anything at all on "sola scriptura." If you did read a book or a paper on the subject, I suspect you did not understand what you were reading. The reason I am saying this is that you seem to be trying to define the issue that "sola scriptura" means that the bible is the only authority. While some writers might talk like that, I dont think any professional theologian would suggest that "sola scriptura" teaches that the bible is the "only" authority. Now they might, and do say that "sola scriptura" is the only infallible authority that is sufficient to equip the man of God.
Let me say it this way. There are several key concepts in the definition. The definition is inseparable. You cannot divide up the definition and attack parts of the definition, you must take it as a whole. The key parts are as follows:
"Infallible" ---- This comes from the word "theopneustos." If the scripture is the product of the mind of a sovereign God, then to say that the scripture has errors, or is fallible in any way, would be to attribute lies to God. A proper concept of inspiration is to see God as responsible for all that was written.
"Sufficient" --- This comes from two words in verse 17. alonevoice understands this and has quoted part of verse 17 which focuses on this part of the definition. Notice how he focuses on the words: "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the scriptures all by themselves are "adequate," what else is needed? If anything else is needed, then the claim of 2 Tim 3:17 is not true. How can Paul claim that the scriptures are "adaquate" or "complete" (artios) if something else must be present for God to speak. (Of course just because God speaks, that does not mean that we will listen). To make the point of sufficiency clear Paul adds a second term, "thoroughly equipped."
"alone" "sola" The concept of infallibility and sufficiency is found with reference to the scriptures alone. Now the word "alone" does not occur in the text, but the claim is made because there is nothing else other then the scriptures that the bible asserts is both "infallible" and "sufficient." These claims are made in the bible for the scriptures alone. To disprove this part of the definition, you must show that there is a 2nd infallible and sufficient source of authority for today. Merely pointing out that the word "alone" does not occur in this passage is totally and absolutely meaningless. It is a shallow trick that only the simpleminded would even pay attention to. Why do you think the word "theopneustos" occurs with reference to only the scriptures?
I hope this somehow helps you to understand what is being said when the term "sola scriptura" is used.
Now the reason I bring up the definition once again is because of the way you defined "sola scriptura" to mean that the bible is a "sole authority." "Sola scrptura" claims it is a sole infallible authority, but it does not claim to be a sole authority. Protestants have teachers, pastors, ministers, and all sorts of authorities. We do not consider them "theopneustos" or inspired, or infallible. We go home and disagree with our own ministers at Sunday dinner. If the ministers get together and make a "confession of faith," we believe we can say "the bible does not teach that!" Why do we behave these ways? We believe that there are many authorities, but only one infallible authority that is sufficient.
Unred, if you had read this entire thread, and understood what is going on, you would see that the difference of opinion has to do with "do we have one infallible authority, or do with have several infallible authorities such as the scriptures and tradition. The reason I am complaining that you are off topic is that I have you on the one side taking away from the authority of the scriptures, and francisdesales adding to the authority of the scriptures with his church tradition. They are really two separate issues, two separate thoughts, two separate things to deal with. Tell me unred, are you willing to accept the church councils (such as trent), and the decrees of the Pope when he speaks "ex Cathedra," and all the traditions of Rome as also infallible and "theopnuestos?" The two issues (adding to the scriptures or taking away from the scriptures) are two very different theologies, and two different issues. Since you and francisdesales are doing two totally separate things, the issues deserve two separate threads. Unfortunately, I think this is lost upon both of you. Heh, oh well.
U
unred typo
Guest
Excuse me? You obviously have forgotten or never read the OP of this thread, since you only joined it on page 5. I, on the other hand, have been on this thread since day uno. Guess what? According to your own strict formula for deciding quality of topic adherence, you’re off topic. The thread is not about what “sola scriptura†really means.
You see, Corinthian asked the same specific question that I asked you and you refuse to answer because you claim I don’t understand the nature of “sola scripturaâ€Â. Let me ask another question dealing with your answer to the “issue on this thread,†if you so kindly will allow it. Where does the Bible claim that it, (the Bible, specifically, not the inspired scripture that Timothy had in his hands,) is the equivalent of the “theopnuestos†that you claim that Paul calls ‘infallible’ in 2 Tim 3:17?
Since you are the sole infallible judge of what is relevant to this thread, I’ll answer that. I am not willing to accept the church councils and the decrees of Rome. I understand they are the reason we have a truncated version of the scripture that is available for us to read in the Bible. So you tell me, if Timothy had all the scriptures available to him and they were “both ‘infallible’ and ‘sufficient’ †as you claim, why would an abbreviated version be as “sufficient†and why would an additional New Testament be “infallible� Arn’t you yourself ‘accepting the church councils and the decrees of Rome’ when you accept that some books were set aside as not infallible and therefore not included in the Bible?
Joe and I are not joined at the head. Yes, we are not dealing with the exact same issues here. He approaches it from the RCC stance and I am not, nor have I ever been, Catholic. However, they are both relevant to the OP in regards to your interpretation of 2 Timothy. I don't think that the definition of "sola scriptura" is the issue at all. I do understand, as does Joe, I’m sure, that "sola scriptura" doesn’t mean that scripture is the only source of authority but the only “infallibleââ¬Â authority. So what. The OP isn’t about infallible scriptural authority but about the Bible‘s claims. It does afford you an credible diversion from the point you are avoiding though. Viva La Chutzpah!
francisdesales
Member
aLoneVoice said:
I ask that you humbly accept my apology. I retract my statement above about your adding to Scriptures. I guess I was distracted and for whatever reason, did not consider verse 17 when looking at the various translations. Thus, I only copied verse 16.
I apologize and ask that you forgive my oversight.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
mondar said:
While we agree that the writings of Scripture (to be defined - how again?) are inspired and are inerrant, I think you are brushing over the term "inspired". You jump to conclusions and presume that ALL oral traditions have been "enscriptured". We don't find that in the writings of the Bible. And we DO have evidence that oral teachings given by the prophets and the apostles WERE inspired or given by God... Thus, we are back to square one and my first argument against the concept. So let's continue again.
You surely will agree that the Apostles taught infallibly both orally and written, correct?
We have also the most sure word of the prophets, unto which ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts, understanding this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy did not come in times past by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke being inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:19-21
This says that God spoke to holy men by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Subsequently, these prophets and teachers and apostles no doubt shared these teachings with people in oral fashion. Often times, these teachings were the ONLY source for dozens of years. Only later do SOME of these teachings get written down. Do you agree so far?
As we said before, so do I say now again, If anyone preaches any other gospel unto you than what ye have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I make known unto you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not according to man. For I did not received it nor learn it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:9-12
Notice the word "WE" in the first sentence. It was not ONLY PAUL teaching "infallibly". Again, this passage points to teachings that were considered from God and were thus infallible. They were not written down and handed out in pamplet form, but given orally. You say God does not lie. Thus, any teachings given by God are infallible, to include oral teachings before the NT Scriptures were written, correct?
Evidence of this exists throughout the Scriptures. Various communities were commanded to hold onto THESE teachings. For example, consider 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Cor 15:1-2, 2 Thes 2:15, or 2 Tim 2:2. These are among the examples of commands to hold onto ALL teachings that were given. NO distinction is made by the Apostles between their oral and written teachings.
THOSE TEACHINGS WERE CONSIDERED INFALLIBLE AND FROM GOD - INSPIRED.
Thus, God did not give inspiration ONLY to men while writing a book.
Certainly [there is] a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding. Job 32:8
Not at all. It becomes even more clear when we look at WHAT was given authority in the community. Was it a book or was it men? I won't even bother to prove such an obvious answer, just one simple reminder.
But if I tarry long, that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth 1 Tim 3:15
The Bible is not mentioned. The Church is. Now, if the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, then why is the CHURCH the pillar and foundation of the truth? Shouldn't the Bible be?
What does all this mean? That the Bible is NOT the ONLY inspired word of God. It becomes clear that God inspired prophets and apostles to teach what He wanted taught. There is absolutely NO evidence that EVERYTHING they taught was later "enscriptured". As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence that God has DISCONTINUED to inspire men to teach infallibly what He once gave from Christ to the Apostles. Since we are commanded to hold onto ALL the traditions (teachings) given by the apostles, you are plainly REMOVING part of God's Word by sticking to a "bible alone is inspired" stance.
Now, with all of that said, there are several more problems of this ridiculous tradition.
First, what IS Scripture and WHO determines what it is? Since you say there is only ONE infallible source of God's Word, we would expect to find an infallible "table of contents". Maybe a "book of Mormon" or the "Koran", where God personally handed a bound book to a man. We don't see that in Christianity. Thus, the sole infallible source is non-existent because we don't know what IS inspired Scriptures to begin with. How are you going to trust fallible men to determine an infallbile table of contents? Special pleading will not get your answer. The answer, of course, is that God left another source of truth (1 Tim 3:15) that would guide men to this answer.
And finally, the second problem that you ignore is WHOSE interpretation of the infallible book is correct? It is fairly obvious that Protestantism is based on self-interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, this has been the main cause of disunity among Christians. God established a Church to MAINTAIN unity. There would be ONE authoritative body given the power to bind and loosen, to interpret God's Word. Once there are many, infallible Scriptures get run over roughshod because INDIVIDUALS are not infallible. What is the point of an infallible book if NO ONE can know WHO is interpreting correctly????
Here is what the "inventor" of this disease wrote about Sola Scriptura...
There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with Baptism; another denies the sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams of fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet. (Martin Luther, 1525)
Protestants claim the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith. Ironically, it was the emphasis on the bible alone that caused all the confusion and division WITHIN Protestantism.
You have a number of problems that are insurmountable regarding this doctrine. I have laid some of them out.
WHAT is Scriptures?
WHOSE interpretation do we follow when two people contradict?
WHERE does the Scriptures say that oral teachings are now enscriptured?
I have not addressed several other issues, such as OTHER sources of infallible teachers used to perfect the Christian for all good works (Eph 4:11-13). This in itself denies the "sole" of sola scriptura.
Really, you have done nothing but assume and presume, denying what the Bible teaches. Sola Scriptura is a farce and is self-refuted by the very work that it tries to defend. It is an illogical teaching that merely causes disunity among Christians. A little bit of common sense proves the whole idea is built upon sand and a wish.
G
Guest
Guest
francisdesales said:
I appreciate it, and do hope that you have done some self-editing of accusatory post. I would also hope that you can discuss my post that dealt with 2 Tim 3:16-17. It would seem that your disagreement with my post was unfounded.
Apology accepted.
francisdesales
Member
aLoneVoice said:
As an act of humility, to more plainly show how I was mistaken, I prefer to leave my post as-is. If you continue to suggest an editing, I will do so.
I believe I have answered the questions of 2 Tim 3 in my most recent post to Mondar. If not, please follow up. Considering this is one verse in the Bible, and from it, we are supposed to construct a major tenet of our faith from, I think it fails to pass the test in regards to the question I ask, namely, what IS Scritpures and WHO interprets them correctly.
As a pastor, doesn't that concern you that you may be leading your flock astray by teaching something that the Church does NOT teach - although you use an infallible book?
Former Protestant minister Marcus Grodi wrote:
Every Sunday I would stand in my pulpit and interpret Scriptures for my flock, knowing that within a fifteen mile radius of my church there were dozens of other Protestant pastors - all of whom believed that the Bible alone is the sole authority for doctrine and practice - but each was teaching something different from what I was teaching. "Is my interpretation of Scriptures the right one or not?", I'd wonder. "Maybe one fo those other pastors is right and I'm misleading these people who trust me.
Marcus Grodi is now a Catholic apologist who hosts "the Coming Home Network" on EWTN, a weekly show that gives witness to people and their reasons for returning to the Catholic Church. They specially cater to Protestant ministers who are considering the possibility that the Church was established by Christ and are considering the call to return home. Such ministers can have many questions answered and a person on the site will guide them.
http://www.chnetwork.org/
Regards
G
Guest
Guest
francisdesales said:
Gee - is this what you want this to turn into? Shall I now post links of those who have turned from the Roman Catholic denomination? Well.. there is not point aways, because you do not look at other links when they are provided, now do you? And yet, here you are wanting me to follow your links.
I provided a link giving a detailed and outlined answer. Like mondar, I focused merely on one verse for the sake of simplicity. If you were to follow the link I provided, you will see a much more detailed arguement. Sorry, but I did not see the need to copy and paste it here.. If you want I will...
G
Guest
Guest
I would also like to remind you of the Statement of Faith here at 123. Specifically:
I trust that you agree.
I trust that you agree.
Let me jump in here and say that when we spoke about 2Thes 2:5...francisdesales said:
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (ÄαῦÄα á¼â€ÃŽÂ»ÃŽÂµÃŽÂ³ÃŽÂ¿ÃŽÂ½ ὑμῖν) When the text says "these things" n verse 5, it is is definitely plural. You make it out to be singular and referring to one specific doctrine or thing. Again, this cannot be since it is in the plural.
Now maybe you are thinking I am saying that every single word the apostles spoke is being recorded in the epistles. I am not saying that, but I am saying that the oral teachings of the apostles were not contained in the new doctrines that the Catholic Church claimed by oral tradition in 1960. All doctrines that the apostles preached are presented in the scriptures (but not every single word they said). To make the man of God complete we do not need to add more doctrines to the scriptures then.
Peter is implicitly accepting the oral teaching of the prophets. That is true. But there is something that needs to be noticed in this context. Is Peter appealing to the oral message of the prophets passed down by tradition to be authoritative? The Jews claimed this for the Talmud and Mishna. It is not this oral message that Peter is explicitly writing about, but he is speaking of the "prophecy of the scripture," or the written message. The apostles never appealed to an unwritten tradition passed down from generation to generation from Moses. Their authority came directly from Jesus Christ. When he uses the concept of "Prophecy of scripture" it makes it clear that he is referring to the certainty of written scripture in this context.
If you look later in 2Peter 3:15-16
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Notice here that Peter again does not refer to an oral tradition of Paul but his "epistles" are "scripture." Peter is again speaking of the written word as authoritative.
The context of 2Peter concerns false teachers.
2Pe 2:1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
It is these false teachers that wrest the written scriptures to their own destruction. Now a person might wonder how to identify false teachers from the true teachers. That is the point of 2Peter 1:19-21. The point is to direct the reader to the certainty of the written word before speaking about false teachers. So then, yes, oral teaching is implicit within the text, but this text is about the written word in its context.
I notice you capitalized the words "SOME." This allows for the exclusion of major doctrines from the scriptures. That would violate 2Tim 3:16-17 which says that the scriptures are able make the man of God "furnished completely unto every good work." The good works would include "doctrine" in verse 16. If there is doctrines missing, the man of God cannot be furnished for "every" good work.
So I would agree with most of your statements, but I know what is implied by the words "SOME." The words "SOME" is where the error lies.
This is correct. It is of course correct because Pauls oral teachings were the same (in general content--in the sense that he did not need to add new doctrines after he wrote.) as his later epistles.
*I will cut and paste some of the rest of what you said below into a different post. This one is long enough.
While much of it does not relate to 2Tim 3:16-17, it is common Catholic apologetics which is actually imported Catholic traditions inserted into the text. Many of the texts you mention, when properly exegeted, do not say what Catholics are trying to make them say.
Scripture alone plus the unacknowledged hermenuetic.
Scripture alone has never been 'alone' but has always been accompanied with reason, tradition and experience as part of the Protestant hermenuetic. The real question is to what DEGREE are they authoritative for the Protestant hermenuetic? To illustrate this I have asked: How authoritative is the Westminster Confession of faith for Presbyterians? The same goes for other confessions of faith, theological writings etc. Failure to establish the 'DEGREE' to which these sources are authoritative, in the interpretation of scripture, only prolongs the agony of the current debate.
So one more time:
To what degree are reason, tradition, and experience authoritiative in the Protestant hermenuetic?
My own observation about fellow Protestants leads me to answer: to a large degree.
Scripture alone has never been 'alone' but has always been accompanied with reason, tradition and experience as part of the Protestant hermenuetic. The real question is to what DEGREE are they authoritative for the Protestant hermenuetic? To illustrate this I have asked: How authoritative is the Westminster Confession of faith for Presbyterians? The same goes for other confessions of faith, theological writings etc. Failure to establish the 'DEGREE' to which these sources are authoritative, in the interpretation of scripture, only prolongs the agony of the current debate.
So one more time:
To what degree are reason, tradition, and experience authoritiative in the Protestant hermenuetic?
My own observation about fellow Protestants leads me to answer: to a large degree.
Now I do not intend to quote everything you say, but want to work mainly with the scriptures you quote. I will be snipping some of your post, but will get the main scriptures you quote.
*** Yes, this refers to Pauls oral teachings. However:
1----- we certainly cannot say this oral teaching was never mentioned in Pauls later written epistles, can we?
2----- while Pauls oral teaching had authority, there is no mention of this authority being extended to those to whom he passed it down. Paul "delivered" oral teachings to the Corinthians, but the text does not say Corinth infallibly passed down any oral teachings. They did copy Pauls writings and passed them down, and they are inspired.
3----- when Paul taught, he taught the whole Church. The entire Church owned Pauls teachings. There is no mention of a secrete select set of oral teachings being passed down only through a few bishops. The concept of tradition that Rome uses is a very late concept of tradition. The earlier concept of tradition is not the same thing.
This text only talks about Pauls oral teaching and not a tradition that is infallibly passed down from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years.
1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
This text again refers to Pauls authoritative oral teaching. The word tradition is not even used in this verse. Pauls oral teaching involved the "gospel" here. This is a very common teaching in Pauls epistles. Notice how questionable it is that the Corinthians will pass down the teaching authoritatively. Yes, as you mentioned, the Corinthians are called to stand firm in Pauls oral teaching of the Gospel, but this is not anywhere near the RCC concept of traditions that were secrete being passed down by oral tradition from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
And of course, there is no difference in the theological content of Pauls oral teaching (tradition) or his written Epistles. This can be seen from verse 5.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
The word "these things" is in the plural, and refer to Paul's epistles. Paul's epistles had all the things spoken before.
2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
This is an old out of context quote used by Karl Keating. The text does tell Timothy to pass down oral teaching, but the text says absolutely nothing about this passing down of scripture being infallible or "theopneustos."
James White makes a good point when he notes that that this text specifically says that this teaching was done "among many witnesses." It was done in public. It was not passed down in secrete from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years and then suddenly revealed in the 2nd Vatican council.
The teaching was passed down by the entire group, and was quickly corrupted, and so Paul had to write many of his epistles. Pauls words were authoritative, but those who received Pauls words did not infallibly pass on the tradition. They merely did their best to pass it on. No infallible tradition is passed down through the centuries here.
There is a vast difference between the pillar and foundation of truth and the truth itself. The Church supports the truth by teaching it. Protestants do that. The difference is that the Catholic Church replaces the truth with itself. The Catholic Church feels it is the final arbiter of truth and in this way replaces the authority of the scriptures with its own authority. The Church is not over the scripture, but is subservient to it.
I dont know if I want to waist much more time. I should continue, but I am tired of typing (believe it or not). Well, this is enough for post 2. Maybe I will do the last part later, not sure.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.francisdesales said:
*** Yes, this refers to Pauls oral teachings. However:
1----- we certainly cannot say this oral teaching was never mentioned in Pauls later written epistles, can we?
2----- while Pauls oral teaching had authority, there is no mention of this authority being extended to those to whom he passed it down. Paul "delivered" oral teachings to the Corinthians, but the text does not say Corinth infallibly passed down any oral teachings. They did copy Pauls writings and passed them down, and they are inspired.
3----- when Paul taught, he taught the whole Church. The entire Church owned Pauls teachings. There is no mention of a secrete select set of oral teachings being passed down only through a few bishops. The concept of tradition that Rome uses is a very late concept of tradition. The earlier concept of tradition is not the same thing.
This text only talks about Pauls oral teaching and not a tradition that is infallibly passed down from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years.
1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
This text again refers to Pauls authoritative oral teaching. The word tradition is not even used in this verse. Pauls oral teaching involved the "gospel" here. This is a very common teaching in Pauls epistles. Notice how questionable it is that the Corinthians will pass down the teaching authoritatively. Yes, as you mentioned, the Corinthians are called to stand firm in Pauls oral teaching of the Gospel, but this is not anywhere near the RCC concept of traditions that were secrete being passed down by oral tradition from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
And of course, there is no difference in the theological content of Pauls oral teaching (tradition) or his written Epistles. This can be seen from verse 5.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
The word "these things" is in the plural, and refer to Paul's epistles. Paul's epistles had all the things spoken before.
2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
This is an old out of context quote used by Karl Keating. The text does tell Timothy to pass down oral teaching, but the text says absolutely nothing about this passing down of scripture being infallible or "theopneustos."
James White makes a good point when he notes that that this text specifically says that this teaching was done "among many witnesses." It was done in public. It was not passed down in secrete from Bishop to Bishop for 2k years and then suddenly revealed in the 2nd Vatican council.
The teaching was passed down by the entire group, and was quickly corrupted, and so Paul had to write many of his epistles. Pauls words were authoritative, but those who received Pauls words did not infallibly pass on the tradition. They merely did their best to pass it on. No infallible tradition is passed down through the centuries here.
1Ti 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
There is a vast difference between the pillar and foundation of truth and the truth itself. The Church supports the truth by teaching it. Protestants do that. The difference is that the Catholic Church replaces the truth with itself. The Catholic Church feels it is the final arbiter of truth and in this way replaces the authority of the scriptures with its own authority. The Church is not over the scripture, but is subservient to it.
I dont know if I want to waist much more time. I should continue, but I am tired of typing (believe it or not). Well, this is enough for post 2. Maybe I will do the last part later, not sure.