Is English my second language? I suppose that is your effort to put me down. I see your "faith in action" again.
Why I am amazed that you actually read this, I was doubting that you were actually reading my posts before answering. I got this impression when you bring up the same things over and over that I already answered, and then ignore other things ... such as what I posted about "theopneustos" and the differences between the 2 Tim 3 passage and the Eph 4 passage. You seem to be a dishonest person who is out to win some argument by any means you can.
Concerning my faith in action, your tongue in check hypocrisy is quite amazing.
Now, I again am telling you that the "Bible" being inspired by God is Sacred Tradition.
Yes, and I have answered this idle (idol--pun intended) speculation long ago. There is no way that you can relate the term "theopneustos" in 2 Tim 3:16 to so called sacred tradition. Tradition is not even in the context at all. The term theopneustos (God breathed - insired) can possibly relate only to written scripture.
NAS 2 Tim 3:16 "Every scripture
inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. "
How in the name of all greek or english grammar can you get sacred tradition out of that verse? Its talking about the written word of God.
2 Timothy, at BEST, merely refers to the Old Testament writings, not a book that WE TODAY call the Bible - which hadn't existed when Paul wrote to Timothy. The bible was not yet compiled into the form that it exists today, so 2 Tim certainly cannot refer to the future Christian bible - unless we consider Sacred Tradition.
Your pulling a whole mass of different issues into your statement here. I could go to the scriptures and mention that 2 Tim 3:16 mentions "all scriptures" (ÀαÃα γÃÂαÆη). I would agree with those who would point out that not all scripture is written by the time Paul penned these words. Most likely many of Johns writings were not yet written. But when John was to later write, it was immediately "theopneustos" (God breathed... or inspired). John did not have to wait until the Church said it was inspired, it was inspired no matter what the Church said. Inserting sacred tradition into the equation is just simply not in this text.
When scriptures are penned, they are immediately inspired, but you talk about compilation. Compilation is a different subject from inspiration. Of course in their day of slow communication and even slower copying, things were very different. No computers zipped a manuscript across phone lines, printing presses did not crank out masses of copies for distribution. A scribe sat down and copied a manuscript by hand, and sent it to a neighboring city, and then that scribe sent it to the next city, and many years elapsed for a manuscript to go from Ephesus to Gaul or Spain. Along the way there will be partial collections that will be missing certain books, some books may have been circulated in sets. Because of this phenomena some early Church Fathers (ECFs) developed lists of books they considered inspired. Different ECFs had differing lists of books. The interesting thing is that not one of the ECFs up to and including Augustine had the same list as Roman Catholics do today. Nevertheless, compilation is a different subject from inspiration. The books were inspired when written, not when compiled.
Finally, there is some textual support for the concept that Paul was referring primarily to the tanakh (OT). The reason for this is verse 15. Paul says...
2Ti 3:15 And that
from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
When Timothy was a child, there was no NT writings. The scriptures that were able to make him wise unto salvation was primarily the tanakh. Does this mean that the NT is unable to make one wise unto salvation? Of course not!! Verse 15 is referring to the scriptures when Timothy was a babe. But in verse 16 Paul does not say that merely the tanakh (OT)is theopneustos (inspired) but he says "all scripture." When Paul says "All scripture" he is not referring merely to the tanakh, or the scriptures written up to that time, he is referring to "all scriptures." If it is scripture, past present and future, Paul is referring to it in 2 Tim 3:16. Warfield (professor at old Princton) correctly said that 2 Tim 3:16 is not speaking of the nature of scriptures, nor the effects of scripture, it is speaking of the source of the writings of scriptures. The source is the breath of God, not merely the minds of men. This term is never used of traditions passed down by fallible men.
This discussion on the Scriptures being inspired do NOT make them the sole source of Christian doctrine.
Certainly it does! To this day you have never shown where the scripture claims that so called "sacred tradition" is theopneustos." In fact this claim is made only of the written word.
Again, I have already given you ANOTHER example of an infallible source - St. Paul, and presumably, the Apostles, by way of the Holy Spirit - as Paul discusses in Galatians 1:8-9. These are the words of a man who thinks he is infallible, and when he writes to Timothy about the Sacred Scriptures, your argument stands or falls on whether Paul speaks infallibly or not. If he does NOT, then what he writes is certainly subject to error as well.
To suggest otherwise is begging the question.
You are attacking a straw man here. Protestants agree on what we are saying by the term sola scirptura. You redefine what the term means (and make it something other then what protestants are saying) and then proceed to attack you misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means.
Now I will have to admit that in my opening definition of sola scriptura I did explicitly say that the bible is the only infallible source of authority. but I failed to mention that I was referring to us today. During times of inscripturation, or times of special revelation there certainly was another authority. Jesus was the very word of God. Everything he said and did was completely infallible and inerrant. He knew no sin, and he knew no error. The apostles were promised to have a Holy Spirit inspired memory of Jesus words and deeds. This promise is found in John 14:26.
"
But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. "
Years after Jesus had ascended, the apostles could remember the very words of Jesus like it was 5 minutes ago. The reason for this is in verse 26 Jesus promised that the Spirit of God would "
bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."
This is the process of the scriptures being theopneustos (God breathed). When the time arrived in the sovereignty of the HS, the apostles wrote the message that Christ had given to them. Does this mean that during the time when their message was orally delivered to the Churches that the message was not inspired? No, that is not what we protestants are saying. The teaching of sola scriptura recognizes that there was a time when the oral message of the apostles was authoritative. Thus does not mean that we accept the false apostles that claim to be the apostolic successors and teach the traditions of the Church. This applies only to the times of inscripturation.
Thus, as Christian writers of the second century clearly state, the Bible does not stand alone as the sole source of infallible Christian doctrine. If you want to say "sole" in that regards, we can ONLY refer to Jesus Christ, not the 27 independently written letters that would later be called the New Testament.
Hehe, I have heard that argument before. Generally, what I see quoted from the ECFs is Catholics show the use of the word "tradition" among the ECFs. As soon as Catholic apologists see the word tradition they say "see, this denies "sola scriptura." It does nothing of the sort. Protestant Churches have traditions, we recognize this. We recognize our traditions as authoritative, but not infallible or inspired. I think the protestant attitude is much like that of Basil of Caesarea (330-379) who said...
"If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrine in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (quote taken from James Whites book "Roman Catholic Controversy")
As in the quote above, tradition among the ECFs could be trumped by scripture. If our tradition is different then yours, as Basil said, let it be decided by scripture.
