Why are the scriptures NOT sufficient "for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness?" - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[Tenchi]

One thing I find that all the sects do have in common...they all still commit sin.
Making none of them "in Christ".

See: 1 Corinthians 3, 6, 11, Galatians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:12-14, 1 John 1:8-10, Romans 7, etc.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Too often, Christians don't want to work to synthesize or harmonize Scripture, but are content to leave it in tension with itself, choosing instead to preserve their favorite notions about God's Truth even if doing so requires constant eisegesis or an outright denial of certain parts of the Bible.

It's actually not that difficult to reconcile the statements of Paul and James - so long as one has a good grasp of both the immediate and larger, whole-Bible contexts of their writings. What I so often encounter, though, is one believer who has invested significantly in what is essentially a works-based conception of salvation, and another who is committed to salvation by grace through faith, who simply lob apparently contrary verses at each other, neither believer developing a good synthesis of Paul's and James' words that comports well with the whole of God's word.

It's not that the truth is not there, plain and straightforward in its presentation (for the most part), but that the readers of God's truth have their own agenda, their own personal preferences, and are very often ill-equipped to properly suss out what God's word is actually saying, putting it all together into a cohesive whole.

When I was a child, it was common for seminary-level, systematic theology to be taught in the Adults' Sunday School class. In these classes, believers were taught not only what the doctrines of the Bible were, but how to study God's word and properly interpret its contents. It's been over three decades since I've seen anything like this in any church I've attended. The absence of such teaching has really begun to show: profound, widespread spiritual juvenility overtaking the Church and prompting (among other things) the view that Scripture is an impenetrable collection of contradictory, archaic and thus largely useless religious ideas.

There’s more than one way to fall off a horse.

 

[BB1956]

As someone who is carefully considering converting to Catholicism, I am of course, by considering it, leaving "sola scriptura" behind. I'm still learning about it all, but the general understanding is that there are traditions that the apostles started that weren't recorded in scripture.
I can neither defend nor back up this teaching at this time.

The thing about traditions is that Jesus spoke out against the traditions that many Jews had. The Pharisees who were a group of Jews that had gone to certain religious schools had what they called the oral law. This oral law wasn't inspired of God but were traditions that this group of religious people thought were necessary to adhere to so that the true servant of God would truly be a righteous man. Jesus spoke out against this oral law on several occasions because this oral law the Pharisees had, they made to be more important that what God inspired men to write down. So I am very careful very cautious of traditions and doctrines that I don't find in the scriptures anywhere. If those traditions or doctrines have not been written down by men that God has inspired to write down, then it's God's inspired word that should be adhered to, not traditions that people say we should adhere to, but nowhere in scripture is it inspired of God. When it comes to doctrines, principles and such as that, we need to make sure they're in scripture. We always will need to have scripture to back up what we're saying about the true God his only begotten Son and true faith in God which is based on love of God.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So I was thinking, and I had a few thoughts.
Wasn't Judaism, predecessor to Christianity, largely passed on through oral traditions? Like, yes, they had the Torah which was carefully and painstakingly preserved. But did they get every single facet of their faith from the Torah, or was it more a primary influence.
And even the New Testament itself, was largely unwritten when the early Christians were practicing Christianity. Therefore their faith was something orally passed around at that point. Pretty much all of the NT was either letters to the church addressing issues in said church at the time, and the rest are the gospels, which were written to leave an eye-witness account behind in hopes to convert more people.

 

[jasonc]

So I was thinking, and I had a few thoughts.
Wasn't Judaism, predecessor to Christianity, largely passed on through oral traditions? Like, yes, they had the Torah which was carefully and painstakingly preserved. But did they get every single facet of their faith from the Torah, or was it more a primary influence.
And even the New Testament itself, was largely unwritten when the early Christians were practicing Christianity. Therefore their faith was something orally passed around at that point. Pretty much all of the NT was either letters to the church addressing issues in said church at the time, and the rest are the gospels, which were written to leave an eye-witness account behind in hopes to convert more people.

Mishnah and the Talmud ,the Mishnah irc pertains to how the Torah was to be addressed in certain commands .and that varies between rabbis

 

[Hopeful]

See: 1 Corinthians 3, 6, 11, Galatians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:12-14, 1 John 1:8-10, Romans 7, etc.

I don't know what you are getting at. ?

 

[Hopeful]

So I was thinking, and I had a few thoughts.
Wasn't Judaism, predecessor to Christianity, largely passed on through oral traditions? Like, yes, they had the Torah which was carefully and painstakingly preserved. But did they get every single facet of their faith from the Torah, or was it more a primary influence.
And even the New Testament itself, was largely unwritten when the early Christians were practicing Christianity. Therefore their faith was something orally passed around at that point.

Good point.

Pretty much all of the NT was either letters to the church addressing issues in said church at the time, and the rest are the gospels, which were written to leave an eye-witness account behind in hopes to convert more people.

I doubt if they intended to leave writings for the next 2000 years, as most of them hoped Jesus was returning really soon.
I am glad they still exist.

 

[Tenchi]

I don't know what you are getting at. ?

All of the passages describe born-again believers who were immature and/or sinning.

 

[Hopeful]

All of the passages describe born-again believers who were immature and/or sinning.

If they were born again, they would not have been able to commit sin.
It is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)
Can apple seeds bring forth yams?
No?
Neither can God's seed bring forth liars, adulterers, or thieves.

 

[Tenchi]

If they were born again, they would not have been able to commit sin.

As the Scripture references I cited indicate, this isn't so.

It is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

The same man also wrote:

1 John 1:8-10 (NASB)
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

 

[eddif]

If they were born again, they would not have been able to commit sin.
It is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)
Can apple seeds bring forth yams?
No?
Neither can God's seed bring forth liars, adulterers, or thieves.

If we are born again we do not have a continuous lifestyle of sin. Greek language is strange. I do not claim to be a Greek language expert.

eddif

 

[Hopeful]

As the Scripture references I cited indicate, this isn't so. committing sin

You didn't cite any born again Christians.

The same man also wrote:

1 John 1:8-10 (NASB)
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Verses 6, 8, and 10 all address those who walk in darkness-sin.
They are juxtaposed with verses 5, 7, and 9 which address those walking in the light-God.
It is the sinners that can't honestly say they have no sin...or that they have fellowship with God.

 

[Hopeful]

If we are born again we do not have a continuous lifestyle of sin. Greek language is strange. I do not claim to be a Greek language expert.

eddif

Then quit relying on it, especially when the interpretation accommodates sin.
Seed can only bring forth after itself.
God's seed cannot bring forth liars, adulterers, or thieves.

 

[Tenchi]

You didn't cite any born again Christians.

Yes, I did.

Verses 6, 8, and 10 all address those who walk in darkness-sin.

Verses? I cited entire chapters of 1 Corinthians where Paul repeatedly condemns the carnal, sinful behavior of the Corinthian believers while confirming again and again that they were genuinely born-again children of God. We've had this conversation before...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If we are born again we do not have a continuous lifestyle of sin. Greek language is strange. I do not claim to be a Greek language expert.

eddif

The problem comes when we look up from our reading of the text and observe real deeds of born again people. Then the theory doesn’t match real life.

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, I did.

No, you cited sinners.
Those born of God's seed cannot bear the fruit of the devil.
Or can apple seeds now bear onions?

Verses? I cited entire chapters of 1 Corinthians where Paul repeatedly condemns the carnal, sinful behavior of the Corinthian believers while confirming again and again that they were genuinely born-again children of God. We've had this conversation before...

If they are acting in a carnal fashion, sinfully, as you write it, they are not of God.
Grape seed cannot bear figs.

Are you starting a thread dedicated to proving God's seed bears liars, adulterers, and thieves?
Don't bother, as it is written..." Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:9-10)

 

[Hopeful]

The problem comes when we look up from our reading of the text and observe real deeds of born again people. Then the theory doesn’t match real life.

If the "real deeds" are sinful, it manifests that they are not "born again".
Grape seeds cannot bring forth figs.

 

[Tenchi]

It seems you can't distinguish between a human being and a root vegetable, or fruit. When Jesus spoke of "fruit," he was pointing out only that a thing reproduces according to its nature. A cat begets a cat, a dog a dog, an apple tree, apples, and so on. What he was not doing was reducing the nature of a human being to a plant. An apple tree is constrained by its plant-nature in what it produces: It can only grow and produce apples. Not thistles, or figs, not horses or paintings, not music or an airplane, only apples (and leaves and wood). Not so a human being. By virtue of their nature, they can produce a myriad of things. Some of them even in contradiction to each other. The apostle James offers an example:

James 3:8-10
8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Unlike a plant, when a human being produces "fruit" it is not strictly uniform in what that fruit is. Yes, human "fruit" is reflective of human nature, but this by no means requires that they produce a single uniform "fruit" like a plant or vegetable does. No, instead, a human being can speak both evil and good things; he can shout in anger in one moment, and ask for forgiveness in the next; he can act selfishly on Tuesday and sacrifice his life on Wednesday.

You have badly misunderstood and extended the biblical "fruit" analogy and so come to an extreme and nonsensical view - and one, I suspect that is profoundly hypocritical, too. All those scripture passages I offered to you clearly indicate what I've pointed out above. It's time to abandon your deeply erroneous doctrine. Not only is it wrong, it's making you look seriously inept in your handling of God's word.

 

[Hopeful]

It seems you can't distinguish between a human being and a root vegetable, or fruit. When Jesus spoke of "fruit," he was pointing out only that a thing reproduces according to its nature.

Agreed, and that which is born of Gods seed cannot bear liars, adulterers, or thieves.
They all manifest the seed of their father...the devil. (1 John 3:9-10)

A cat begets a cat, a dog a dog, an apple tree, apples, and so on. What he was not doing was reducing the nature of a human being to a plant. An apple tree is constrained by its plant-nature in what it produces: It can only grow and produce apples. Not thistles, or figs, not horses or paintings, not music or an airplane, only apples (and leaves and wood). Not so a human being. By virtue of their nature, they can produce a myriad of things. Some of them even in contradiction to each other. The apostle James offers an example:

James 3:8-10
8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Don't you realize that James is telling the audience that one source cannot bring forth both fresh and salty, (holy and unholy) products?
God can tame the tongue.
But it takes our submission to Him to accomplish it.

Unlike a plant, when a human being produces "fruit" it is not strictly uniform in what that fruit is. Yes, human "fruit" is reflective of human nature, but this by no means requires that they produce a single uniform "fruit" like a plant or vegetable does. No, instead, a human being can speak both evil and good things; he can shout in anger in one moment, and ask for forgiveness in the next; he can act selfishly on Tuesday and sacrifice his life on Wednesday.

Your digression hides the fact that God's seed cannot bring forth the fruit of the devil.

You have badly misunderstood and extended the biblical "fruit" analogy and so come to an extreme and nonsensical view - and one, I suspect that is profoundly hypocritical, too. All those scripture passages I offered to you clearly indicate what I've pointed out above. It's time to abandon your deeply erroneous doctrine. Not only is it wrong, it's making you look seriously inept in your handling of God's word.

You mean..."go back to sin", don't you?
I refuse, thanks be to God.