Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

How can rome prove that her claims to intreprete/reveal the bible, and of being true church on earth is superior to same calims made by JW/Mormions though?

 

The point that is true is that your scriptures do not match the early churches scriptures and not all of the early churches scriptures were the same as the other churches scriptures until they became canonized.

 

By scripture themselves. Here is a quick answer for your question from Catholic answers.

 

The Old Testament is another issue altogether. You are doing the usual Catholic shuffle, can't win so you redirect the argument. Thanks for your admission of error.

If you are going to quote someone please give the FULL reference so it can be validated. I have all the works of Tertullian. Please supply the full reference.

 

Citing them is one thing, recognizing them as scripture is quite another thing.

In the "index of texts" provided by the translators of Tertullian there are no references provided for the Deutercanical books.

The reference you quote can just as easily be attributed to a number of passages in the Old Testament where the same words are stated.

 

Now you're back tracking. First you hold to Tertullian because he claimed scriptures to be in one volume. Now that you know the one volume has a different table of contents than yours you back away and claim I do the Catholic Shuffle. too funny. And since when were the OT not canon?

Then you read them!!!! and don't forget to read in the notes which are also useful because they tell you where he got a particular passage. Why don't you read "De cultu feminarum." He appeals to the authority of 1 Enoch there.

 

You are misunderstanding both Tertullian and me. The "whole volume" he has reference to is the one that was received "from the beginning" or from the apostlic age which has reference to the New Testament volume of scriptures.

The whole volume of Old Testament scriptures had not been settled by the apostles or Christ as they accepted the Jewish canon which excluded the deuterocanical books. You cannot deny the Jews rejected the deutercanical books as part of the canon of Old Testament scriptures and Jesus and the apostles embraced what the Jews had canonized.

Again, if you are going to cite a reference please give the full reference so it can be verified. I doubt if he cites Enoch as "scripture."

 

Just read the book and find out for yourself. I don't want to go and get the volume and bring it down. look at Chp 3. Right now I'm re-reading Justin Martyr's first apology. Good stuff.

 

Here is the selection

 

You call this evidence that Tertullian (or whoever you may be quoting) is quoting Enoch or citing Enoch as "scripture"????? Pleeeeease give us a break!

If you can quote it then why can't you document your quotes? You call that scholarship???

If I remember right, some time ago I quoted some references without giving the full documentation and I was scandalized for not do it and my "scholarship" was put in question? I see we walk on a one way street with Catholics - their way!

 

I haven't quoted the whole passage but it is clear that he views the book as authoritative and valid. I could quote the whole passage but that would be lengthy. Read his document for yourself. Because its clear now your just being stuborn and don't want to admit what is right in front of you. By the way I told you it was chapter 3 of De cultu feminarum. Here is somemore from the same book and same chapter

So pleeeeeeese. Do your own homework. Especially since I've done most of it for you. Read the document. Do you want more reference from where I got it? Here Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Except this being a message board I didn't think I was back in school having to be exact but I did tell you where I got the info for his view of 1st Enoch. You just didn't want to look yourself.

 

Let's look at your quote:

Point out that the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop.[/quote]
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
First, Timothy is the pastor of the church at Ephesus.
Secondly, one must keep in mind that this is "a pastoral epistle," which is written to give direction to keep order in the churches.
Third, vs. 16 is Paul's teaching on the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Fourth, vs. 17 is the purpose for using the Scripture as one's guide.
Fifth, and most importantly of all, Paul has said nothing about tradition, something you have inserted into this passage with no authority whatsoever.

Now you have skipped up to verse 15 without letting the reader know.

The interpretation here is false.
2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
--From verse 13 to the end of the chapter not one word is said about tradition. You are inserting tradition where there is none--very deceitful. The entire context revolves around Scripture--a strong case for sola scriptura. What did Eunice and Lois teach Timothy? The Word of God, not tradition! They drilled into him from a very early age the Word of God, the OT Scriptures, the Torah, the Law, etc. Those are things that he was assured of.

Not one word of tradition is said. You pervert the Word of God. Timothy was taught the Word of God and taught others the Word of God--sola scriptura. Sound words come from the Word of God, not from men. Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (Romans 10:17). "The faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." Jesus Christ is revealed through the Word of God. Christ, also, is known as "the Word."

Paul has referred to nothing but the Word of God.
2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Sound words are the Word of God, not tradition.
Paul has referred to nothing but the Word of God.
Paul taught Timothy the Word of God whether orally, or otherwise. He preached the Word of God, never tradition. Study the Book of Acts. Paul never taught, preached, anything other than the Word of God.

The references here made to tradition are all bogus and deceitful. You should be ashamed for even posting such material.

 

Yes

Ok.

Ok.

Ok

Then what do you do with verse 14 and 15 Look closely

It is clear that there is a two fold instructions in these passages one orally from whom he learned it AND from sacred writing which he makes the purpose is clear for. So tradition is clearly spelled out in this passage to coincide with Scriptures as the Catholic Church teaches.

Actually I haven't. I just made that clear and it supports my view.

According to Almighty DHK but not to the text.

Yes this references the oral tradition of what he learned it is clear that this is differentiated from vs 15 because of the word AND then followed by Sacred Writings.

So you need to do a bit better than that.

 

I already quoted the verse for you in a very literal translation, the KJV:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
--Scriptures are not tradition.
Even in other translations, when preceded by "sacred" it is not tradition. Traditions are not sacred. This is a definite reference to Scripture as it says here in no uncertain terms.

There is no two-fold instruction. He was taught, whether orally or otherwise from the Scriptures which the text states very clearly. You can't read into the Bible something that is not there.

The interpretation is wrong because you are reading into it. It is called eisigeses. It is not there.

Where is tradition? You have taken a word that says Scripture and tell me it means tradition. Unbelievable!

 

I quoted from the ESV but KJV is just as good.

[

Even with the KJV you miss the very beging of that verse which isn't in isolation but follows from vs 14. Here in your own quote :

the term "and" is applied when its "in addition to" something. What is that something stuff that he learned directly from someone apart from the scriptures Ie

which is oral tradition. Oral teachings in addition to Scripture which is why the word "and" was used.

Certain ones certainly are.

No you are wrong. the text clearly states that He was taught otherwise from the scriptures (orally) and from the scriptures. That is exactly what the text is saying.
Even from Barns commentary we see that the perspective is he learned doctrines orally

 

2 Timothy 3:14 (KJV) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Says nothing of tradition. Paul told young Timothy to continue in the things he had learned, not continue in tradition.

knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation.

 

Simple question for you from the same passage. What do you call oral instruction? I call it tradition. And why would Paul distinguish oral teaching in addition to sacred Scripture? Think about it. If Paul had said "But continue thou in the things which though has learned in scripture". Period. it would be one thing but thats not what He said he said "continue thou in the things you have learned and knowing who it is that you learned it from and also those things that you learned from scriptures when you were a child." The differentiation of doctrine and scripture is clear. How do we know Paul would make this distinction well because he does it in 1 Corinthians

Note he didn't say an maintain the scriptures as I have given them to you.

 

So in essence, you are arguing that the scriptures are worthless in and of themselves and any attempt to read, understand or be taught them constitutes Oral Tradition?

Following that line of thinking then Timothy's Mother and Grandmother's teaching must be regarded by Rome as "Sacred Tradition" on the very same level as Apostolic Oral Traditions? He did include their teaching ALONG WITH His own teachings to Timothy and called Timothy to honor both did he not?

However, you miss the obvious! The validity of oral is established by the written NOT VICE VERSA! That is precisely why we are called to TEST the teachings of prophets and if they speak not according to validated scriptures they are to be rejected (Isa. 8:20).

Even the Apostles oral teaching was to be subjected to Scriptures already confirmed - Acts 17 and the Bereans were congratualted for not simply accepting his teachings but testing them by the Scriptures and thus are said to be "more nobel" .

Why? Because oral teaching is SECONDARY to the authority of scriptures and that is precisely where Roman Catholic Tradition fails the test of Scriptures just as the Jewish Oral Traditions failed the test of scriptures.

 

I haven't misrepresented anything.

 

I never said anything of the sort. Show me where I said that. However, it is true that no document interprets itself. That is a logical falacy.

Yes because what Mom and Grandma passed down were those same Apostolic Oral Traditions. Now you're getting it!

Absolutely, and both provided oral teaching to Timothy.

Funny thats not what they determined the at the council of Jerusalem. They wrote a letter and validated by the Oral confirmation of Judas and Silas.