There is no out of context in my post. I know the context very well. I have it memorized. Your problem is that you are reading into this passage things that are not even there. Your post is full of suppositions and conjectures. "Paul used philosophy..." No he did not. You have no proof that he did when he spoke to the Bereans. Elsewhere he may have, but not here. Prove your case.
"Maybe".....or maybe not. I stand on the Word of God. You stand on your "maybe's." A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Maybe they compared notes--where do you get that? Pure conjecture. You might as well as have been reading the Book of Mormon; or were you??
To the law and to the testimony...(Isa. 8:20)
Yes a comjparison to the mediums, spiritists, Baal, other false gods, false prophets, false teachings, RCC Oral Traditon, the Book of Mormon, etc. All teaching that is not accordng to "this word"!
The entire NT doesn't have to be written down. We work with what we have. Much of the NT had been written down as Peter testified to. He testified to Paul's epistles as Scripture. They already had those. They had the synoptics by that time. They had most of the NT. They didn't have to have it all. The principle is what Peter is speaking of. The prophets were the authors of the OT; the Apostles, as commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, were the authors of the NT. The statement is clear.
A bit much? Becuase it is? Because you just want to reject the evidence that I gave you for no other reason than you don't like it?
Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11 and so many other Scriptures speak so forcefully to this God-given truth that it cannot be ignored.
Quote from signature line
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by guitarpreacher, Nov 19, 2008.
Page 6 of 8
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And that's just some of the letters. What about the Gospels, Acts etc. Luke wasn't even an Apostle! Why was there so much disagreement early on? -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13). "Heard", plainly = oral only, not written down.
Furthermore, Timothy is told by Paul to "hand on" (traditio in Latin) what he has received: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). So Paul orally transmits to Timothy and orders him to orally transmit to others for them to orally transmit to still others, giving four 'generations' of oral transmission. That's Apostolic Tradition for you in a nutshell!
If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-
1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.
2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.
3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock
4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.
Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.
[Bizarre coding and formatting errors!] -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. I've highlighted some problems with the use of II Tim 3:16-17 as a proof text for sola Scriptura in my past post above.
2. I asked how one can possibly read the idea of inscripturation into John 16:13. You haven't answered my question: merely proof-texting a verse from a wholly-unrelated part of Scripture doesn't do that. I've simply asked where in John 16:13 or indeed anywhere in John's Gospel, Jesus asks his Apostles to write a book. It's quite a simple question! -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
I can't explain the formation of the canon in posts here on the BB. You should read a book on it:
A General Introduction to Bibliology by Norman Geisler
or
Lay version : From God to Us: How We Got the Bible by Norman Geisler. -
Matt, come one, this does not prove oral tradition! The NT was not completed at this point, so Paul is teaching Timothy and urging him to stick to what he has learned, to sound teachings. And yes, to pass them on. Well, they didn't have the NT. So of course they were orally teaching! This is just common sense.
We have to make a distinction between what was said to the person in the passage, and what is being said to us. Clearly, Paul is not talking to us, but to Timothy. The principle here is not oral tradition but to hold to sound doctrine, a phrase that is repeated over and over in both 1 and 2 Timothy.
Matt, don't you find it ironic that you are trying to back up extra-biblical tradition by using scripture? Because, of course, what else do you have? -
Matt,
Your posts seem to betray a very high level of confusion on your part. Many of the things I would point out to you in response to your post to me have already been pointed out to you excellantly by others, such as Marcia and DHK, so....rather than repeat what they posted I'll post this exerpt from an excellant web-site
This material has referances to the "Catholic" view of tradition, but since your arguments are pretty much the 100% "stock" arguments that Catholics employ, I think this article will be an excellant response for you to hopefully pay close attention to and heed.
The issue at hand is incredibly important.
Here it is...
Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.
:godisgood: -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterMarcia said:Not everthing that was written was meant to be part of the canon. The early church did not use all writings as scripture.Click to expand...I can't explain the formation of the canon in posts here on the BB.Click to expand...You should read a book on it:
A General Introduction to Bibliology by Norman Geisler
or
Lay version : From God to Us: How We Got the Bible by Norman Geisler.Click to expand... -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterMarcia said:So? Not everything was written down. How does that prove anything? Don't you think that God got what he wanted us to have in the Bible, or was that too hard a task for God? Everything he wants us to know is in the Bible.Click to expand...
Matt, come one, this does not prove oral tradition!Click to expand...The NT was not completed at this point, so Paul is teaching Timothy and urging him to stick to what he has learned, to sound teachings. And yes, to pass them on. Well, they didn't have the NT. So of course they were orally teaching! This is just common sense.Click to expand...
We have to make a distinction between what was said to the person in the passage, and what is being said to us. Clearly, Paul is not talking to us, but to Timothy.Click to expand...
There is no tradition here, just words from scripture.Click to expand...
Matt, don't you find it ironic that you are trying to back up extra-biblical tradition by using scripture?Click to expand...Because, of course, what else do you have?Click to expand... -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterAlive in Christ said:Matt,
Your posts seem to betray a very high level of confusion on your part. Many of the things I would point out to you in response to your post to me have already been pointed out to you excellantly by others, such as Marcia and DHK, so....rather than repeat what they posted I'll post this exerpt from an excellant web-site
This material has referances to the "Catholic" view of tradition, but since your arguments are pretty much the 100% "stock" arguments that Catholics employ, I think this article will be an excellant response for you to hopefully pay close attention to and heed.
The issue at hand is incredibly important.
Here it is...
Quote:
"To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible.
Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not.
When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6.
"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, Honor your father and mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.
Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).
It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.
Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition.
Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.
My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation.
If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God."
http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm
Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.Click to expand...
The above article which you cited does not put forward a case for sola Scriptura, ie: Scripture without Tradition; rather, it appears to be arguing for suprema Scriptura, ie: Scripture with Tradition, but with the former superior to the latter, which is pretty much the position adopted by the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther and, to a certain extent, by my own Church. But, in a sense, it doesn't break us completely out of the 'circular argument deadlock', which is: "Ok, Scripture is superior to Tradition and Tradition must submit itself to Scripture, but whose interpretation of Scripture is the correct one; since we don't know the answer to that it follows that some kind of teaching authority or Tradition is necessary, but that Tradition must submit itself to Scripture etc etc".
For the record, I would disagree with the Catholic definition of "the whole Church", as in "read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church".
I also disagree with the article's author in his(?) conflation of Church Tradition with "the commandments of men". The author tries to dodge the issue of Apostolic Succession, but really that issue is germane if not central to the entire exegesis of the passage from Matthew's Gospel which he cites (and indeed the similar passage in Mark 7). The author's objection would indeed be valid if Apostolic Tradition and 'the commandments of men" were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18. -
Just one comment on this Thanksgiving day....
Matt Black said:The above article which you cited does not put forward a case for sola Scriptura, ie: Scripture without Tradition; rather, it appears to be arguing for suprema Scriptura, ie: Scripture with Tradition, but with the former superior to the latter, which is pretty much the position adopted by the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther and, to a certain extent, by my own Church. But, in a sense, it doesn't break us completely out of the 'circular argument deadlock', which is: "Ok, Scripture is superior to Tradition and Tradition must submit itself to Scripture, but whose interpretation of Scripture is the correct one; since we don't know the answer to that it follows that some kind of teaching authority or Tradition is necessary, but that Tradition must submit itself to Scripture etc etc".
Click to expand...
(Could elaborate, but I gotta scoot....)
Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone! -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yep, and that rule holds good up until the Great Schism of 1054; thereafter one loses the Vincentian characteristic of 'universality' (hence the disagreement with the Catholic Church's definition of 'the whole Church' referred to in my last post).
-
Matt Black said:So, what was the discernment process? Who decided what was 'meant to be part of the canon' and what wasn't? That's unfortunate. I've read many writings on it. I'm asking here for your answers, not someone else's, and it's a shame that you state above that you're unable to give them.Click to expand...
The bottom line for me is how amazing the Bible is - I was saved while reading Matthew -- how all those books over all those centuries have one theme; the over 300 prophecies of Christ coming true in the NT; the way archeology keeps validating the Bible; the way people are saved reading the Bible; etc. God had it all planned out how we could get the canon and I trust that He worked it out.
There is more to it but my son is here right now; it's Thanksgiving, and I'm going away for a week on Sat. -
Matt Black said:Really? So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means? Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians? Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?Click to expand...
The reason the Council of Nicea had to affirm the Trinity is because of Arius who was denying it! He was spreading his beliefs about Jesus being created. Have you heard of Athanasius' "Against Arias," I think it's called?
Most creeds and councils met to defend the faith that was once already given to the saints against false teachings.
It doesn't just prove oral tradition; it is oral tradition! How can you be so blind as to not see that?! Not really no - and it is entirely extra-Biblical conjecture and supposition. Were that to be true, you would expect Paul to say in addition in this passage; "But only hand these teachings on until Scripture is complete." He doesn't so your bare assertion is an argument from silence.Click to expand...
But your basis for oral tradition is from Scripture. Where is the oral tradition? Who knows it? How do we find it? Where is the authority for it?
Oh, I fully agree. Paul was indeed talking to Timothy, his appointed successor and bishop (leader, if you would prefer) at Ephesus, and instructing him to 'hand on' the teachings to the next two generations of leaders after him (who would, incidentally, be around long after the NT was finished, thus scotching your argument above).Click to expand...
No irony at all; I'm just trying to conduct the debate on your sola Scriptura terms since I reckon it's unlikely that you'll accept any other evidential source. I do find it ironic, however, that you and others who claim to be ss are repeatedly eisegeting and adducing extra-Biblical supposition. Now, that is ironic! Oh, I have plenty of other evidence from Tradition and Church History - but is there any point in my bringing it to the table? Will you accept it?Click to expand... -
Matt,
"So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means?"Click to expand...
"Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians?"Click to expand...
Its a very very healthy thing, and exceedingly profitable. God wants it that way, and He approves of it.
Just take a look at what happens when people forsake the priciple known as "sola scriptura".......
Jehovahs Witnesses
Jim Jones
Catholicism
Mary Baker Eddy
The Orthodox
Mormonism
Ultra liberal protestantism
David Koresh
THAT is the result when each of us, individually, turn from sola scriptura, and instead surrender to any so called "authority" to interpret the scriptures for us.
"Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?"Click to expand...
And surely you dont think that Gods people couldnt discern error without that "Council" do you????
:godisgood: -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite SupporterMarcia said:It was the books considered scripture by the early church and the ones by apostles or those with apostolic authority.
The bottom line for me is how amazing the Bible is - I was saved while reading Matthew -- how all those books over all those centuries have one theme; the over 300 prophecies of Christ coming true in the NT; the way archeology keeps validating the Bible; the way people are saved reading the Bible; etc. God had it all planned out how we could get the canon and I trust that He worked it out.
There is more to it but my son is here right now; it's Thanksgiving, and I'm going away for a week on Sat.Click to expand...
Page 6 of 8