logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 9, 2003 11:18:24 GMT -5
Using the 2 Tim 3:17 verse to prove the SOLE sufficiency of Scripture proves a little too much. The Bible wasn't even completed by the time Paul wrote this to Timothy. The scriptures that they refer to are the OT scriptures. These people still thought of themselves as Jews, fulfilled Jews. EVEN IF he was referring to the new testament (Justin Martyr referred to the New Testament Letters as the "Apostles memoirs" as late as 150 ad. The canon was not universally accepted as scripture for a while) the Bible wasn't completed so he would have been excluding for example some Gospels and Revelation. So that verse proves that the OT is sufficient for equipping a man for every good work. (Is being equipped for a good work the same thing as knowing all revealed truth?) Also, how does Timothy know which books are inspired and which aren't (there were many other gospels and letters floating around at that time)? He must have received the list from the apostles, that would be an oral tradition handed down that was not included in the Bible. If Scripture alone was sufficient, then scripture should contain a list of what really is scripture!! Otherwise, the canon is an ORAL tradition.
But then we look at what 1 Pet 3:16 says: "Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp and the ignorant and unstable will distort them to their own destruction." So we know that we are not guaranteed infallible interpretive skills. Even with good intentions we can misunderstand the Bible. So how can we be sure that we know the truth?! We need something that guarantees us the Truth. 1 Tim 3:15 tells us that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth. Not the Bible, but the Church. Yet today with our private interpretations using JUST the Bible we become our own infallible authorities and we become our own Popes!! The Church cannot be divided over many different interpretations or else it is not the True Church John 10, Ephesians 4:5-6
The Bible was intended as admonitions to already established Churches yet they are supposed to hold fast to the traditions (meaning things pkmtyolped down) whether by word of mouth or by epistle -2 Thes 2:15. The traditions of man are BAD but the true traditions of the Apostles are good, we are supposed to "shun those not following the traditions" 2 Thes 3:6.
Jude 3 tells us to hold to the faith that was delivered once for all to all the saints. At the time of the writing of Jude (circa 80 AD), not all the books of the bible were written yet. And even if you argue, against all scholarship, that Jude was the last book written, it is still impossible that by that time all, or even a majority, of the Christians had a copy of all, or even a majority, of the letters and gospels. But the Faith was delivered once for all, to all the saints. So it must have been delivered orally. The bible refutes the idea that all the teachings were written down after they were spoken. Paul often spent weeks and months ( Acts 19:8-10) debating and explaining the Gospel of Christ
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 9, 2003 12:54:09 GMT -5
So the Bible is for our perfection and completeness when it comes to doing every good work. So is that what sola scriptura is all about - doing good works? Purpose #4 in the Purpose Driven Life says that you were created for a mission. I believe in good works. The Bible isn't there so we can read it, develop a systematic theology and then sit on our hands. We're supposed to read it and do what it says.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 9, 2003 13:09:03 GMT -5
Using the 2 Tim 3:17 verse to prove the SOLE sufficiency of Scripture proves a little too much. The Bible wasn't even completed by the time Paul wrote this to Timothy. The scriptures that they refer to are the OT scriptures. These people still thought of themselves as Jews, fulfilled Jews. EVEN IF he was referring to the new testament (Justin Martyr referred to the New Testament Letters as the "Apostles memoirs" as late as 150 ad. The canon was not universally accepted as scripture for a while) the Bible wasn't completed so he would have been excluding for example some Gospels and Revelation. So that verse proves that the OT is sufficient for equipping a man for every good work. (Is being equipped for a good work the same thing as knowing all revealed truth?) Also, how does Timothy know which books are inspired and which aren't (there were many other gospels and letters floating around at that time)? He must have received the list from the apostles, that would be an oral tradition handed down that was not included in the Bible. If Scripture alone was sufficient, then scripture should contain a list of what really is scripture!! Otherwise, the canon is an ORAL tradition. But then we look at what 1 Pet 3:16 says: "Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp and the ignorant and unstable will distort them to their own destruction." Why did you leave off the rest of 2 Peter 3:16? Did it not prove your point? It refers to Paul's epistles and the OTHER scriptures. That sounds like Peter viewed Paul's epistles as scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. You are proving a point based on a brief initial period when some NT books had not been written to claim the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith. The message of the Bible was initially spread orally before all of the books were written. That's fine. The Apostles teaching gave believers all they needed to know. But now that God has inspired the NT writers to record the Apostle's teaching, we don't need some nebulous source of revelation. As a side note, did you know that Peter didn't know he was infallible?
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 9, 2003 13:19:06 GMT -5
Purpose #4 in the Purpose Driven Life says that you were created for a mission. I believe in good works. The Bible isn't there so we can read it, develop a systematic theology and then sit on our hands. We're supposed to read it and do what it says. Baltimore Catechism Question #6 Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next. Interestingly similar!
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 9, 2003 13:28:56 GMT -5
Baltimore Catechism Question #6 Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next. Interestingly similar! You gots to know that I was heavily influenced by the Baltimore Catechism.
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 9, 2003 13:32:22 GMT -5
You gots to know that I was heavily influenced by the Baltimore Catechism. Do you think a person could read the Baltimore Catechism and be fully equipped to do good works?
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 9, 2003 13:36:52 GMT -5
Do you think a person could read the Baltimore Catechism and be fully equipped to do good works? Partially equipped. It has some useful stuff. I think a person shipwrecked on an island could possibly come to faith using it, but they'd be mistaken on the sacraments and laws of the church.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 9, 2003 13:40:09 GMT -5
What do you think? Is this teaching found in the Bible? Or can the Bible refute this teaching? Did the early Christians believe this? Or did Martin Luther come up with the doctrine? BE NICE...AND LOGICALI was one of the ones who said kind of, let me explain. It depends on whether the writer or person being quoted intended their words to be understood in a strictly literal sense. If it was CLEARLY meant to be figurative, then I don't take it literally. Jesus said he was a door. He is not a literal wooden door with hinges and a knob, but a figurative door.
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 9, 2003 13:44:29 GMT -5
Partially equipped. It has some useful stuff. I think a person shipwrecked on an island could possibly come to faith using it, but they'd be mistaken on the sacraments and laws of the church. If you were do give a shipwrecked person a book on which there salvation depended on them understanding correctly, which would you give them. The KJV or the Baltimore Catechism? Feel free to build in any assumptions you wish.
|
|
logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 9, 2003 15:21:12 GMT -5
Good points Brian... you're making me think Why did you leave off the rest of 2 Peter 3:16? Did it not prove your point? It refers to Paul's epistles and the OTHER scriptures. That sounds like Peter viewed Paul's epistles as scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. I'm sorry, I left it off unintentionally, I copied it from another post. The point is that the Bible here is claiming that we cannot be our own interpreters (I know you're thinking the Holy Spirit, me too, but the Bible also doesn't tell us the the Holy Spirit will guide each of us to the truth. I can promise you that I want the truth, and I am very sure that you want the truth, and we believe different things, one of us is wrong). You are proving a point based on a brief initial period when some NT books had not been written to claim the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith. The message of the Bible was initially spread orally before all of the books were written. That's fine. The Apostles teaching gave believers all they needed to know. But now that God has inspired the NT writers to record the Apostle's teaching, we don't need some nebulous source of revelation. As a side note, did you know that Peter didn't know he was infallible? Where in the Bible does it say that everything the Apostles taught was written down? That is an oral tradition that has been pkmtyolped down since Martin Luther. Peter not know own infallibility.....explain? Pax Christi- logos
|
|
logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 9, 2003 16:01:34 GMT -5
QUESTION:St. Paul urged Christians to follow the unwritten teachings (2 Thes. 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Tim 2:2), which were pkmtyolped on by word of mouth. So, which books of the Bible were these teachings put in then? They must be in Paul's writings because he speaks of what the HEARD from HIM (Paul).
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 9, 2003 18:58:49 GMT -5
QUESTION:St. Paul urged Christians to follow the unwritten teachings (2 Thes. 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Tim 2:2), which were pkmtyolped on by word of mouth. So, which books of the Bible were these teachings put in then? They must be in Paul's writings because he speaks of what the HEARD from HIM (Paul). 2 Thes. 2:15 tells the Thessalonians to compare all men's teachings to the Word of God and if there is a conflict disregard the men's teachings. 1 Cor. 11:2 Again speaks to the Church of Corinth about remembering the ordinances give by Paul and are found in his writings. Nothing is said about other sources for imformation. He then reminds those same people of the ordinances throughout the chapter. 2 Tim. 2:2 is telling Timothy to continue to spread the gospel and aquire more faithful men to teach . This has nothing to do with outside unwritten sources of information. I am not sure what you are trying to convey in that post.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 10, 2003 3:50:25 GMT -5
G Where in the Bible does it say that everything the Apostles taught was written down? That is an oral tradition that has been pkmtyolped down since Martin Luther. The apostles were told by our Lord that they would bear witness to the furtherst parts of the world. (Acts 1:8) This same Lord denounced the traditions of men that were given preference to scripture. (Matt 15:9, Mark 7:7) God was gracious enough to inspire the New Testament writers, and the supposed first pope acknowledged Paul's epistles to be scripture. (2 Peter 3:16) The scriptures are God breathed and fully sufficient. (2 Tim 3:16-17) Numerous examples could be cited from the Old Testament about how the bad kings walked in the traditions of their fathers and the good kings followed the written word of God. (See the history of Josiah in 2 Kings) It stands to reason that the same holds true under the new covenant, especially with the low regard Jesus and Paul had for commandments of men and fables. (1 Tim 1:4;4:7, 2 Tim 4:4, Titus 1:14) And lastly, the supposed first pope claimed to not come with cleverly devised fables, but with eyewitness testimony. (2 Peter 1:16) Oral tradition is not eyewitness testimony. For the apostles to bear witness to the ends of the earth and give eyewitness testimony would require that testimony be written, unless the apostles came to the Western Hemisphere before their deaths. The apostle's teaching would certainly be written down given the weight of the verses I cited against commandments of men and the warnings of ravenous wolves that would come. (Matt 7:15, Acts 20:29) As a side note, the verses that speak of things given by word or epistle refer to direct communication from the apostle; the verses citing following verbal communication don't apply to the nebulous "traditons" that constantly change. Those verses relate to specific instructions the apostles gave to the churches. No he didn't. The power of the Bishop of Rome gradually developed. He didn't know he was pope either. God bless you, Brian Daniel
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 10, 2003 6:56:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't give them a book. I'd rescue them. The book I would most like to have if shipwrecked is "My Utmost Devotional Bible." It is a NKJV one year Bible arranged with OT, Psalm, Proverb, and NT reading tied to an appropriate meditation from the writings of Oswald Chambers. Unfortunately, they are out of print. You can find them on ebay. So you would not rely on Scripture alone to explain the mysteries of faith. Supplemental information is needed to properly understand the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 10, 2003 9:55:01 GMT -5
So you would not rely on Scripture alone to explain the mysteries of faith. Supplemental information is needed to properly understand the Bible. It's not that. I would want that if I were shipwrecked because it is my favorite book. The meditations in it could be callled spiritual exercises, and they aren't for doctrine.
|
|