Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

[Dr. Walter]

So let me summize. It is Dr. Walter who jumps around trying hard to connect books and passages that have nothing to do with the context of any particular one verse in scripture. It is clear it is he who uses this format to insert his already developed opinion of what the text, he thinks, should say like Luther saying Paul meant to say faith alone, but its not in the text. It is clear. I haven't departed from the text and clearly state what it is the text has said.

This is an absolute falsehood and YOU KNOW it! I interpeted Paul's use of "all scripture" by Paul's own claims that his own epistles were included in that classification (1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15).

The fact that Paul made this statement "all scriptures" at the end of His life demands he means "all scriptures" not merely PART of the scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not fooled by your mischaracterization of my intention. That point was initially made by me and I've kept that point despite your attempt to say the point is other is ridiculous because it was that very point you attempted to refute. I have not changed topics or how I characterized that passage. It is rather you in your verbosity who've lost the original point. Shall I go back and quote it for you should I bring your initial refutation? It is you trying to change the story. Not I.

You are a dishonest man and your words prove it. You did in fact deny that "all scriptures" had any reference to Pauline epistles or the epistles of other apostles. You explicitly stated this had reference only to Old Testament Scriptures.

The facts are that Paul long before he wrote "ALL scriptures" had already acknowledged and qualified his own "epistles" as scripture = the word of God (1 Thes. 2:13 and 2 Thes. 2:19). YOU ARE THEREFORE WRONG in your interpretation of "all scriptures" because Paul wrote this at the END OF HIS LIFE and said "ALL" not "PART" as your explict words demand ("old testament scriptures").

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is an absolute falsehood and YOU KNOW it! I interpeted Paul's use of "all scripture" by Paul's own claims that his own epistles were included in that classification (1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15).

The fact that Paul made this statement "all scriptures" at the end of His life demands he means "all scriptures" not merely PART of the scriptures.

Again you've misrepresented the passage when I clearly have shown you the passage structure. Paul say Timothy knows from whom he was taught IE orally from Paul (Tradition) and Timothy knew scripture, all of which would make him wise to salvation. You've misapplied how all is used in this passage to include all of pauls writings the entire nt etc...

and as for Keeping on tract notice I have here is where our discussion began and you will find I haven't changed but you have.

Which means between the two of us you have shown yourself to be dishonest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are a dishonest man and your words prove it. You did in fact deny that "all scriptures" had any reference to Pauline epistles or the epistles of other apostles. You explicitly stated this had reference only to Old Testament Scriptures.

I haven't said anything apart from that that the scriptures to which Paul is refering is the OT. The verse previous as I quoted shows tradition. But of course sir you couldn't be honest in your evaluation. Shows your temperment really. The passage which states all scripture means OT. the passage previous refers to oral teaching. Please sir you're being laughable. Quick to call someone dishonest and misleading readers. For shame.

The facts are that Paul long before he wrote "ALL scriptures" had already acknowledged and qualified his own "epistles" as scripture = the word of God (1 Thes. 2:13 and 2 Thes. 2:19). YOU ARE THEREFORE WRONG in your interpretation of "all scriptures" because Paul wrote this at the END OF HIS LIFE and said "ALL" not "PART" as your explict words demand ("old testament scriptures").

Again jumping to other books which have nothing to do with Timothy and what Paul told him to assert your view of the truth is your style as I have shown. I'm certain Paul didn't refer to his letters to the Thessalonians when writing to Timothy and clearly in the passage before he points to his oral teaching. Again. You really need to keep up.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again you've misrepresented the passage when I clearly have shown you the passage structure. Paul say Timothy knows from whom he was taught IE orally from Paul (Tradition) and Timothy knew scripture, all of which would make him wise to salvation. You've misapplied how all is used in this passage to include all of pauls writings the entire nt etc...

and as for Keeping on tract notice I have here is where our discussion began and you will find I haven't changed but you have.

Which means between the two of us you have shown yourself to be dishonest.

"And it is not clear whether Paul at this point considered his writings on Par with OT Scriptures. Peter of course make an indication for Paul but its again unclear if Paul knew this at this time. So what is clear is that without a doubt Paul is referrencing OT scripture." - WM post #344

However, it is clear that Paul recognized his own epistles as the very Word of God or scriptures:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Because he previously said this to the same audiance:

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Note that "whether by word OR our epistle" claiming what he spoke as well as what he wrote was THE WORD OF GOD.

Now, the fact that he said "ALL scripture" forbids he means PART of scripture (Old Testament).

The fact that he said this at the END OF HIS LIFE demands he included at the very minimum "ALL" scripture previously written before his death.

HENCE YOU ARE WRONG in restricting the words "all scripture" to merely the old testament scripture.

HENCE YOU ARE WRONG when you say it is NOT CLEAR if he included his own writings

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm certain Paul didn't refer to his letters to the Thessalonians when writing to Timothy and clearly in the passage before he points to his oral teaching. Again. You really need to keep up.

You are certanly wrong and ignorant of history. Timothy was the pastor at Ephesus when Paul wrote this. Ephesus already had an epistle from Paul. Timothy had been present with Paul when he wrote Thessolonica and knew these epistles had already been written and knew Paul's claims in both epistles. Paul did not say "SOME scriptures" are given by inspiration but "ALL" scritpures are given by inspiration and Timothy knew Paul had already written many scriptures. YOU SIR ARE WRONG!

 

[Dr. Walter]

You've misapplied how all is used in this passage to include all of pauls writings the entire nt etc....

That is absurd! In other words, the man of God in verse 17 is no one but Timothy! That has to be your conclusion if "all scripture" refers only to the scripture that was used for the conversion and early instruction of Timothy?????

Paul is not describing merely the scriptures used in Timothy's conversion but "ALL scriptures" are by nature inspired of God and thus are by nature profitable so that the "man of God" not merely Timothy and not merely old testament scriptures.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is absurd! In other words, the man of God in verse 17 is no one but Timothy! That has to be your conclusion if "all scripture" refers only to the scripture that was used for the conversion and early instruction of Timothy?????

Paul is not describing merely the scriptures used in Timothy's conversion but "ALL scriptures" are by nature inspired of God and thus are by nature profitable so that the "man of God" not merely Timothy and not merely old testament scriptures.

It is clear in the Passage that Paul is speaking of Scriptures that were considered such (ie OT) and he differentiates that from what he personally has taught timothy. He is not referring to Thesselonians except in the context of what Paul has already passed on Orally to Timothy. You want to embelish the passage to include the entire NT. Wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"And it is not clear whether Paul at this point considered his writings on Par with OT Scriptures. Peter of course make an indication for Paul but its again unclear if Paul knew this at this time. So what is clear is that without a doubt Paul is referrencing OT scripture." - WM post #344

I haven't changed my position from this and continue to defend it.

However, it is clear that Paul recognized his own epistles as the very Word of God or scriptures:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Its funny you use passages that support my position. Read this passage again. Stand fast in what? The traditions you have been taught by our word or what we wrote. That is what this passage means. He does not call it scripture. He calls it what all apostles referred to their teachings. Tradition. Scriptures that are refferenced are the OT. Thank you for showing my point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is clear in the Passage that Paul is speaking of Scriptures that were considered such (ie OT) and he differentiates that from what he personally has taught timothy. He is not referring to Thesselonians except in the context of what Paul has already passed on Orally to Timothy. You want to embelish the passage to include the entire NT. Wrong.

So, you do believe "the man of God" in verse 17 is merely and only Timothy by context??? Indeed, you are forced to that conclusion as "all scripture" is the basis for saying that this "man of God" is thoroughly equipped in the areas defined in verse 16!

Again, you ignore the historical context of Pauls teaching Timothy. Timothy accompanied Paul throughout his missionary journeys and then became Pastor of Ephesus. He already had the epistle to the Ephesians. He was present when Paul wrote both epistles to the Thessalonicans.

Your interpretation is aburd. If it were reversed and I took such a interpretation I would be laughed off this forum. That is how absurd your intepretation. "ALL scripture" at this juncture in his life and in relationship with Timothy at this point in his life and in regard to "the man of God" in verse 17 is. This text cannot possibly be HONESTLY interpreted as "SOME scriptures" in direct regard to "the man of God" in this context or merely "Old Testament scriptures" - that is pure folly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Its funny you use passages that support my position. Read this passage again. Stand fast in what? The traditions you have been taught by our word or what we wrote. That is what this passage means. He does not call it scripture. He calls it what all apostles referred to their teachings. Tradition. Scriptures that are refferenced are the OT. Thank you for showing my point.

You desperately want to change the subject! I have never denied that the oral teachings of the apostles were inspired equally as their writings. I have only denied that they were the continuing basis for faith and practice due to their inherent inferiority to scriptures. That inherent inferiority is clearly stated by Peter in the words "MORE SURE" (2 Pet. 1:19) than current apostolic oral tradition (2 Pet. 1:16-18). Peter places scripture above oral apostolic tradition even while he is LIVING! Thus indicating clearly that written revelation supersedes oral revelation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see why written revelation is superior to oral and why written always supersedes oral - because oral cannot possibly be preserved accurately very long as demonstrated clearly by the "traditions of the elders" during the time of Christ and the apostles. This does not mean they should not attempt to preserve the oral traditions as given until they are given something "MORE SURE" but when they are given something "MORE SURE" it is because they no longer need to depend on fallible memory but have it in black and white.

If your position were correct, Christ and the apostles would quoting the elders equally with scriptures for establishing doctrine and practice BUT THEY DO NOT. Indeed, Christ and the Apostles condemn the oral traditions as perversions of God's word (Mt. 15; 1 Tim. 4:7-9) showing that the writtten Old Testament scripures were "MORE SURE" than oral traditions.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I love how Dr. Walter concludes his argument with the Bottom line as if it has been settled. Ha! Its clear he thinks people are way layed by his poor summery tactict to close his debate.

So let me summize. It is Dr. Walter who jumps around trying hard to connect books and passages that have nothing to do with the context of any particular one verse in scripture. It is clear it is he who uses this format to insert his already developed opinion of what the text, he thinks, should say like Luther saying Paul meant to say faith alone, but its not in the text. It is clear. I haven't departed from the text and clearly state what it is the text has said.

Sort of like this. I have found a command in scripture for suicide and I can prove it!

Matthew 27:5
5 … Then he [Judas] went away and hanged himself.

Luke 10:37
37…Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.


WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Will you at lesat admit that Peter regarded written revelation "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions?

A. Oral Apostolic Tradition - vv. 15-18

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.


B. MORE SURE written revelation - vv. 19-21

19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sort of like this. I have found a command in scripture for suicide and I can prove it!

Matthew 27:5
5 … Then he [Judas] went away and hanged himself.

Luke 10:37
37…Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.


WM

You are only exposing your own foolishness for several obvious reasons.

1. Your texts are totally unrelated to teach other (Jesus is the speaker in one but not in the author; judas is the subject in one but not in the other) but my scritpures are from the same author talking about the same subject - scripture (1 Thes. 2:15; 2 Thes. 2:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)

2. Timothy was his companion when he wrote the words in 1 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Thes. 2:19. but your texts have no such historical or contextual correlation with each other.

3. You cannot possibly make "the man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17 refer only to Timothy but that is exactly what you must do in order to restrict "all scripture" to merely Old Testament scriptures used to instruct Timothy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You desperately want to change the subject! I have never denied that the oral teachings of the apostles were inspired equally as their writings.

I haven't changed the subject! I never said you stated that the Apostles oral teaches weren't inspired. What I have asserted and continued to assert is that when the apostles are referring to their oral teachings its termed Traditions. When they refer to OT writings or prophesy they term it Scriptures which isn't a referrence to the NT writings.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Will you at lesat admit that Peter regarded written revelation "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions?

A. Oral Apostolic Tradition - vv. 15-18

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.


B. MORE SURE written revelation - vv. 19-21

19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This shows the deferrence of the Apostles to the direct word of God which comes from prophesy however don't mistake that takes away apostolic oral authority. This passage actually makes that clear. Note they give deferance to the direct word of God. But their direct teachings do not loose authority and work together with prophesy for a clearer understanding of what God communicates to us. This passage is easily understood. Trust us because we saw these things with our own eyes and heard these things with our own ears and if you can't believe us believe an already accepted authority, Prophesy. Or the direct word of God. Yet their authority still holds.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I haven't changed the subject! I never said you stated that the Apostles oral teaches weren't inspired. What I have asserted and continued to assert is that when the apostles are referring to their oral teachings its termed Traditions. When they refer to OT writings or prophesy they term it Scriptures which isn't a referrence to the NT writings.

2 Pet. 316 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.

Do you think Peter meant "all" when he said "ALL his epistles" or just some?

Again, you are proven wrong when you say the term "scriptures" never is used of apostolic writiings.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This shows the deferrence of the Apostles to the direct word of God which comes from prophesy however don't mistake that takes away apostolic oral authority. This passage actually makes that clear. Note they give deferance to the direct word of God. But their direct teachings do not loose authority and work together with prophesy for a clearer understanding of what God communicates to us. This passage is easily understood. Trust us because we saw these things with our own eyes and heard these things with our own ears and if you can't believe us believe an already accepted authority, Prophesy. Or the direct word of God. Yet their authority still holds.

You are side stepping the issue BECAUSE I have never denied equal authority. What I asked is did Peter regard the written scriptures as "MORE SURE"! They are equal in authority but not equal in lasting dependency and the reason is so patently obvious that a person must shelf their mind to avoid recognizing it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This shows the deferrence of the Apostles to the direct word of God which comes from prophesy

Where does the scripture teach that apostolic oral teaching is less direct than written revelation. Peter is comparing WRITTEN revelation to ORAL revelation not in regard to directness but in regard to STABILITY.

This is so obious that it is pathetic we even have to defend it. Look at the pathetic undependable condition of "the traditions of the elders" or oral teachings handed down to the Jews! They became a mess and yet Jesus went to the OLDER written revelation to establish doctrine and practice as did the Apostles demonstrating the written word is "MORE SURE" than oral traditions for dependable lasting source of authority for doctrine and practice.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

2 Pet. 316 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.

Do you think Peter meant "all" when he said "ALL his epistles" or just some?

Again, you are proven wrong when you say the term "scriptures" never is used of apostolic writiings.

Here you change the subject. I've already suggested and said Peter give some consession to Pauls writings. But I'm certain Paul isn't thinking of Peter's letter when writing to Timothy. Timothy's passasge still stands that Paul is certainly referring to the OT when speaking of all scripture. In the passage he already has mentioned his direct teaching. Or Traditions then he mentions Scripture (OT). You're jumping all over the place. Note the dating of 2nd Timothy and 1st Peter are around the same time period and to two different groups. Peter was most likely writen later because there are earlier dates for 2 Tim but not for Pet.