Scripture and Tradition

[Matt Black]

I am arguing from 2Tim 3 that "scripture IS SUFFICIENT for doctrine" as Paul states to Timothy even BEFORE the NT is completed.

You are the one arguing in effect "scripture is NOW STILL insufficient and was even MORE insufficient then before the NT was completed" -- how is it you ask ME to justify a "scripture is INSUFFICIENT" POV?

in Christ,

Bob

I'm asking you to state which Scripture is sufficient. The OT which the Bereans had? Genesis 1:1?

 

[BobRyan]

No misdirection. Let me spell it out to you:

1. SSers use Acts 17 as a proof-text for SS.
2. However, the 'Scriptures' referred to in Acts 17 cannot have been the complete Bible, since the NT had not yet been written, but rather the 'Scriptures' must have been just the OT

Indeed. In Acs 17 they use EVEN LESS scripture than we have today (the full 66 today) and SHOW THAT EVEN THEN "scripture was SUFFICIENT" to test Paul.

And this is in keeping with Paul's statement to Timothy about the scripture available to him "as a child" stating that even IT WAS sufficient.

These texts argue AGAINST your view that not only is OUR level of scripture (the full 66) STILL insufficient today - but how much MORE so was THEIR level of scripture (just the OT) INSUFFICIENT.

Instead of Acts 17:11 showing us that your POV is sustained in this test case it shows instead that MINE is. It is going 180 degrees in opposition to the direction you need it to go.

3. Therefore the SSers' argument that Acts 17 demonstrates the validity of the SS approach has the logical consequence of meaning that the OT (and in this instance the LXX) alone is sufficient.

A fact which I readily agree to -- and is PROVEN by the fact that we find NO NT authority writing during the completion of the NT texts and saying "SCRIPTURE IS NOT YET SUFFICIENT" --

The "insufficiency of scripture" was NEVER the basis or argument for NT texts!!

4. In which case the obvious question is "what's the point of the NT?"; maybe we should ditch the NT and return to Judaism

Here again we have a rabbit trail and red herring when it comes to the "Argument for tradition" because ONCE we see the argument fail based on the OT ALONE how much MORE DOES IT FAIL when the NT is added???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

So, I'm asking again, how much Scripture is necessary for salvation and matters of faith, doctrine and practice?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm asking you to state which Scripture is sufficient. The OT which the Bereans had? Genesis 1:1?

I have stated repeatedly that the Bereans had "scripture" which was at that time only the OT and is the SAME "OT scripture" that Paul references for Timothy in 2Tim 3 stating that EVEN when Timothy was a mere CHILD that "scripture" was "SUFFICIENT" for doctrinal proof and correction.

If THAT level of scripture was SUFFICIENT for the Sola-Scriptura practice that we see in Acts 17:11 "for which the NT writer says they were blessed" then HOW MUCH MORE is that authority "Scripture" to be deemed as "sufficient" when we consider that it is not at the level of 66.

ADDING the NT to that "sufficient" authorotative text did not "MAKE IT INSUFFICIENT".

Clarifying the problem here for the "authority from tradition" group based on Acts 17:11 is just getting worse for the case you are trying to make.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So, I'm asking again, how much Scripture is necessary for salvation and matters of faith, doctrine and practice?

And I say again - the level the Bereans had was "obviously" sufficient as NT authors tell us in BOTH Acts 17:11 AND in 2Tim 3 --- AND adding the 27 NT letter TO that "sufficient authority" does nothing to make it now "INSUFFICIENT".

Obviously.

(Another point to consider - as an SDA I am basically "bullet proof" when it comes to trying to get me to turn against the authorotative position of the OT text -- I am somewhat unique on this board in literally endorsing the continued authority of ALL 66 books to a degee that exceeds even what some others who accept the 66 might feel comfortable endorsing!

You keep coming back at me with this "OT is not really sufficient" argument like you think I already have a doctrinal basis for such a position -- I don't. You might do better with that argument if made in discussion with a church of Christ member)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Alright, let me rephrase the question for you, and this time I hope you'll answer it: how little Scripture is 'sufficient'?

 

[BobRyan]

I am going to stick with the level that we find in Acts 17:11. The OT was clearly sufficient to judge even Paul Himself.

Since my arguments are in fact "sola scriptura" I am confined to using actual Bible examples - not making stuff up.

So let's say for example that you go back to the time of the writing of Isaiah - and you wanted to make your case that BACK THEN and ONLY back then "sufficient was insufficient".

In that case I would take you to Isaiah 7 and 8.

So then you go back to the time of David and the writing of the Psalms...

But in doing so your argument would have to be "although scripture WAS sufficient as of Acts 17 AND so much MORE so today... there used to be a time many centuries into the OT period when it is theoretically possible that my argument might have held up".

Are you really willing to settle?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Nope If we are saying, then, that the OT alone - or even just part of the OT alone - is 'sufficient', then what's the point of the NT/rest of Scripture?

 

[bound]

I'm fine with saying the Scriptures are 'sufficient' but personally I need 'all' the help I can get. I'm not a minimalist Christian, I'm a maximalist Christian.

I also believe it's very important to understand that within the confines of 'Tradition' lies the very keys to a historical and consensual exegesis 'for' the Scriptures. This idea that Scripture and Tradition is somehow antithetical toward one another is not Biblical.

 

[BobRyan]

Nope If we are saying, then, that the OT alone - or even just part of the OT alone - is 'sufficient', then what's the point of the NT/rest of Scripture?

Actually the real question is "what is the problem"?

If the OT text of Acts 17:11 is "sufficient to judge the teaching of Paul" to those people and IF that very TEST shows that we ARE to listen to Paul. It is totally nonsensical to THEN say "Well the bible AFFIRMS Paul so we do not need to listen to Paul" -- which is your point above.

That argument does not work at all.

INFORMATION has value - TEACHING has value EVEN BEYOND a base level that is "sufficient" to determine right from wrong doctrinal positions.

Somone has a calculator and it works it is "reliable" trustworthy -- so why have MP super computers? just melt them all down?

The argument you are making does nothing to invalidate the fundamental role scripture plays even in Acts 17.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

So, what then if the 'very test' (to use your phrase above) in Scripture means that we are also to take heed of Tradition (as I've argued in the OP)*?

*Just as the Bereans, in addition to searching the (OT) Scriptures, were also to take heed of Paul's teaching

 

[BobRyan]

I have no problem with the idea of "Testing tradition" as we would test "doctrine" to see if it is in violation of scripture.

My argument is never of the form "all tradition is proven to be in violation of scripture"

 

[BobRyan]

I can use a ruler to measure the depth of water in my swimming pool to 8 feet.

I can not use the depth of water in my swimming pool to measure 8-ft lengths of board for cutting because the water level is subject to change -- the ruler is not.

I use scripture to judge doctrine and tradition. I do not use tradition to judge doctrine and scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I use scripture to judge doctrine and tradition. I do not use tradition to judge doctrine and scripture.

Just a quick question Bob; my wife’s aunt and uncle are SDA’s and about a year ago a conversation I had with her uncle he stated something to the effect that the Pope tell Catholics what to believe.

Then he made the comment that since becoming an SDA some 6 years ago, he’s learned so much from Scripture with the aid of Ellen G. White’s interpretation.

I thought that was odd, considering he just blasted the Catholics in regard to the Pope and then in not so many words, he seemed to put E. G. White in the same position.

So Bob is it really just you and the Bible or is it you, the Bible and the SDA tradition? What happens if an interpretation of Scripture you have conflicts with that of Ellen Whites’?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[BobRyan]

Any acceptance of tradition or acceptance of a prophetic claim/statement/teaching must be subjected to the rule of "sola scriptura" even if that statement is from a prophet such as Ellen White.

Basically - there can be no exceptions to the rule - and for SDAs that means not even Ellen White.

I may read a Bible exposition by Calvin or Moody or Spurgeon or Charles Stanley or Chuck Swindoll and find their insights to be brilliant and very helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of scripture. But "still" I do not use them as the judge of scripture - scripture is the judge of their teachings.

The same would go for Ellen White.

no exceptions.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[GodlyWoman]

I do hope people realize in the years following Christ and the putting together of the actual Bible all people had was oral tradition to go by. The Bible did't miraculously appear shorly after Christ ascended into Heaven following his resurrection.

Thre's absolutely NOTHING wrong with tradition. 2 Tessalonians 2:15 tells us to stand firm and to hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (New American Standard Bible)

If that's not referring to the traditions oral and written tradition that say is practiced in the RCC and other liturgical based religions then what does it refer to? The tradition ad fine art of bashing the RCC and other liturgical based religions and what they do and how it's blasphemy and goddess worship?

 

[BobRyan]

I do hope people realize in the years following Christ and the putting together of the actual Bible all people had was oral tradition to go by.

In Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

2Tim 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and profitable for..doctrine".

The scriptures existed.

 

[GodlyWoman]

In Acts 17:11 "They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

2Tim 3:16 "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and profitable for..doctrine".

The scriptures existed.

Christ said when he left he'd send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.

Christ used the Septuagint (Old Testament) when he walked on Earth. The actual Bible as we know it today was not complied immediate after Christ left Earth nor was it compiled within the first few 100 years or so after Christ left Earth. So, what did those people use? Yes, they had various scriptures, but not all scriptures since each scripture of the NT was written at varying times following Christ's departure!

Does this mean from the time Christ left Earth until the Bible as we know it today was complied that there were no true Christians on Earth? Please explain.

I gave you 2 Tessalonians 2:15 that said to stand firm and to hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (New American Standard Bible) . You gave me 2Tim 3:16. Who's scripture is more right?

If ALL scripture is, as you said, is given by inspiration from God and profitable for doctrine then why is 2 Tessalonians 2:15 being ignored here?

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said when he left he'd send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.

Christ used the Septuagint (Old Testament) when he walked on Earth.

Actually the Jews in Israel had access to BOTH the LXX AND to the Hebrew version of the OT which was well known even BEFORE the LXX.

This is what is consistently referred to by the NT writers as "scripture".

And for us today - that would be 39 books of the actual Bible that we have today - though they likely grouped and numbered them as 22 not 39... but it was the same letters - the same 39 books.

In Luke 24 we see Christ explaining the Gospel "throughout ALL of scripture"

So, what did those people use? Yes, they had various scriptures, but not all scriptures since each scripture of the NT was written at varying times following Christ's departure!

The fact that MORE letters were added to what was ALREADY accepted as scripture by the NT saints does not help your case when we see that even WITHOUT the 27 books of the NT they STILL could "Study the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

I gave you 2 Tessalonians 2:15 that said to stand firm and to hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (New American Standard Bible) . You gave me 2Tim 3:16. Who's scripture is more right?

There is no "which scripture is more correct" docrine in all of the Bible!

The point of "Sola scriptura" is not the "tradition does not exist" - rather it is that Tradition must be TESTED "sola scriptura".

Notice how Christ in Mark 7 "condemns tradition" that is in violation of scripture?

To assume that "all tradition must be good" is to err.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[GodlyWoman]

Notice how Christ in Mark 7 "condemns tradition" that is in violation of scripture?

Alright, but 2 Tessalonians 2:15 that said to stand firm and to hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (New American Standard Bible) .

So, in one area of the Bible it's condemned and in another part of the Bible it's encouraged. Which is it? Please englighten me.

I won't even dignify this with more of a response since you completely ignoired some of the things I said in my last post.