Sola Scriptura

Your only point here that seems viable is the murder aspect. However, Most christian denominations are guility of murdering others for their faith. Though admittadly the Catholic Chuch is the greater offender. as for the verses they do not say every age. You added to them. It specifically says a time will come and it did. Paul was a part of kill seeking to find christians toss them out of synagogues and have them killed. So you over bound your one viable point here.

 

I believe you are referring to another translation, one that makes the verse much weaker than what it really says. The Catholic translation tends to do that in this area. Look again at the KJV here:

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:

--All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; not some; not just what you want; not what the areas that you think, but ALL!
--It is verbally inspired: reaching to every word of the Bible.
--It is plenary inspired: meaning every part of the Bible; the Bible in all its parts is inspired, each and every word of it, written down accurately, recorded just as God wanted it to be recorded, nothing omitted, nothing added in the original MSS. He has also promised to preserve His Word for us.
--The preservation of His Word has never been through the RCC. We have over 5,000 existing MSS. The RCC is not the keeper of the Bible; it never was. Many times it was the destroyer of the Word of God, as in the Dark Ages, as in the days of Tyndale, and even in my early childhood days when all families were discouraged from reading the Bible. (Much like Islam does today)!

Not once does Paul say that. What is your chapter and verse for that?
ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable...
2 Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God...rightly dividing the WORD...
--We are commanded to study the Word of God, not Tradition.

Read what you just quoted! Do you have a problem with reading?
Continue in what you have learned and firmly believed...from...the sacred scriptures which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith (alone) in Christ Jesus.
--It was the Scriptures that taught them. It was the Scriptures that was the vehicle. Who taught the Scriptures to them? Lois and Eunice!

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
--Thank God for Godly mothers (parents) who are determined to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as these two were. There was no Tradition here, only the Word of God.

First, define "Apostolic Tradition".
Even from the Catholic Encyclopedia the definition of tradition that you try to squeeze into this verse doesn't fit. Pentecost was ca. 29 A.D. and this epistle was ca. 65 A.D. at the latest. In just 30-35 you claim to have (by Catholic definition) oral or written tradition passed on over the centuries from generation to generation. What kind of hokey-pokey is this that you try to tamper with Scripture with such word games. You define Tradition one way and then you have to re-define it another way to make it fit into Scripture! Ludicrous! You do the same thing with the word "worship". When the word doesn't fit solve the problem by re-defining the word--thus worship really isn't idolatry it is just another form of worship when praying to a dead person like Mary. If you have a problem with theology solve it by re-defining the words. Quite an escape route don't you think? Catholics have been doing it for centuries. It is nothing new.

Paul wasn't teaching "tradition" as defined by Catholics. He was teaching Biblical truth. That is what this word "tradition" means. It means the truth (from the Scripture) that I have taught you.

And he is wrong.
Paul was well aware of Isa.8:20

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

This man only shows ignorance.
The books to Thessalonica were not the first books to be written.
James had already been written; so had Matthew.
Nevertheless, that argument is moot. Timothy could take the OT Scriptures and preach a NT message just as Philip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

And the Bereans:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--A great demonstration of sola scriptura.
There was no need of anything other than the Scriptures to see whether or not Paul's words were true.

 

You act as if the church government was well established when in fact the early church took after the synagogue and then because of persecution had to move into secret places. Women held, initially, a significant role, presbyters were appointed, (rather than voted on), deacons were selected,(again no voting). Bishops were also selected to carry on the instructions of the apostles by the appointment of the appostles.(also no voting). Over time these things developed and looked different so your point on church government also becomes flat. Note that the churches were aware of each other and sent support to each other. A lot more unity than you indicate in your passage. Now when looking at the aspects of Apostacy the one that I can point to is the forbidding to marry. However, this is only required of the Roman clergy of the latin rite. Other rites can marry and Ministers already married converting to the Catholic Church becoming Priest also are allowed to remain married. And the Church doesn't forbid the laity to Marry. So does it really apply? Maybe. The Meats section does not. The Catholic church allows all sorts of meat to be eaten. The only time for refrain is during fasting periods. Like lent. This seems to be more targeted to SDA. So again the only real good point you have made here is the denial of marriage to priest.

 

Acts 17:11 comes to mind.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them (by the APOSTLE Paul) were so". This is THE highest form of sola scriptura testing for it subjects even the teaching of the Apostles themselves to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. Timothy was raised as a Jew not a Christian Jew.

2. Paul is affirming the text of scripture -- the OT in this case. So the tradition you are appealing to is Jewish tradition.

This has some error - but is correct in many ways.

2Tim 3 does show that the OT text was considered by the NT writers to be "sufficient" to lead to salvation.

But it does not say that all scripture was at an end.

Since even the RCC itself does not add new scripture beyond the writing of John - you cannot claim to use 2Tim 3 for "more scripture" in your "yes but more scripture was still to be written" argument for the context of 2Tim 3. (Which is pretty much the only place you can go with this text)

in Christ,

Bob

 

And yet - hopefully all agree here that the OT is never called an "apostate religion" by any NT writer. In Mark 7 Christ upholds the Word of God while condemning the man-made traditions of the Jewish leaders. In that sense they had created an apostate religion long before the time of Christ. But that condemnation was applied both pre-cross and post-cross.

Jews that rejected Christ were considered to be lost and in need of salvation.

While I have seen similar application made about the beast and the woman in Rev 17 to the Catholic church, it is still true that the Bible itself -- though in some cases used incorrectly by the Catholic church, is still considered the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, I don't believe I do Doc. I understand your train of thought but I wanted to point out the flaws in them for instantce.

Yes he did. By the Jews.

Possibly but John 8:40, 44 does not reflect it to all era's what this chapter does do is explain how judaism had become apostate. Specifically Judaism.

I'll take this as a compliment though its not meant as one. I'm not sure I agree with the whole of your argument but I will say certainly their belief that caused murder certainly was not governed by Christ but the world system.

Yes, and I think you go too far. Remember Ana-baptist of Zwigli came out of Rome as well.

You may think so but aux contraire.

 

It wasn't Congregational is lead by the congregation under a leader.

I didn't say they were the authority in the church you misrepresent me. I said prominant roles. Such as Pheobe and Junia and Pricilla etc.. were very prominant in the church. Pheobe does prove this point.

proves that they were appointed not elected by the apostles and leaders no less.

Proves again my point they were selected or appointed. primarily because each of the verse you have have nothing to do with selection of elders the last verse has to do with debating about circumcision from outsiders. the one before that shows the elders selecting barnabas or appointing him remember congregationalism the body leads and votes and apointments are given by popular opinion. Previous to that shows appointments as well (no voting). And the first has to do with an already established church at antioch. Remember Congregationalism emphasis in on the people as a whole and thus the body makes appointments but that is not what we see. The Apostles appoint the leaders who appoint the elders who appoint the deacons. Plus Paul felt free to teach contrary to an accepted teaching of that church and that would not be permitted in a true congregational setting.
4. The Church was congregationally ruled (Mt. 18:17 under elder leadership (Acts 1:15-17).

I did not mention anything about this one way or another don't know why you brought it up.

I didn't suggest this either.

I have I'm just showing you the errors in the suppositions you've supplied.

 

I never said they did you jumped to that conclusion. I said they were more unified whether all churches were equal (as I think) or not I did not say. But they had a unified belief.

 

I am arguing common sense you argue contrary to it. I'm not defending the Catholic Church so much as pointing out your errors. You seem to like tirades.

 

This is not true. It is recorded that Paul went to the synagogues first. He had that privilege. He, as his custom was, went to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. He would have given his life for the Jew. So great was his love for his own people (the Jews) that he could wish that his name would be blotted out of the book of life and them be saved instead (Romans 9:1-3: 10:1-3).
It is said that Paul was the most educated person on the face of the earth at that time. It is possible. He had a great standing before the Jews and Gentiles alike. It was still easy enough for him to gain entrance into the synagogues (unlike others). He was taught at the feet of Gamiliel, the best teacher of his time. He went to the best schools and had one of the best upbringings that life could ask for. He was one of the best and most learned Rabbis. People were glad to hear what he had to say. When Paul spoke people kept quiet as is evidenced in Acts 22:1,2.
It was not normal to meet in the synagogues. Paul could gain entrance into the synagogues only because his reputation preceded him. Others could not. They synagogue was exclusively for the Jews. Once a Jew became a Christian he was cast out of the synagogue and was allowed in no more. And much of the time it was thus was with Paul. When he got to the place of the resurrection, they threw him out, stoned him, persecuted him, chased him out of the city, etc. They would hear him no longer. Early churches did not meet in the synagogues. The Jews did.

It would be unheard of for women to hold any office of any kind.
They were not permitted even to speak in public but to keep silence in the church, and be submissive to their husbands at all time. It was not permitted for them to speak. If they even had any question they were to ask their husbands at home. There were no offices for women in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

A bishop is just another name for a pastor. It defines another aspect of his office--that of oversight. Paul on his three missionary journeys started approximately 100 journeys. I believe he recommended to the church who the Lord would appoint or choose, and the church would accept that recommendation. It would still be a church decision. Voting would be seen in the action of a disciplined man in 1Cor.5ff, when it took the action of the church as a whole to put out the man who had committed incest.

Only some churches were aware of the needs of others. That would be those in which Paul could keep in close contact with and visit often. Starting approximately 100 churches he could not go back and visit them all with his restrictions on travel.

It is specifically called "a doctrine of demons.

 

Dr. Walter, I agree with everything you have said in this post and I'm sure you thought your were answering the question I had asked:

However, my query had to do with how you got the idea that the faith constituted a written body of doctrine. It certainly does most prominently include sacred scripture but it also includes the unwritten tradition of the church that was passed down from the teachings of the apostles. Even some of your cited scripture shows this is true, and many of the early church fathers, including such prominent men as Athanasius, Iranaeus and Augustine, attest to the significance of tradition in church doctrine.