The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

[lori4dogs]

Care to elaborate? The only circumstances I can envisage are where it is a 'non-emergency' baptism and 'dirty' water is used (in an emergency, any kind of water can be used by anyone with the necessary intent eg: water from a puddle, even saliva(!) but in a non-emergency situation, that won't do) but I somehow can't imagine Presbies using dirty stuff to baptise...

But then again . . . they are Presbyterians! :laugh:

Matt: Isn't there are requirement in the Anglican Catholic Church that the water must run on the head? In other words, sprinkling with out the water running may invalidate the baptism. I had a conversation once with +++Brother John-Charles, SSF
regarding baptism and I seem to remember he mentioning this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But then again . . . they are Presbyterians! :laugh:

Matt: Isn't there are requirement in the Anglican Catholic Church that the water must run on the head? In other words, sprinkling with out the water running may invalidate the baptism. I had a conversation once with +++Brother John-Charles, SSF
regarding baptism and I seem to remember he mentioning this.

Go figure a Franciscan.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

For the record, I think the baptism discussion with its modes, et. is fruitless so I am just choosing to stay out that.

The more worthy topic is Justification, Sanctification, and final authority.

Matt, you wrote:

The first theory is commonly known by its Latin title, sola Scriptura (meaning ‘Scripture alone’) and states that Scripture and only Scripture should be used in matters of faith, doctrine and practice, and in particular the New Testament.

This is a very queer definition of the principle of Sola Scriptura. In my own words, the principle can be summed up in a word: Sufficiency. What the papacy and orthodox churches say in their rejection of this principle to themselves and others is that the Scirpture itself is not SUFFICIENT as a rule in matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. These groups teach that Christians must have tradition, or sacred tradition, as well.

Here is a sort of catechism by A.A. Hodge that states this idea well:

In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?
It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions. http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm

What I contend and protest against regarding the papacy and orthodox churches is that by their sacred traditions they add too the Scriptures and in many cases pervert the Scripture. The Pharisees did the self-same thing for which they were rebuked by Christ. Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

Matt, I stopped reading your post at the above quote because I think we are viewing Sola Scriptura differently. I will read your whole post after I post this, but I am assuming that because you have defined Sola Scriptura the way you have, your arguements will the run the line of your definition.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For the record, I think the baptism discussion with its modes, et. is fruitless so I am just choosing to stay out that.

The more worthy topic is Justification, Sanctification, and final authority.

Matt, you wrote:



This is a very queer definition of the principle of Sola Scriptura. In my own words, the principle can be summed up in a word: Sufficiency. What the papacy and orthodox churches say in their rejection of this principle to themselves and others is that the Scirpture itself is not SUFFICIENT as a rule in matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. These groups teach that Christians must have tradition, or sacred tradition, as well.

Here is a sort of catechism by A.A. Hodge that states this idea well:



What I contend and protest against regarding the papacy and orthodox churches is that by their sacred traditions they add too the Scriptures and in many cases pervert the Scripture. The Pharisees did the self-same thing for which they were rebuked by Christ. Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

Matt, I stopped reading your post at the above quote because I think we are viewing Sola Scriptura differently. I will read your whole post after I post this, but I am assuming that because you have defined Sola Scriptura the way you have, your arguements will the run the line of your definition.

I personally don't disagree with you. However, I've bolded the area's that the Catholics would have a contention with. Tradition from their perspective are those issues that have been commonally practiced from the time of the apostles. Tradition is often practiced and should show a consistency of practice over the years. For a Catholic this is key. Doctrine and Dogma are generally left alone or not defined until a challenge to accepted practices and norms occures. Then it is incumbant on the Catholic Church to make a defence of what has been accepted. Often to do this they first go to scripture then to practice recorded in History. Here is a quote from a Catholic

Some people have looked on the lack of a formal doctrinal definition as proof of a doctrine's nonexistence. They claim, for example, that Mary was not regarded as the mother of God until 431. The fact is that no one bothered to question her as the mother of God until 431 - John Vidmar, OP

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Matt:

The NT is many things – divinely inspired, infallible, containing rich theology etc, but it is not a comprehensive, “all-singing, all-dancing” guide to how to be a Christian, nor does it claim to be thus sufficient.

So, for some of us, then, the NT is not and cannot be the sole arbiter of matters of faith and practice. Indeed, that was the case with the Church in the first few centuries of its existence; in fact in many ways they were worse off than us in that respect.

Your first statement is a strawman argument, as I have proven above by the quote from A.A. Hodge. Sola Scriptura is a principle that does not claim to be comprehensive. It does claim to be sufficient and is in-line with Scripture which also states that Scripture is sufficient. Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

Furthermore, you have the example of the Bereans which refutes your second statement here and renders it rather disrespectful. Holy Scripture commends the Bereans for testing the Apostle's doctrine. Acts 17:11

I believe any Christian being told by the papacy to accept their traditions or the orthodox being told to accept theirs, the test for "if these things be so" is the Scriptures.

And what did these "poor" early Christians have? You speak as though they had no Scripture until the Church came along! Those worse off Bereans didn't seem to have the problems you think they had.

The Old Covenant Scriptures were sufficient for those Christians to test/judge the Apostle's doctrine, and the Old and New Covenant Scriptures are sufficient to test/judge papal and orthodox doctrines.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I personally don't disagree with you. However, I've bolded the area's that the Catholics would have a contention with. Tradition from their perspective are those issues that have been commonally practiced from the time of the apostles. Tradition is often practiced and should show a consistency of practice over the years. For a Catholic this is key. Doctrine and Dogma are generally left alone or not defined until a challenge to accepted practices and norms occures. Then it is incumbant on the Catholic Church to make a defence of what has been accepted. Often to do this they first go to scripture then to practice recorded in History. Here is a quote from a Catholic

I don't disagree that those who hold to their traditions do so believing that it is not contrary to or in addition to Scripture. I am sure the Pharisees who set aside the Law of God for the sake of their traditions didn't think they were acting contrary to the Scripture either.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think a Catholic would respond: "what came first? The practice or the Scripture?" You're thought on the barean's was good though which scripture would have been of interest since they were Hellenized Jews.

 

[Matt Black]

But then again . . . they are Presbyterians! :laugh:

Matt: Isn't there are requirement in the Anglican Catholic Church that the water must run on the head? In other words, sprinkling with out the water running may invalidate the baptism. I had a conversation once with +++Brother John-Charles, SSF
regarding baptism and I seem to remember he mentioning this.

I'm honestly not sure; the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer would seem to suggest that this is so (immersion, with effusion only if the child is 'weak', no mention of 'sprinkling').

 

[Matt Black]

For the record, I think the baptism discussion with its modes, et. is fruitless so I am just choosing to stay out that.

The more worthy topic is Justification, Sanctification, and final authority.

Matt, you wrote:



This is a very queer definition of the principle of Sola Scriptura. In my own words, the principle can be summed up in a word: Sufficiency. What the papacy and orthodox churches say in their rejection of this principle to themselves and others is that the Scirpture itself is not SUFFICIENT as a rule in matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. These groups teach that Christians must have tradition, or sacred tradition, as well.

Here is a sort of catechism by A.A. Hodge that states this idea well:



What I contend and protest against regarding the papacy and orthodox churches is that by their sacred traditions they add too the Scriptures and in many cases pervert the Scripture. The Pharisees did the self-same thing for which they were rebuked by Christ. Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

Matt, I stopped reading your post at the above quote because I think we are viewing Sola Scriptura differently. I will read your whole post after I post this, but I am assuming that because you have defined Sola Scriptura the way you have, your arguements will the run the line of your definition.

I don't think that my definition is much different from above but IMO it makes no difference for these purposes: even if one contends that Scripture is 'sufficient' in all matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, my contention is still that it isn't eg: the example I gave concerning ecclesiological structures (episcopal, presbyterian or congregational) shows that it isn't sufficient with regard to practice (and some might argue with regard to doctrine too), as does my example concerning number and frequency of church services etc

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What the papacy and orthodox churches say in their rejection of this principle to themselves and others is that the Scirpture itself is not SUFFICIENT as a rule in matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. These groups teach that Christians must have tradition, or sacred tradition, as well......What I contend and protest against regarding the papacy and orthodox churches is that by their sacred traditions they add too the Scriptures and in many cases pervert the Scripture. The Pharisees did the self-same thing for which they were rebuked by Christ. Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

First RB, you have to convince the class that ALL the Churches during the Apostolic Church age had a NT, just as we have today in 2009. I'll even challenge you to prove that ALL these new Churches even had a complete copy of the OT readily available.

There were NO Lifeway Christian book stores for the Apostles to run to and get a copy or no online Amazon for them to order from and certainly no Kinkos...not to be a jerk, but come on RB...use just a little common sense here.

It's a FACT, not every Church had copies of the OT, nor did every Church have a copy of what letters that make up the NT were already written. The letters, books and epistles were STILL being written as the Churches during the Apostolic Church age were being established and that's fact!

So, HOW did these Churches function? Did they do their own thing? How were they instructed?

The Early Church's had nothing physical to go back to and review...all they had was what the Apostles instructed them...orally...this is Holy Tradition...this IS what sustained the Churches throughout the Apostolic Church age...

Once the writings that make-up the NT became more accessible throughout the Churches, what safeguarded correct doctrine and kept heresy from entering the Church? Yep...Holy Tradition, that is, what has always been taught by the Church from the very beginning.

Holy Scripture is no doubt the inspired word of God and trust me RB, we Orthodox take Holy Scripture very seriously and hold these Scriptures sacred and show our respect to them every day. But still we are human and flawed and honestly RB, we can make Holy Scripture say whatever we want it to say and back it all up with Scripture references, but still that doesn't make it correct doctrine.

There has to be checks and balances...I can interpret the US Constitution, my Bill of Rights all day and make up my own laws...but how far will that get me?

In XC
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't think that my definition is much different from above but IMO it makes no difference for these purposes: even if one contends that Scripture is 'sufficient' in all matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, my contention is still that it isn't eg: the example I gave concerning ecclesiological structures (episcopal, presbyterian or congregational) shows that it isn't sufficient with regard to practice (and some might argue with regard to doctrine too), as does my example concerning number and frequency of church services etc

As with anything your entitled to your opinion. However, you should at least aknoweldge that the Scripture itself says its sufficient.

By your own logic and reasoning, the Apostle's themselves were not sufficient given all the division and contention and false teaching that went on in the churches they established!

 

[Matt Black]

Matt:




Your first statement is a strawman argument, as I have proven above by the quote from A.A. Hodge. Sola Scriptura is a principle that does not claim to be comprehensive. It does claim to be sufficient and is in-line with Scripture which also states that Scripture is sufficient. Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

And I, I believe, have demonstrated that it is not sufficient. If it is sufficient for all the matters which you claim, then there would not be these disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and covenanters, cessationists and charismatics, etc etc. The very fact that there are such disagreements in 'matters of faith, doctrine, morals and practice' demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

Furthermore, you have the example of the Bereans which refutes your second statement here and renders it rather disrespectful. Holy Scripture commends the Bereans for testing the Apostle's doctrine. Acts 17:11

You see for me the Bereans are something of a strawman: as Thinkingstuff has hinted, one has to ask what the 'Scriptures' were referred to here. They would not have included our New Testament because it had not yet been written (with the exception perhaps of one or two of Paul's early letters). And the OT they had would have been the LXX, complete with Apocrypha which most Protestants reject. So I'm not sure the Bereans are the commendable example you seem to assume.

I believe any Christian being told by the papacy to accept their traditions or the orthodox being told to accept theirs, the test for "if these things be so" is the Scriptures.

As interpreted by whom? You are probably going to come up with a different interpretation to me, and in turnI will produce an interpretation different to that of, say, DHK, and so on. How does that produce a 'test' that is in anyway reliable?

And what did these "poor" early Christians have? You speak as though they had no Scripture until the Church came along! Those worse off Bereans didn't seem to have the problems you think they had.

The Old Covenant Scriptures were sufficient for those Christians to test/judge the Apostle's doctrine, and the Old and New Covenant Scriptures are sufficient to test/judge papal and orthodox doctrines.

Hmmm...see above re the Bereans; I'm really not sure I buy the rest of your argument here either. The Church existed from the Day of Pentecost and it certainly didn't have any of the NT at that point. Gradually the NT came into existence over succeeding decades but it was only in the late 4th century - way, way after the last of the Apostles died - that the Church agreed on the contents of the NT. So it still begs the question - what did the Christians in the meantime have? And if you think what the Bereans had was adequate then, since they didn't have (or apparently need) the NT, perhaps we should likewise jettison the NT from our Bibles and just use the LXX...? Surely that's not what you're saying?

 

[Matt Black]

As with anything your entitled to your opinion. However, you should at least aknoweldge that the Scripture itself says its sufficient.

I'm not sure I do. What does it say it is sufficient for?

By your own logic and reasoning, the Apostle's themselves were not sufficient given all the division and contention and false teaching that went on in the churches they established!

With respect, you miss the point: the whole point of Apostolic authority was to maintain such order - which they and their delegated successors (eg Titus and Timothy) did.

 

[Matt Black]

By way of expansion on my penultimate post, I trust that our fellow-BBmember, Doubting Thomas, will not object if I quote from something he posted here many moons ago (one or two phrases may be paraphrased from his original):

That there are folks who have mutually contradictory interpretations--on what the Scriptures seem to teach on such vital issues as the nature of God and the nature of Christ--should not be surprising. The Apostle Peter warned in his Second Epistle that there were already those who were "twisting Scripture" to "their own destruction". The question is how do we know: (1) who are the ones "rightly dividing the word of truth", and (2) who are the ones "twisting Scripture to their own destruction"? For each group, as I have said on the first page, is convinced that they are practising the former, while those who disagree are potentially practising the latter. Who decides between them, and/or how does one know who is right?

I submit the answer to the "how" question lies in the Apostolic Tradition. This is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)

Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "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). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

As for the answer of "who decides?", it is obviously the CHURCH corporately. As Paul wrote to Timothy, the CHURCH is "the pillar and ground of truth". (1 Timothy 3:15). Christ commissioned His Apostles, the collective foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20), by breathing His Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), on them (John 20:22). The Apostles by the Spirit preached the Truth and established local congregations of the Church to whom they delivered the faith once for all (Jude 3) in "sound patterns of words" (2 Tim 1:13). Some of the Apostles by the Spirit also wrote inspired authoritative epistles and narratives to some of these same congregations. The Church in time, led by the Spirit, could finally come to a consensus on the limits of the Scriptural Canon--by determining which works conformed to the Tradition received ("sound pattern"), and those which, though claiming apostolic authorship, did not (ie Gnostic and Ebionite texts)

The Church (collectively), recipient of both the "sound pattern of words" and the Apostolic writings, could thus collectively judge truth from error. In fact, we see the Church doing just that even in those early years shortly after the Apostles left the scene. By the authentic Apostolic writings and the "sound pattern of words" (often later referred to as "the rule of faith"), expressed in hymns, catechesis, and short-summaries, the Church was able to determine what was heretical. So even in the ante-Nicene era (before Constantine allegedly "corrupted" and "counterfeited" the Church in the 4th century), the Church was able, for instance, to fend off false teachings such as claiming Jesus did not really come in the flesh (docetism), diverse teachings that matter was evil and that there were two (or even multiple) ‘gods’ (Gnosticism), that Jesus only became God’s Son at His baptism (adoptionism, principally propounded by Apollinarius ) and that the Trinity was really just one god expressed in three ways or ‘modes’ (modalism, put forward by Sabellius ) and authoritatively declare such teachings "heresy" based on the Tradition received from the Apostles. And in the Nicene era, when the orthodox party and the Arians were constantly throwing Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, it was on the basis of received Tradition that the Church was able to convict the Arians of "twisting the Scriptures" by teaching falsely concerning Christ. In short, the Church was able to determine which were heretical practices and beliefs because it was able to say, in effect, “Hang on a minute, this isn’t what we’re used to; we’ve never thought or done that before.”

 

[Matt Black]

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.

 

[billwald]

> However, you should at least aknoweldge that the Scripture itself says its sufficient.

Jesus, himself, stated that the teachings of Moses and the prophets were sufficient for salvation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just a thought about Scriptures. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Theselonians, Ephesians, etc... would his writings have been considered immediately scripture or where they determined scripture over time and with use?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And I, I believe, have demonstrated that it is not sufficient. If it is sufficient for all the matters which you claim, then there would not be these disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and covenanters, cessationists and charismatics, etc etc. The very fact that there are such disagreements in 'matters of faith, doctrine, morals and practice' demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

Believe what you will, but I have refuted your confidence. The first churches established while the apostles were still alive were riddled with conflict, division, and different teaching other than the Apostle's doctrine. That is a fact even you can't deny. So your "proof" fails.

You see for me the Bereans are something of a strawman: as Thinkingstuff has hinted, one has to ask what the 'Scriptures' were referred to here. They would not have included our New Testament because it had not yet been written (with the exception perhaps of one or two of Paul's early letters). And the OT they had would have been the LXX, complete with Apocrypha which most Protestants reject. So I'm not sure the Bereans are the commendable example you seem to assume.

Who said they would include NT Scripture? The Bereans search the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's doctrine was correct. They WOULD NOT have consulted any NT Scripture, whatever may have been written. It was that which they were judging! And by what did they judge it by? An infallible Jewish Magesterium? Traditions they held to be sacred?

You know the answer. And to bring up the Apocrypha in this discussion is to just divert the focus of our discussion. It shows the weakness of your argument and position.

As interpreted by whom? You are probably going to come up with a different interpretation to me, and in turnI will produce an interpretation different to that of, say, DHK, and so on. How does that produce a 'test' that is in anyway reliable?

This is the argument made by all such who have a interpretor for them rather than private judgment. Implied in its argument and often stated (just not here) is that private judgment is bad. Says who?

As A.A. Hodge put it so well:

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.

Basically, the argument is stupid.

Hmmm...see above re the Bereans; I'm really not sure I buy the rest of your argument here either. The Church existed from the Day of Pentecost and it certainly didn't have any of the NT at that point. Gradually the NT came into existence over succeeding decades but it was only in the late 4th century - way, way after the last of the Apostles died - that the Church agreed on the contents of the NT. So it still begs the question - what did the Christians in the meantime have? And if you think what the Bereans had was adequate then, since they didn't have (or apparently need) the NT, perhaps we should likewise jettison the NT from our Bibles and just use the LXX...? Surely that's not what you're saying?

Careful now, by saying your not "buying it' is to make a private judgment!

Your logic is doing backflips. When Jesus referred to the Scriptures and help men accountable to them, to what was He referring? And where in the world do you garner the idea that the Church began at Pentecost? You speak as though the Covenant of God with His people began with Jesus!

You ask a ridculous question about jettising the NT from our Bibles, but should I say that you suggest ignoring 4000 years of redemptive history through the prophets and Moses?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm not sure I do. What does it say it is sufficient for?

With respect, you miss the point: the whole point of Apostolic authority was to maintain such order - which they and their delegated successors (eg Titus and Timothy) did.

With respect, you have missed the point. I am not the one looking at differences among non-papal and non-Orthodox (institutional) churches and siting their differences as examples of how Scripture is not sufficient!

What I am saying, and you are not denying, is that there were divisions with the very churches they established.

Furthermore, the differences among most Protestant and Evangelical churches are minute. And their unity is vast and wonderful. You probably suppose that there is division between, say, myself as a Baptist, and my Presbyterian brethren. There is not. Do we differ on some important matters of doctrine? Sure. Do we therefore have no unity? God forbid.

Perhaps you suppose unity is unquestioned submission to a pope, or to some teaching authority, papal or otherwise. Who says that is unity?

Let me personalize this. You are as one who is coming to me to say, "You must have tradition and your Scripture. Your Scripture is not sufficient for you." By what measure do I reliquish myself to such a view? All I have outside of myself is the Scripture themselves. So I am going to use them to jude your doctrine.

But you say, that is using your private judgment. Well, I say I would have to use my private judgment to give up my private judgment! So your argument, as Hodge said, is baseless and I would add, stupid.

As to what the Scriptures teach regard their sufficiency, I have given you the references. You read them. What do they say?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

Here is how your argument fails.

All of your points are rooted and ground in Scripture except your conclusion. Apostolic Succession is not proven from the Scripture you have used, as though there are still Apostles today or that these so-called successors carry the same authority as Apostles.

1. You are, as many do, separating oral tradition from written tradition andascribing authority to oral tradtion. As Hodge said, "The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7."

2. History has shown that those ascribing authority, either infallible or others, to their traditions, put their tradition before and against Scripture.

3. The entire argument you make must depend on an unbroken succession which is impossible to prove.

4. The traditions now held by romanists and orthodox were unknown for the first 300 years of the church.