Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Either way it was the truth of Scripture.[ That is the meaning of the verse. There is no other meaning.
[QB]
Where does it say that in these verses--either the 2 Thess or 2 Tim passages? That's your assumption, but it is not the stated meaning of the verse (in either case).
I am afraid (for your sake) that it is. These truths are self evident. Search the Scriptures. Over and over again Paul admonishes Timothy to "take heed to the doctrine" which he has taught him, "to preach the word," to be a teacher..." etc. His whole life was centered around the Word of God. Paul even thanks God that the Word of God was instilled in Timothy's life from his childhood by his mother and grandmother. There is no assumption here. Compare Scripture with Scripture. The things that Paul taught Timothy were later inscripturated, written down in the Word of God. Some of those things may have been more expounded upon orally, but nevertheless based on the bible. This is not Tradition in any sense of the word. It is the Word of God. How could you say otherwise? What do you think Paul was teaaching Timothy? Aesop's fairy tales, perhaps??
Paul handed down the truth, or taught Timothy the truth. The same is true of any preacher teaching his congregation. He hands down the truth from the pulpit. A Christian ought to disciple other Christians from the Bible. This is nothing to do with tradition of any kind. It is a Biblical mandate better expressed in 2Tim.2:2
Again, I don't recall writing the word "tradition" being in 2Tim 2:2. And how does one disciple another from the "Bible" when the NT wasn't even finished, let alone collected and fixed in its final form? I'm not minimizing Scripture, but it is unwarranted to insert "Sola Scriptura" into either 2 Thess 2:15 or 2 Tim 2:2 because it's begging the question.
The principle of sola scriptura was demonstrated with other scriptures like Acts 17:11. It was LDB others that brought 2Thes.2:15 into the discusssion, as a red herring, thinking that because the verse has the word "tradition" in it, then it must needs refer to the Catholic Tradtion or Tradition of a Catholic nature. This is their verse to justify such tradition. The verse simply means that Paul handed down to Timothy the truth that was taught to him. The truth that was taught to him was the Word of God, not fairy tales. This truth is self evident. There was no "accepted tradition" that accumulated over a period of less than 30 years. Let's use a little common sense here. He "handed down" truth, the truth of the Word of God. He commanded Timothy to teach other faithful men the same way that he had taught Timothy--through the Word of God. Timothy had been with him on his missionary journeys. He had heard him preach, been taught the Word of God by him, was discipled by him.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
And where does it say in this verse--or anywhere else for that matter--that everything Paul taught Timothy (or anyone else) was going to eventually be written down ("inscripturated")?
Much of what Paul taught Timothy was inscripturated (see 1and 2Timothy), but not all. Timothy was his disciple that traveled with him on his third missionary journey. He was taught by Paul.
Paul told Timothy to take those things (the Bible not tradition) that he had taught to him, and in turn teach other faithful men, who in turn would continue to teach other faithful men. It is a principle of spiritual reproduction. It has nothing to do with Tradition.
Again, nowhere in that verse does Paul restrict the teachings he wants Timothy to pass on to only whathad been written down. You are once again begging the question.
I am not begging the question at all. I am not saying that it was ALL inscripturated or canonical, but that it was all Biblically based. I used the example of a preacher preaching to his congregation. Not every word he says comes straight out of the Bible. His duty is to explain and expound the Bible. This is what Paul did with Timothy. Paul was not in the business of teaching poetry and fairy tales. He taught Timothy doctrine from the Word of God, just as the Apostles did in Acts 2. "And they continued in the Apostles doctrine..."
The principle is again replicated in the Great Commission which tells us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. That is not Tradition. The gospel comes from the Bible. Disciples are discipled through the Word of God.
Sure it is Tradition. It's "handing down" the Apostolic message, the Gospel of Christ, orally. There was no New Testament in existence the time Christ spoke these words in AD 33. In fact there was no final, complete, fixed NT until the end of the 4th century. In fact, it was the Tradition that enabled the Church guided by the Spirit to determine which books to ultimately include or exclude from the Canon.
You have an exagerrated and misunderstood definition of tradition. When I obey the command of the Lord (the Great Commission) and go and tell others about the Lord, that is NOT tradition. It is obedience to the Word of God. There is nothing traditional about it. It is my obligation to Christ. Go, into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That is a command, not a tradition. In Acts 8 a great persecution fell upon the Christians, and so the message of the gospel was spread abroad, the Scriptures record. That is not tradition. That is the witness of the believers being forced by the hand of God to get out of Jerusalem and carry out the command of the Great Commission. There is nothing traditional about it.
I think you are the one that has a problem with Scripture, particularly its commandes to hold the "traditions" (paradosis) 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15. Trying to explain it away won't work since it's there in the Bible in black and white.
Yes it is there in black and white. Context means everything. What does the word mean. Truth handed down either written or orally. Paul handed down the truth of the Word of God both orally and in written form to Timothy. It did not take him centuries to do so. To believe that would do violence to the Scriptures. The meaning is very simple and obvious.
BTW, the canonization had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. The Apostles knew which books were inspired as they were written. As soon as the last book was finished, the Book of Revelation in 98 A.D., the Bible was completed. They didn't need the Catholic Church to have it's say in it. Read 2Peter 3. Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture, and apparently knew which ones were inspired and which ones were not. He also refers in the same passage to the writings of the Apostles, as being inspired, and just as important as the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The Apostles and early believers, contrary to modern day thinking, had the intelligence to know what God had given them as Scripture. There were false prophets around, to be sure. God had also given them the Spirit of discernment. They knew what was Scripure and what was not. The one thing they did not need was the heretical Catholic church.
DHK
