[Tj3]

But here's what this doesn't say: It doesn't say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It doesn't say that there is nothing to be learned except from the Scriptures.

If it tells us everything that we need to know for salvation and to be fully equipped as a Christians, what do you think God neglected to add? Please be specific - what is deficient about scripture?

[Akoue]

Traditions not written in scripture? Then you have man made tradtions ..

Not at all. Scripture itself (as I have shown) refers to Tradition that is not written in Scripture. Tradition is every bit as much the word of God as Scripture is. Scripture even tells us so.

(abiding in traditions that are written in scripture are to be held stedfast)

We are to abide by and uphold the whole of God's word, whether it is written in the Bible or given to us by Tradition. None of God's word is dispensable.

Exartly the scripture which is complete.. scripture is the complete authority.. because God is the authority in all that is written.

I'll do you one better: God is the authority in all that is written and all that is not written. As I've pointed out more times than I can count (and I've provided lots of Scripture to boot), oral Tradition is part of God's revelation; it, like Scripture, is authoritative in matters of doctrine and discipline. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that it is the sole authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. And I have shown you Scripture that affirms the authoritativeness of oral Tradition.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

note to profitable:

See my discussion of this passage in my response to Tom a couple of posts ago.

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

God called according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given in Christ Jesus before the world began.. (2 Timothy 1:9)

I haven't said anything that is at odds with this.

So if you are saying the traditions that are written in scripture then we agree.



If you hold to scripture which oral traditions were then writtenin scripture, and shown to ensample us.. Then we agree , but you are not saying that...

I am saying that we must abide both by what is in Scripture and what God chose to reveal by way of oral Tradition. Again, I have provided numerous Scriptures which affirm that we are to abide by and uphold oral Tradition as well as Scripture. So, no, I am not saying that we are only beholden to what is written in Scripture. I am saying that we are beholden to all of God's revelation, whether contained in Scripture or in oral Tradition. Christ taught orally; the Apostles taught both orally and by writing; we ought not to reject any of what they taught, whether they wrote it down or not.

[Akoue]

If it tells us everything that we need to know for salvation and to be fully equipped as a Christians, what do you think God neglected to add? Please be specific - what is deficient about scripture?

It precisely does not say that Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation. Neither does it say that Scripture provides us with everything that we need to know in order to be "fully equipped as Christians". It says that it is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It is these--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--that "fully equip us". It doesn't say that Scripture is sufficient, all on its own, for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It says that Scripture is profitable for these. Notice also that it doesn't say that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness are sufficient for salvation; it says that these are sufficient for doing good works.

I don't think God neglected anything. I think it is quite clear that you have misunderstood what God is saying here. Apparently you think that this should say that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. But it doesn't say that at all, as you have repeatedly been shown.

So I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient. It is perfectly suited to be what it is: A standard of truth and an authority in matters of doctrine and discipline, ordained by God to function with and alongside Tradition.

I have now repeatedly answered your questions. Are you ever going to answer mine? Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? Why do you reject all that God has revealed to his people through the medium of Tradition? Do you feel that God erred in providing is with Tradition in addition to Scripture? Did Jesus and the Apostles err when then taught orally? Should Christ have written a book rather than preaching to the people of the Galilee? Why do you think it beneath you to obey Scripture when it tells us to honor the authority of Tradition and to uphold it and abide by it?

[JoeT777]

That is the topic of this thread (look at the title).

Yes, sola scriptura is the topic -- Scripture as the standard. And I have responded.

No the proposition asks what is 'standard'. The question deliberately omits the assumption that 'standard' means 'sola scriptura'

Then it goes on to ask what is the definition of 'standard' and asks what it might be. 'Standard' doesn't exist in this context in 'Church doctrine' nor does it appear in Catholic literature. Frankly, I don't have anything with which to compare 'standard'.

JoeT

[Tj3]

It precisely does not say that Scripture tells us everything we need to know for salvation.

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Neither does it say that Scripture provides us with everything that we need to know in order to be "fully equipped as Christians".

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

I don't think God neglected anything.

I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

Then it is complete.

I have now repeatedly answered your questions.

Not true

Are you ever going to answer mine?

I have repeatedly.

Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.

But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?

[JoeT777]

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

When this statement was made, there was no New Testament. Then we can conclude that the Septuagint makes us wise for salvation. But, nowhere in the statement does it say that it and it alone it authoritatively authenticates Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

This makes a case for 'good works' is that the intent. But, again it doesn't authenticate the Scriptures nor does it say 'Scriptures is the sole arbiter of God's revelations to man'.

I don't find Scripture to be at all deficient.

Then it is complete.

More disingenuous gamesmanship, this is far from honest discussion, but expected. Scripture is complete as God wanted in the time that it was written. Since then God has revealed through the Church other revelations, such as the Trinity.


Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? Christ commissioned the Church of Jesus Christ, why do you find Her unworthy of you?

JoeT

[Tj3]

When this statement was made, there was no New Testament.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

- Are you trying to say that you are not aware of the books of the NT that were written at this point in time?

- Are you claiming that the NT is not scripture?

- Are you claiming that when God inspired this that He did not know that the NT was part of His overall revelation?

- Are you claiming that the OT does not provide adequate revelation?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your point.

Then we can conclude that the Septuagint makes us wise for salvation.

You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not aware that it is only a translation.

This makes a case for ‘good works’ is that the intent.

Good works as a result of what God works in us after we are saved, I agree.

But, again it doesn’t authenticate the Scriptures nor does it say ‘Scriptures is the sole arbiter of God’s revelations to man’.

It does not say that it provides everything that we need to know about salvation and make a man of God complete and thoroughly equipped.

What do you think that God missed?

Why don't you explain why you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you?

First, why do you mis-represent what I have said? Is that the only way to defend your position?

Christ commissioned the Church of Jesus Christ, why do you find Her unworthy of you?

I don't. But the true church is not a denomination as you seem to believe it is.

[Akoue]

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Right. Where in this pericope do you find it saying that Scripture teaches us everything we need to know about doctrine and discipline? Rather than repeatedly quoting a passage you have been shown to misunderstand, why don't you try explaining how from this you get the idea that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Is it because you have nothing to say in defense of your interpretation. (And yes, we have established that it is very definietly an interpretation.)

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Yes, as we've seen, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly and completely equip us for good works. Scripture, as it tells us in the bit you've edited out, is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Then it is complete.

It is not deficient. It is perfectly suited to complement Tradition, as Tradition is perfectly suited to complement Scripture. Here's what is deficient, though: Your use (which is really a misuse) of Scripture to the neglect of Tradition. It is your use, and hence your understanding of Scripture that is--and has been shown to be--deficient.

If by "complete" you mean that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people and the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline, then no, Scripture itself tells us that is it not complete in that way when it affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold and abide by it.

Not true

I've done little else in my recent posts than answer your questions. If you feel that I have not, then you should indicate which questions you believe me to have left unanswered. Otherwise, this just looks like still more petulance.

I have repeatedly.

You haven't answered the questions I posed in my last response to you. You haven't addressed the passages I adduced in post #28. You haven't given any Scriptural justification for the canon of Scripture you use. In fact, I can't off the top of my head think of any substantive questions of mine that you have answered. This is something other posters have also pointed out to you, so I know it isn't just me. Honestly, your avoidance says a good deal more than you might like it to. Let's put this to bed: Why don't you indicate the post #'s of your answers to my questions. You've urged Wondergirl to read back through the thread. Why don't you take some time to read back through the thread and make a list. Then you can post it. Be sure to indicate the posts where you take yourself to have answered my questions, all the questions you have posed to me which you feel I have ignored, and include your answers to any questions I have asked of you and which you have yet to answer. It will be a good little discipline for you. Help you get centered.

That is not a question - that is a misrepresentation.

How is it any less reasonable a question than you're asking me why I find Scripture to be deficient? (In fact, you put it in a rather more petulant way than that.) You have rejected the authoritativeness of oral Tradition, despite Scriptures unambiguous affirmation of it. Why do you find God's Tradition to be unworthy of you? And why do you choose to disobey the Scriptures by rejecting oral Tradition?

But the real question is why do you want to add to God written word with man's tradition?

I don't. I want to do what Scripture repeatedly requires: I want to honor God's Tradition. I have no interest in traditions of men, you know, like sola scriptura.

Now, since 2Tim.3 doesn't give credence to your man-made tradition of sola scriptura, perhaps you ought to spend some time thinking deeply about the numerous Scriptures which affirm the authority of oral Tradition and instruct us to uphold and abide by it. Your error has been shown to you. What you do with that is up to you.

[Akoue]

You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not not aware that it is only a translation.

I can think of at least one great reason to be hung up on it: It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation". I'm also sure you know that early Christians did not regard it as "only a translation": It was the preferred version of the OT for the reason that it was felt that, after the advent of Christianity, the rabbis removed and altered numerous verses of the OT in order to undermine Christians' claim that Christ was the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

I'm sure you know all that. I mention it only for the benefit of those who may read this thread and who are unaware of it.

[Tj3]

Right. Where in this pericope do you find it saying that Scripture teaches us everything we need to know about doctrine and discipline?

Please read it.

Yes, as we've seen, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness thoroughly and completely equip us for good works. Scripture, as it tells us in the bit you've edited out, is "profitable" for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.

It is not deficient.

Then it is complete

If by "complete" you mean that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people and the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline, then no,

Read what it says:

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Does it say partly equipped? Does it say not equipped? Does it say that he is almost equipped?

Scripture itself tells us that is it not complete in that way when it affirms the authority of Tradition and instructs us to uphold and abide by it.

This is what I was saying earlier. Scripture says that it provides what it needed, you say not. But when asked what it is missing, you won't tell us.

You haven't answered the questions I posed in my last response to you.

You mean your mis-representations? Why do you feel that I must defend what I post as a strawman to mis-represent my views?

Honestly, your avoidance says a good deal more than you might like it to.

Your abuse says a great deal more. If a person really felt that they were in the right, abuse would not be required. Mis-representations would not be required.

How is it any less reasonable a question than you're asking me why I find Scripture to be deficient?

You said that it is not complete. You said it in your last post even. It is only when you are asked what it is missing that you deny it.

[Tj3]

I can think of at least one great reason to be hung up on it: It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation".

So you think that the OT was originally in Greek?

[Wondergirl]

It had nothing to do with sola scriputra. I just thought I read something of a distinction between Lutherans and Protestants in your previous post. Apparently I wasn’t reading it correctly or was reading too much into the statement: “Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones”

What was trying to say was that, not only are there Protestant divisions (of which one is Lutheran), but even the Lutherans are divided.

[Wondergirl]

So you think that the OT was originally in Greek?

You're kidding, right?

[Tj3]

You're kidding, right?

It is not me who is saying that the Septuagint is something more than a translation of the Bible.

[Wondergirl]

It is not me who is saying that the Septuagint is something more than a translation of the Bible.

No one said that. This was said about it:

It was used by Christ and the Apostles and is repeatedly quoted and referred to in the NT. And I'm sure you know that first century Jews did not regard it as "only a translation".

[Akoue]

Please read it.

Mindless repetition isn't going to change what it says. It isn't going to make it say what it doesn't. And what it doesn't say is that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. And it makes perfect sense that it doesn't say that since, as the dozen or so verses I provided in post #28 make evident, Scripture isn't the sole authority and standard of truth. It shares that honor with Tradition.

It seems that you focus in on that one word and ignore the rest of the passage.

Not at all. I've explained the entire passage several times now. You appear to be having difficulty coming to grips with the fact that it doesn't say what you want it to.

Then it is complete

Nope, not in the sense of "complete" that you have in mind. It isn't the complete revelation of God, it isn't by itself complete as the authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline. It is the perfect companion of Tradition, just as it was intended to be. And so it isn't deficient either. It is the perfect complement to Tradition, as Tradition is the perfect complement to Scripture. Do you find that God's Tradition is dispensable or inadequate? If not, why not acknowldege it?

Read what it says:

2 Tim 3:16-17
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Does it say partly equipped? Does it say not equipped? Does it say that he is almost equipped?

No, it says that doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--those things for which it says Scripture is profitable--make one completely and thoroughly equipped to do good works. Have I not said it enough times yet? Are you insisting on repetition because you know it will get the thread closed?

This is what I was saying earlier. Scripture says that it provides what it needed, you say not. But when asked what it is missing, you won't tell us.

Scripture doesn't say that it provides all that is needed. 2Tim.3.16-17 says that what is needed is doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and that Scripture is profitable for these.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is missing". If you mean, What else is there for us to know in addition to what is contained in Scripture? then my answer is this: What Scripture refers to when it refers to oral Tradition.

You said that it is not complete. You said it in your last post even. It is only when you are asked what it is missing that you deny it.

Scripture contains all that God intended it to contain. Tradition contains all that God intended it to contain. Together they contain all that God has chosen to reveal to his people.

[JoeT777]

What was trying to say was that, not only are there Protestant divisions (of which one is Lutheran), but even the Lutherans are divided.

Yeah I got it! I know about subdivisions, planned developments, and all kinds of zoning issues.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

- Are you trying to say that you are not aware of the books of the NT that were written at this point in time?

- Are you claiming that the NT is not scripture?

- Are you claiming that when God inspired this that He did not know that the NT was part of His overall revelation?

- Are you claiming that the OT does not provide adequate revelation?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your point.



You seem hung on on this specific translation of the Bible. I have asked you why but you won't answer. Maybe you are not not aware that it is only a translation.



Good works as a result of what God works in us after we are saved, I agree.



It does not say that it provides everything that we need to know about salvation and make a man of God complete and thoroughly equipped.

What do you think that God missed?



First, why do you mis-represent what I have said? Is that the only way to defend your position?



I don't. But the true church is not a denomination as you seem to believe it is.

This thread was spacifically started so you could define for us what "standard of Truth" is. You've yet to do it. Can we define it ourselves?

JoeT

[Tj3]

No one said that.

Deny if you wish.

[Tj3]

Mindless repetition isn't going to change what it says.

Exactly my view. I would a[ppreciate it if you would start interacting on the points at hand.

Scripture isn't the sole authority and standard of truth. It shares that honor with Tradition.

Saying it does not make it so.

Not at all. I've explained the entire passage several times now.

You have told us what you believe, but you have not addressed the questions put to you regarding what it actually says.

Nope, not in the sense of "complete" that you have in mind.

We are making progress - for once you admit that it says "complete" :)

It isn't the complete revelation of God, it isn't by itself complete as the authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

You opinion does not hold the same authority as scripture.

Once again, what exactly do you think scripture is missing? In what way is it deficient?

Do you find that God's Tradition is dispensable or inadequate? If not, why not acknowldege it?

I answered this before - God tradition is written down in scripture. Now, what do you
Think God left out of scripture? In what way is it lacking?

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is missing". If you mean, What else is there for us to know in addition to what is contained in Scripture? then my answer is this: What Scripture refers to when it refers to oral Tradition.

Oral tradition is not mentioned in scripture as separate from the written word of God. And you did not answer the question. What specifically (specifics doctrine, specifics of the gospel, what exactly) is missing from the Bible that you believe is essential?