Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Being & Well-Being defined

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bump
    Probably not, just someone interjecting a point that confuses. Paul was indeed fallible, as he admits. But his words as quoted were indeed infallible. Non
    Message 1 of 107 , Jul 3, 2005
      Probably not, just someone interjecting a point that confuses. Paul was
      indeed fallible, as he admits. But his words as quoted were indeed
      infallible.

      Non sequitur posing as a red herring, I think. Otherwise you may notice the
      lingering odor from myself, Edgar, and any other former papist idolater.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>
      >
      > (Sniff, sniff...)
      >
      > You guys smell a Papist?
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "persons1n3"
      > <persons1n3@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > says the infallible Paul (1 Tim.3:15).
      >
      > Dear,... oh, I'm gonna call you Gary for now, you just correct me if
      > I'm wrong, k?
      >
      > I freely admit I need to brush up on some of my theology, but I'm
      > pretty sure Paul was not infallible. The Word of God, which the Holy
      > Ghost did move him to commit to writing, is infallible. But the man
      > Paul was as fallible as you are I or Cardinal Ratzinger.
      >
      > gmw.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Matthew Winzer
      ... 3:16 says the Scriptures are formally sufficient?
      Message 107 of 107 , Jul 7, 2005
        >>>Suit him (the Man of God), or are you
        saying this proves that 2 Tim.
        3:16 says the Scriptures are formally sufficient?<<<
         
        The point is, that when one finds something that will perfectly suits their purpose, they cease looking elsewhere, because what they possess is sufficient.  Likewise...  I had better complete the analogy: when the man of God finds that the Scriptures are fitted to make him perfect, he doesn't look elsewhere, because what he possesses is sufficient.
         
        >>>Which verse are you referring to? Correct me if I am wrong. but I
        see no distinction in 2 Thes 2:15. If you can show me a verse, I
        will se that the Protestant position is the correct / bibical one.<<<
         
        I am not referring to any verse at this point, but to the oral tradition itself.  I have now clarified this three times.  Tradition informs us of the canon of Scripture, according to RCism.  Well that tradition, by setting apart the canon of Scripture, has testified to the superiority of this revelation over all else.  Hence, if RCism claims the authority of oral tradition, Protestantism asks, what does the tradition teach?  It teaches that Scripture is superior to the tradition.  Why else would the tradition set apart a *canon*, or *rule* of faith and life?
         
        But let us turn to the much quoted 2 Thess. 2:15, and what do we learn?  We learn that the apostle tells them to hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word, or by his epistle.  What were these traditions?  Why, he himself has already told the Thessalonians in v. 5, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I *told you these things*?"  The tradition, therefore, which they are being exhorted to hold, is nothing other than what he had previously told them AND which he had revealed in this epistle, concerning the advent of the man of sin before the coming of the Lord Jesus.  It is not a case of the epistle teaching one thing, and the oral tradition adding what might be missing.  What was taught verbally is the exact same with what he taught in the epistle.  "These things" that he had told them, are the same things that he wrote to them about.  Thus there is no reference here to an oral tradition which teaches anything additional to the written revelation.
         
        Now the verse has been supplied, 2 Tim. 3:16, in favour of sola Scriptura; the oft-quoted verse in favour of an oral tradition parallel with Scripture, 2 Thess. 2:15, has been vindicated; and the oral tradition itself has been appealed to, in order to show that it bears witness to the superiority of Scripture.
         
        Yours sincerely,
        Matthew Winzer
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.