The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

That plainly isn't what Paul is writing to Timothy (3:16,17) nor to us. What Paul wrote was that the Scriptures are sufficient for ALL matters of faith and life, not just "eternal life". The inspired written Word of God as revelation is where God has given believers all that is necessary for both justification, sanctification and the hope of eternal life. Every matter for life and eternity is contained therein either by direct command or in principle.

I can't recall anywhere where the Lord Christ is referred to as "inspired". Could you point where you find this in Scripture, please? Secondly I have to assume that your references to 1Tim 18; 2:13 were not what you really wanted to refer to since neither has anything remotely to do with "oral tradition". You keep asserting that oral tradition is on the same level and authority of the inspired written Word, i.e., the Scriptures, but nowhere have you provided any indication that this is so. And where is this oral tradition? Do you have copies of it?

And, returning to "oral tradition", it seems to me that it was God's intention to preserve the inspired written Word and nothing else otherwise Jh 20:25; 1Jh 1:4; Lk 1:24; Acts 1:1, et al carry no weight. There is no possible way to discern what was actually done nor said by Christ, the Apostles concerning God's will outside of Scripture.

I disagree. The Scriptures are self-interpreting, aka: Scripture interprets Scripture. That men are to make use/apply the teachings of Scripture is not in dispute. We are to practice exegesis vs eisogesis, i.e., to bring our own ideas to the Bible and therein try to justify/prove our presuppositions. That certain men have been given a greater measure of understanding as gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church again is not a matter of dispute. But they too are to be judged according to what the Scripture says by ALL. This is possible since ALL true believers are given the same Spirit through and by Whom the Scriptures are to be read, understood and applied. Even Paul recognized this fact and counseled the Bereans to judge his teachings from the Scriptures. (cf. Acts 17:11; cp. Jh 8:31)

What I perhaps should have said is that the record of what the Apostles spoke as recorded in Scripture was inspired. There was no "oral tradition" only the inspired writings which record all that God intended for the Church to know. Not everything the Apostles spoke was "inspired" as in theopneumotos, i.e., inerrant and infallible and with full authority from God. For we have recorded instances where Peter, for example, spoke wrongly or acted sinfully. But the record of these events is inspired.

What does that have to do with Apostolic Succession? Re: the referenced passage speaks nothing of the Apostles continuing to be actively involved in the Church. Rather, even a cursory reading of the three places where this text appears (Matt 22:32; Mk 12:27 and Lk 20:28) reveals that Jesus was referring to the resurrection of the dead in answering the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.

Re: Ephesians 2:19-22 where you state that it "says nothing against Apostolic Succession but indeed it does as explained. The Apostles were called to establish the new covenant Church and to equip men to carry on. The foundation was laid, Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. The edifice, aka: Church was built UPON that foundation. There is no need for a continued building of the foundation.