Body: | Extra-Biblical Oral Tradition Arguments Refuted:
Click to View
"2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession and oral tradition."
False arguments that Catholics and Orthodox use to prove oral
extra-scriptural church tradition are refuted.
Click to View
Sola Scriptura home page
Click to View More Pro-Oral Church tradition arguments refuted!
Click to View "2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession and oral
tradition."
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many
witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others
also. 2 Timothy 2:2.
"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced
of, knowing from whom you have learned them" 2 Timothy 3:14.
Click to View
Refutation of the false Catholic & Orthodox tradition argument:
"2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession and oral tradition."
Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 2:2 does not prove apostolic succession and the
need for extra-Biblical oral tradition .
This verse would likely refer to oral revelation from Paul's
inspired mouth to Timothy, but it says nothing about apostolic succession.
But lets not forget that Paul had written 13 other letters before 2
Timothy, which was his last. We must include Paul's writings in this
command.
If this text was the basis for succession, then it would mean that
Timothy was Paul's successor. This is nowhere recorded in tradition!
In 2 Tim 2:2, we have the famous 4 generation discipleship passage:
1. Paul 2. Timothy 3. Faithful men 4. Others. However that which is taught
is identical with scripture, even if it was revealed originally as an oral
tradition. What was taught within these four generations may have included
oral revelation, but this oral doctrine was also taught in scripture. For
Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders who see the succession of Bishops or
the Pope, look elsewhere! First, the one's who were to be entrusted were,
"faithful", not Bishops. Timothy was not a Bishop, was he to chose the next
bishops to entrust the oral tradition to them? Second, the office of one
bishop over the presbytery, did not exist until after 150 AD. Diocesan
bishops, where one bishop was over another did not exist until 250. (Click
here for proof.) So to suggest this passage teaches succession in any
Catholic or Orthodox way, is vacuous.
Where was Timothy a bishop, who succeeded him? Shouldn't Timothy
have been a bishop at Rome if this teaches succession? The tradition that
Timothy was bishop of Ephesus is very late and most scholars believe it is
a fabrication. The Orthodox church, with nothing else, just blindly accept
it at true. No tradition says that Timothy was Paul's successor. We have no
line of successors in history either. Why didn't Paul make this claim of
succession to someone who was to be bishop of Rome. And why didn't Peter
make this statement?
Finally, it is indeed odd for Roman Catholics to claim this verse
teaches succession when the church at Ephesus, where the fabricated
tradition says Timothy was bishop, is under the umbrella of the Greek
Orthodox church. If I were Roman Catholic I would never use any verse that
implied Timothy was specifically included in succession of any kind.
Click to View More Pro-Oral Church tradition arguments refuted!
Click to View More Anti-Sola Scriptura arguments refuted!
by Steve Rudd
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|