False arguments that Catholics and Orthodox use to prove oral extra-scriptural church tradition are refuted.

"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.

Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 2:2 does not prove apostolic succession and the need for extra-Biblical oral tradition .

1. 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.
2. If this text was the basis for succession, then it would mean that Timothy was Paul's successor. This is nowhere recorded in tradition!
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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.

More Pro-Oral Church tradition arguments refuted!

More Anti-Sola Scriptura arguments refuted!

by Steve Rudd

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA