You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me. The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.
So, the introduction of Luke shows us how Holy Tradition preceded the New Testament and inspired its writing, and neatly illuminates the logic behind apostolic succession.
Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible. ... I have no idea how you connect this passage to support of Apostolic succession, especially in the important senses of passing along supernatural powers such as the ability to forgive sin, and the authority to speak infallibly on behalf of God corporately, or even individually.
Paul had to have written Second Timothy before his death in 67. This means that 2 Tim. far predates the gospels and the Book of Revelation, among other parts of the New Testament. So we know that Paul, when talking about "Scripture" being God-inspired he was not talking about the New Testament as we know it.
Let's say that I give you everything and Paul was referring to the OT. It was still scripture wasn't it? It still supports Sola Scriptura just as I said. Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.
Finally, 2 Tim. 14 makes reference to what the recipients of the letter "have learned and believed," because they know from whom" they learned it. No reference to scripture here.
I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.
You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me.I did not accuse you of anything.
The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.Apparently you interpret Paul's statement as forseeing books that would not be written for decades.
Further, you have not addressed the probablility that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. Here is the New International Version: "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek. The variety of translations of this difficult passage will make you head spin!
In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Did Paul make a mistake?
If Holy Tradition had to be written down to be "valid," it is odd that John wrote in 3 John 13 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face."
The impossibility of reducing all of Holy Tradition to writing was also recognized by John in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.
Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible.As stated above, it is clear from the Bible that John and Paul did not think that Holy Tradition had to be written down to be valid. Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.
Did the Church fathers pick the books that went in the New Testament by luck? Or was God with them on the compilation of the Bible, but not when they made authoritative pronouncements about things like the sacrament of Confession, which was recognized hundreds of years before the canon was closed?
Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.Paul did write books which are considered to be scripture today. But your personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 requires us to believe that Paul meant that the only aspects of Holy Tradition that were meant to be followed were those which would be written down. As shown above, this is contradicted by John and Paul himself! Further, if this point was so important to Paul, why didn't he write more? Should we only do what Paul told us to do? After all, if Paul really meant that we are only bound by what is written down, one would think that he would have written more than a few letters.
I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.
I think that this is an entirely reasonable point. What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?
I agree that the Gospel should be read extensively and it provides insights beyond the immediate circumstantial context, just like you say. This is why I think it is incorrect to read, for example, "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 as referring only to the Old Testament, as the larger principle in it describes all scripture, even yet unwritten as of St. Paul's writing. Likewise, it is incorrect not to see Mary as mother of us all even though Christ only askes her to adopt St. John, or to see the miracle at Cana as Mary interceding just one particular time.
This being said, 1 Corinthians 4
6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.
-- does not speak to the scripture in its relation to the tradition, but to the scripture in its relation to the human authority of St. Paul, or Apollo, or anyone else. This is entirely consistent with other instances where temporal power, and the tradition of men, is discounted in the Gospel. But the passage also explains that men -- St. Paul, or Apollo, -- are to be listened to inasmuch as they become "the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (verse 1). This is consistent with what the Church teaches on Tradition as having divine, not human origin.
The other passages you gave, the preamble to the Book of Luke and 2 Timothy 14, explain why the scripture is very important, but they do not support the central element of Sola Scriptura, that of the Scripture's supposed sufficiency outside of the entire Holy Tradition.