Replies

Let's examine the support you cited to support the Reformation invention of sola scriptura:

1 Cor. 4:6 : 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."

First, 1 Corinthians was probably written around 57 AD. As a result, it predates almost every other book in the New Testament, and certainly all of the gospels. To take Paul's comment out of context and literally, as you do, nothing written after First Corinthians is to be trusted. After all, the books written after First Corinthians--that is, the whole New Testament, give or take some epistles--"go beyond what [was] written" in First Corinthians.

Further, the admonition not to go beyond what is written is a literal translation of what was apparently a common saying of the time, roughly equivalent to "don't get too big for your britches." Read some commentaries on it.

Luke 1:1-4 : 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Paul first examines oral tradition, and then false writings. He concludes that to be SURE, he must write these things down.

You are conflating two passages, one from Paul, and a much later one from Luke. The introductory passage from Luke presupposes the existence of other narratives. The plethora of noncanonical gospels shows us that merely writing something down was not enough. As Luke says, the true traditions "were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." 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.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Notice that it says EVERY GOOD WORK. It does not say that man is prepared for MOST good works. Neither does it say that man is PARTIALLY prepared for every good work.

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.

The lines preceding your quote are:

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3:14-15.

If Paul was writing to adults, what sacred scripture would they have known "from infancy?" Not the Pauline epistles, which were not written until the 50's. Not the Gospels, which were not written until the 60's (at the earliest). He must have been talking about the Old Testament. 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. Instead, it is a reference to Holy Tradition and, perhaps, apostolic succession.

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.

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.

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. Instead, it is a reference to Holy Tradition and, perhaps, apostolic succession.

Odd. Paul doesn't mention "apostolic succession". If you wish to make a case that Timothy was to follow what he had learned as in the case of 2 Tim 3:14-15 then you must follow it with Paul's complete thought of 2 Tim 3:16, "All scripture is inspired by...". Paul is talking about handling the word of truth (scripture) correctly. Less there be any mistake about this, Paul states almost the identical thought in 2 Tim 2:15:

2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Oops. No mention of following traditions here.

It is historical fact that the Church forbid Bibles during the Reformation and documented this fact at the Council of Trent. Now if Paul is giving us instructions to "accurately handle the word of truth" why would the Church forbid the reading.

Less you answer me that the Church was afraid people wouldn't handle the word of truth accurately, who precisely is to say what is accurate. A bunch of old men reaching some sort of agreement. That has never been a successful formula.