Replies

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.

Paul doesn't mention "apostolic succession"

He sure does, but not in those exact words, in the Pastorals. Nor does Paul mention "Trinity", but we can get its meaning from Paul, as well. You should know this. The concepts behind earlier Christianity, even if not specifically NAMED, are found within the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition as related by the Church Fathers.

No mention of following traditions here. [in 2 Tim 2:15]

There is plenty of mention of Oral teachings to be followed. I find three just in 1 Corinthians... This is not a particularly strong argument for doing away with Sacred Tradition.

It is historical fact that the Church forbid Bibles during the Reformation and documented this fact at the Council of Trent.

That is because the Church was intent on PROTECTING God's word. Consider how the heretics before Luther were presenting "Scriptures" with their own interpretations, leaving out words or changing them. Yea, they had lots of respect for God's Word. Discontent former priests re-writing the Bible in their own image. And of course, Luther is renowned for changing the Word of God, Romans 3:28, and quite frankly, DEFYING the Church to do something about it. Really. Is it a wonder the Church reacted to protect the Bible, making only one official translation?

Regards