pinklight

Cheryl said Scripture does not need a second witness, and Mike had said so earlier too. As if everything in the bible, every single thing that is said/written needs to be repeated in order to be true – a ridiculous notion. The point is not about what’s true and what’s not true, the point is about what is God’s law and what is not. Just because all of Scripture is true does not mean that all that is true is God’s law.

How is what Cheryl said, not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? 1 Tim 2 is Scripture. Where is it’s second witness establishing it as law? Since it is not established as God’s law (comps have yet to prove this) and since it is Scripture therefore it needs a second witness because all of God’s law’s have at least a second witness. So in this sense “Scripture needs a second witness” that is, CERTAIN PARTS of Scripture, when claimed to be God’s law, need a second witness to prove it. BUT this does not mean without qualification that “Scripture” (as in the whole thing, all of it, or anything in it ever said) needs a second witness.

Mike:
“You said Scripture does not need a second witness, but then you said, “[1 Timothy 2:12] was written in a personal letter instead of a letter to the church, (not a good idea if this was to be a universal prohibition), it was written in the words of a man and not said as a command of the Lord Jesus (this signals that it is situation-based and not universal)…

“How is this not saying that Scripture needs a second witness? Timothy was an elder of the Ephesian church and the letter was circulated as Scripture and is thus in our bibles.”

Yes, 1 Tim 2 is Scripture.

Mike:
“If all of 1 and 2 Timothy are just for that day and age and not for today, is Christ really our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) are the positions of overseer and deacon necessary (1 Timothy 3:1-12)? Is all Scripture breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Are Paul’s words in a letter to young Timothy Scripture or not? Are Jesus words that are in red (in some bibles) more inspired than other texts? I think all of the Bible is inspired equally, so to say that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus words is unsettling.”

Why is the assumption made that 1 Tim 2 is just for that day and age? It’s universal principles are timeless like all universal biblical principles. Two principles, for example, would be that the deceived must learn and not teach.

That Christ is our Mediator is not being disputed as there is no way to dispute the written Scriptural fact.

We are not told that the body MUST operate with overseers and deacons at every assembly. Such is never commanded. It is not a law.

2 Timothy 3:16 directly says all Scripture is God breathed.

Paul’s words are Scripture and all Scripture which includes what Jesus said, is inspired. But inspired word does NOT mean that it is automaticaly law. As if everything ever said in the Bible which is inspired is LAW?? That makes no sense.

Who is saying that Paul’s letter is not as useful as Jesus’ words?

Mike:
“So, the “law” idea that you build up is set on the principle that one passage (especially from a personal letter) cannot be enough to allow for a teaching to be true.”

False. Mike does not appear to be understanding what Cheryl is saying at least up to this point in his rejoinder. One passage can be enough to allow for a teaching to be true, but one passage CANNOT be enough to allow for a teaching to be a universal law.

Mike:
“But, what if Paul said what he meant and the teaching to Timothy are for the entire church, just as those who put the canon together desired. If something is written one time in Scripture, it must be dealt with as Scripture and not tossed out because there is not an identical passage or teaching found in Jesus’ words.”

The timeless principles are for the entire church. 1 Tim 2 here is accepted as Scripture and is not being tossed out, but it IS being disputed as to whether or not it’s universal law, and what’s not being disputed is whether or not it’s Scripture. Besides, there is nothing in what Cheryl has said to have given Mike the impression that she believes that 1 Tim 2 is not Scripture. So with that and other things he said or asked above, I don’t know why he has even said or asked those certain things.

What does whether or not 1 Tim 2 is a universal law have to do with whether or not it is inspired, or Scripture, or Scripture needing a second witness, or whether or not it’s for that day and age, or whether or not Scripture is God breathed, or whether or not Paul’s words are Scripture, etc. What does anything he has said so far in part 4 have to do with addressing whether or not 1 Tim 2:12 IS UNIVERSAL LAW?

Can someone please knock down the brick wall?? ;P