In response to written and oral
tradition! There is nothing wrong with written or oral tradition
as long as it does not contradict the word of god. Pretty easy to
answer.
God bless,
David
Dear David, thank you for your submission. When a Catholic refers to written Tradition, we are referring to the word of God designated as canonical and therefore found in the Bible. But the phrase, "word of God" isn't used in that sense alone. Jesus is said to be the true "Word of God"(John 1:1). We are told by Paul in 1Thes2:13 that what he and the other Apostles PREACHED should be regarded as the "word of God" as well. Was everything that Jesus taught written down (Jn 21:25)?
OF COURSE NOT! BUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.
Prove it. Where does the bible teach that?
<No Response from David>
Your refusal to answer this at all, let alone with a citation from the Bible, proves the point. If all we need to know written explicitly in the Bible, the Bible itself would state that.
<Still no response from
David>
How about the
Apostles?
OF COURSE NOT!
I'm sure you would agree that the answer is NO. But we are told to live by EVERY word that comes forth from the mouth of God (Matt4:4). David, how do you live by EVERY word that comes forth from the mouth of God if you admit that ALL of what Jesus spoke and taught WASN'T written down?
Ok! If there is more! where is everything else Jesus taught if not written somewhere it must be taught orally right! where is it?
Jesus Christ founded His Church on Peter and the twelve Apostles (Matt 16:18, Rev 21:14). He gave them His own authority and commanded them to go and make disciples of all nations (John 20:23, Matt 28:28-20). Since the Church was still going to continue on after Christ and the Apostles left this earth, it was arranged that there should be successors to the office of the Apostles (Acts 1:20-26). As the Apostles traveled abroad, they chose men to be elders (priests) and bishops in the local church. As Jesus had chosen them, the Apostles now chose others and gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (2Tim 1:6). It's a historical fact that the bishops of the Catholic Church can trace their lineage back to an Apostle of Jesus Christ. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm) Only the Orthodox Churches can claim the same. The Sacred Tradition we speak of lies within this unbroken link along with the promise of Jesus who said that He would provide the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth (John 16:13). Only through the lens of this Sacred Tradition can we understand the Bible correctly. In fact, Sacred Tradition was one of the standards used to recognize what should be included in the canon of scripture. There were many books and letters circulating in the early church some even claiming to be written by one of the Apostles. So just how was one to know at that time what exactly was inspired and canonical... belonging in the New Testament? Only by comparing it with what the Church knew and was taught orally by Jesus or an Apostle and passed down as time went by. Anyone who claims that the Bible is the Word of God owes much to the Catholic Church which recognized and then decreed for all what the Biblical canon should be.
So what your saying is that the catholic church is the only place to find these teaching?
Read again what I wrote above. There is only ONE pillar and foundation of truth and only ONE body of Christ. The Catholic Church IS that body of Christ AND source of all truth. Since God's word can't contradict itself, by simple reasoning His oral Word or Traditions would NEVER contradict His written Word
ARE YOU SURE?.
Are you saying that it's possible God's oral and written Word COULD be contradictory?
If it is, it is not of god!
And who's to judge what is contradictory and what is not? Are you setting yourself up as the final authority?
The work of god not me!
Unfortunately your answer doesn't answer the question. When two people disagree about the interpretation of Scripture, who decides which opinion is correct...or is it possible to reach certitude in a dilemma such as this?That doesn't mean we might not misinterpret and misunderstand one or the other leading us to erroneously conclude that they DO contradict each other...but this is a failing in ourselves and not in God's Word
SURE!
With that being said, I would ask you, why do you accept the Bible as the written word of God?
WHY SHOULDN'T I?
You don't answer a question with a question David. Those who do are simply trying to evade the matter at hand. What if I responded in the same manner to your objection to Sacred Tradition?
If the bible is not the word of god what is it?
You're misunderstanding my point. I agree that the Bible is the Word of God. But the reasons we believe this to be so are very important. If a Mormon was trying to evangelize someone who had never been exposed to Christianity before and claimed that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, how is his argument different than yours as far as WHY he believes it to be so? What would you tell the native on some remote island? Would it be any different from what the Mormon would say as far as proving the inspiration of the Book of Mormon? The Mormon would tell the non-believer to read it and pray about it and God will witness to it's truth by a "burning in the bosom". But I could read many books and find them inspiring...but that doesn't prove they're INSPIRED and the Word of God. Why do you accept the Bible as inspired and the word of God, David?
If there's a reason why I shouldn't accept the bible as the inspired word god, Tell me what that reason why I shouldn't. If you accept the bible as the word of god tell me why I should not? and why should I not totally believe in it as all I need to know in order to achieve righteous in the eyes of god.
David, I'm not trying to prove why you SHOULDN'T accept it. I'm asking for your REASONS why you DO accept it as the Word of God.What reasons or arguments would you give or use to persuade a non-believer in order that they accept the bible as the Word of God? How do you evangelize? What makes your reasons different from the Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon to be the word of god and sets out to evangelize a non-believer? As to why you shouldn't accept it as "all you need to know in order to achieve righteousness in the eyes of god", I again ask you to show me in the bible itself where it teaches this. If the Bible is all we need, then the Bible should teach this principle. If it doesn't, then it is a self-defeating proposition and one of those traditions which we all should reject. I beg you David, please research it for yourself. Where does the bible teach that it is the only infallible rule of faith? If you can't find it anywhere in the bible, then you must not believe it according to it's own definition.
What litmus test did you subject it to or did you merely accept it after becoming a Christian because those before you told you it was the Word of God and you assumed they must be correct?
I ACCEPTED IT! YES! UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY OF NOT BEING THE WORD OF GOD. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET! CAN YOU PROVE ITS NOT THE WORD OF GOD?
Again, I have to accuse you of evasion. Just because YOU accept it, doesn't make it so. I could respond the same way in regards to Tradition, but what would that prove? Nothing. In order to use something as a standard, reasons must be given. I accept the canon of the bible because the Catholic Church tells me it is the Word of God. This is the same Catholic Church whose Bishops can trace their lineage back to one of the Apostles. The same Apostles whom Jesus sent in His Name and in His Authority.
Luke 10:16: "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Ok I'm going to answer your question. We believe that john 20:31 (I mean other than catholic) supports the doctrine of "Sola Scripture". You say "it doesn't say that". It doesn't. But it does imply that is all we need. Let us examine the verse closer: (All Scripture) BIBLE is (God-breathed) INSPIRED BY GOD and is useful for (teaching, rebuking, correcting and training)TRUTH in (righteousness) DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS, so that the (man of God) BELIEVERS may be (thoroughly equipped for every good work) DIVINE WORKS THRU DIVINE FAITH. Now do see the word "TRADITION" in there? If this does not imply that I cannot use the doctrine of "SOLA SCRIPTURE", what does it imply?
GOD BLESS
David
Dear Dave, Actually, it's 2 Tim 3:16 that you are referring to.
Your quoting from scripture
So what?
2Tim3:16 Notice
that this verse begins using the quantifier ALL instead of ONLY.
Your right it does not say "only" it says "ALL" is says nothing else is needed
Dave, you can't
jump to that conclusion. Here's why: If I say that All
Mexicans are humans beings. TRUE ...Is it correct to say
that... All human beings are Mexicans. FALSE
Of course not. But that is what you're trying to suggest with
this verse. All Scripture is inspired. TRUE All that is
inspired is Scripture. FALSE See the problem? This verse
can't support Sola Scriptura since it leaves open the possibility
that other forms and modes of God's inspired word can exist.
Also, other places in the Bible are clear that the Word of God
can't be limited to only what is written. Check out 1
Thessolonians 2:13 13 For this reason we also constantly thank
God that when you received the word of God which you heard from
us, you accepted it not as
the
word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which
also performs its work in you who believe. In this verse, Paul
states that what he was teaching ORALLY was also the inspired
Word of God.
quoting Scripture
Just another attempt by yourself to avoid the issue, David. Would you rather I quote Sacred Tradition? I didn't think so. The reason I quote Scripture is because we both mutually hold it to be the inspired and inerrant word of God.
quoting scripture
Again, I have to accuse you of merely trying to avoid addressing the issue at hand.
All Scripture IS inspired but you can't then turn around and say that this proves sola scriptura. In order to do so, the verse would have to read, ONLY Scripture is inspired. Next, we notice that scripture is described as being USEFUL...
it does say that your right but it does not say anything else is needed
Paul would disagree. In 2 Thes 2:15, he says: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
We're not just told to hold to what he has written but also to what he taught orally. If everything Paul taught was included in the Scriptures, he wouldn't have needed to command us to hold fast to both modes of teaching...the written AND the oral.
...not SOLELY SUFFICIENT. Eating well is USEFUL to compete successfully in an athletic competition, but EATING WELL is not sufficient. The athlete also must practice the sport he is competing in and workout as well. Who is this verse directed to? The "man of God", correct? In other words, the scriptures are useful for the Christian (actually, a priest), who has already been instructed in the Faith, not for any old person to pick up and interpret on his or her own without prior formation in true doctrine.
Your right.
I'm glad you agree. So this means that a person is instructed in the Faith orally and only when he has been formed in the Faith is the Bible useful to him. So the bible is not sufficient since a person needs a teacher other than himself.
Acts 8:30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
More specifically, this verse is directed to Timothy by Paul. What scripture is Paul referring to? Verse 15 gives the answer. They are the Scriptures that Timothy has known since childhoodin other words, the Old Testament. If this verse proves anything, it only proves that the Old Testament is sufficient but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.
Your right, I would disagree. I don't think you understanding what is meant by "sola scripture"
My understanding of sola scriptura is that the bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith. I believe this is generally how the original Reformers understood it as well. The Catholic position is that the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God that has been recorded in writing.
Yes, that is correct!
let me give an example: I teach CAD (Computer aided design) at a community college! now the software comes with a manual and help system to help learn the software. Now there are tons of other books authored by other people for this software! but they are all based on the original courseware put out by the software creators. So is the original courseware put out by the software creators "Useful" to learn the software "yes". You can learn the software from it. Is it the only teachings you need to learn the software "no". That is what is meant by "sola scripture" if I am understanding it correctly.
If other teachings are NEEDED to learn the original software, then the original courseware cannot be considered sufficient...only useful, which the other books not authored by the software creators can be designated as well.
Sure it could be! I learned from it! It's totally sufficient! Other books help learn it! (Just like a steering wheel is totally sufficient to drive a car)
Sacred Tradition isn't derived from the Bible as the other books written by various authors are in relation to the original courseware. It's actually just the opposite, the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. The Church came before the New Testament had been written. It lived and acted on what had been passed down from Jesus to the Apostles and then to their successors. The New Testament is merely part of Sacred Tradition that eventually had been recorded in writing. A book, whether inspired as the Bible is, or not inspired such as the original courseware, cannot settle disputes when differences in interpretation or understanding are concerned. For that we need a living breathing authority such as the software creators themselves, or in the case of Christianity, a final infallible authority such as the Pope.
A steering wheel is "useful" for driving a car! would drive one without it? I suppose you could pull out the steering wheel and stick a screwdriver in the steering column and drive it like that! but what do you think would happen? The same with scripture if you pull out the bible and try to learn about god without it what do you think would happen? That's what "Sola Scripture" is all about.
I don't agree. For centuries, there wasn't any bible as we know it. But converts were made and Christianity grew none-the-less. The Gospel was spread by the Church orally.
The bible (scripture) is the infallible word of god! god is timeless! he was, he is now, and forever will be right! So reason this out! it's safe to assume that his word would be timeless also! So when "scripture" says "scripture" it means all of scripture.
And just how does one discern just what is what isn't scripture? Does the bible contain and inspired index as well?
Yes! the gospel was spread orally! It was the word of god not yet written! but then an amazing thing happened! It was written down. Now we have the bible as the oral written word of god!
And where does the bible say that EVERYTHING we need to know would be written down and once it was, it alone would be our final authority?
I'm sorry Dave, but you're not being reasonable. For something to be considered sufficient, it must not rely upon any other sources. You admitted that other sources ARE NEEDED...therefore the bible CAN'T be sufficient to a reasonable man who examines the issues.
Ok frank! lets go over it again! The AutoCAD instruction manuals that come with the software is sufficient enough to learn the software. Sometimes its a little difficult to learn from the original manuals! So that's where other books come into play to help you understand it. Everything is in the original manufacturers manuals you just don't understand it. Now instruction material from outside sources cannot veer from the original source material put out by the manufacturer. IT WOULD NOT WORK. Now that is what meant by "SOLA SCRIPTURE" Does this make sense to you frank?
Before you go any further, I need to point out that you are making one big assumption which you have yet to prove. Your first premise is that the bible is sufficient and a complete course in Christianity. I have shown several times that the bible doesn't claim this and actually claims that it doesn't contain everything that Jesus taught. "Useful" will never mean "Sufficient" no matter how much you want it to Dave.
Ok Frank I'll tell you what! you take your catholic tradition and take my bible and we'll just leave at that.
Tell me Dave, how did the New Testament come to be?
Humans were only the instrument not the means.
Did it fall from heaven?
In A sense it did!
Actually Dave, there were many books circulating in the early church. It wasn't until the Catholic Church, being the infallible authority which Christ declared it to be, guided by the Holy Spirit, recognized what books were truly the word of God. These books were gathered together and are now part of our bible. They are the 27 books of the New Testament. These are the facts Dave and no matter how much you wish to disregard or trivialize them, they must be accepted. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a bible.
Ok frank you take your catholic church! and I'll take non-denominational evangelical church ( calvary chapel) and we'll leave it at that.
Who decided on what books belong in the bible?
GOD
Yes, but through what human means??? The Catholic Church. Read your history.
Ok Frank! you give the credit to the catholic church and I'll give the credit to GOD and will just leave at that.