Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[Ginger2]

I agree with Sycarl, also

Paul was writing in letters to the different churches asking that the letters be passed along and read to all. Scripture was being written simutaneously with the oral preaching of the disciples.

For everyone who preached afterward the listeners had the INSPIRED wrtings to varify what was true.

Who has spoken directly with God since then, that would be qualified to claim divine inspiration?

 

[Ginger2]

Actually, Sycarl, was very clear. That was a poor choice of words.

 

[Bishopite]

It is incorrect to state that Protestants say that only reading counts.
First, there is nothings that says oral teaching is wrong. But the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith

Never does the Bible say it is the SOLE authority nor the above oral Tradition. 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:1 show that oral Tradition (paradosis) is as equal as the inscripturated writings that became the Bible.

Teaching must be in accord with it. Oral teaching would be the only way of teaching in the apostolic period as the message was being enscripturakised.

Who’s teaching??? Does the “teaching” of the Bible teach infant baptism? Is baptism regenerative? Are we once saved always saved? Can we loose our salvation? These and many many more issues are contentions within “Bible alone” Protestants.
When we look at the Christian leaders who were the disciples of the Apostles, the next and contiuing generation from them (ECF’s) what we see is a contiuation of oral Tradition. The Bible never says there is an expiration date on oral Tradition.

In Galatians, Paul indicates that he did not receive the Gospel from any man but through a revelation from Jesus.
The Church has authority to teach, but its teaching must be in accord with the Bible.

Again, which church? Obviously, if your “church” is in agreement with Paul (an Apostle) we would see its historical truths being taught post Apostlic period, prereformation. Do we?

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

Never does the Bible say it is the SOLE authority nor the above oral Tradition. 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:1 show that oral Tradition (paradosis) is as equal as the inscripturated writings that became the Bible.

List the oral traditions that you assert come from the apostles, and the associated
substantiation thereof.

 

[SyCarl]

Never does the Bible say it is the SOLE authority nor the above oral Tradition. 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:1 show that oral Tradition (paradosis) is as equal as the inscripturated writings that became the Bible.

When we look at the Christian leaders who were the disciples of the Apostles, the next and contiuing generation from them (ECF’s) what we see is a contiuation of oral Tradition. The Bible never says there is an expiration date on oral Tradition.

Again, which church? Obviously, if your “church” is in agreement with Paul (an Apostle) we would see its historical truths being taught post Apostlic period, prereformation. Do we?

I am well aware of Paul’s references to traditions in the Bible, including those where he decries the traditions of men. I am also aware of our Lord’s censure of the Pharisee’s for their traditions.

I have been reading the Early Church Fathers and am amazed at how many Protestant ideas can be found in them. It is also interesting to note that they can and do contradict themselves. Unfortunately being taught by an Apostle does not guarantee soundness of doctrine. We see that in the Bible while the Apostles still walked the earth. Paul wrote to the Galatians, Corinthians and Thessalonians to correct false doctrines and he had taught all these churches personally.

I do not quote the Church Fathers for the truth of what they say since they are extra-biblical. They do show that Protestant ideas have been set out prior to the Reformation though, even if they were not predominate.

It is also wrong to take references in Scripture to tradition and read back into them the Catholic understanding of Traditionas expressed today and at the Council of Trent.

I am not on my home computer right now and do not have acess to my notes from the Eary Church Fathers. I can give one example that I remember from Irenaeus.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus-Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1.)

newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Irenaeus clearly indicates that the Gospel was prclaimed in public. He then notes that what was proclaimed in public has now been passed down in Scripture.

Scripture could really be the only truth when arguing against groups like the Gnostics who claimed that they had traditions or teachings from the Apostles themselves. The controversy was close enough to the Apostolic age that such a possibility could not be discounted. I have yet to come across any major points that the Early Church Fathers relied on or argued except from Scriptures.

 

[Bishopite]

List the oral traditions that you assert come from the apostles, and the associated
substantiation thereof.

The canon for starters. Nowhere is the list written down, but through oral Tradition the canon was known.

 

[sandusky]

The canon for starters. Nowhere is the list written down, but through oral Tradition the canon was known.

The request was that you list the oral traditions the apostles gave the church, and substantiate them; I find it hard to believe that the church teaches that the apostles orally passed on the canon; how do you substantiate that the apostles orally gave the canon to the church when everyone from that time is dead, and when there was such uncertainty concerning the books of Hebrews, one of the Peters, Revelation, the Jewish apocrypha, and all of the other questionable writings?

If the apostles passed that on orally, why’d it take so long to infallibly define the canon?

 

[Bishopite]

The request was that you list the oral traditions the apostles gave the church, and substantiate them; I find it hard to believe that the church teaches that the apostles orally passed on the canon; how do you substantiate that the apostles orally gave the canon to the church when everyone from that time is dead, and when there was such uncertainty concerning the books of Hebrews, one of the Peters, Revelation, the Jewish apocrypha, and all of the other questionable writings?

How do you want the oral Traditions “substantiated?” Through what means? Perhaps you can read 1 Tim 3:15?
“By the word Tradition is meant the teaching of the faith, the law of God, the sacraments and the liturgical rites, as handed on by word and example from one man to another and from generation to generation.” (Tradition and Traditions, Yves Congar pg 296) Quoted from J.A. Douglas’ book "The Relation of the Anglican Churches with the Eastern Orthodox, London, 1921, p 132)
This is how Tradition was passed down.

That there was uncertainty within what was the canon, sure there were essentially three catagories that the books were placed.
Accepted books i.e., the gospels.
Rejected books i.e., the gnostic gospels
Disputed books i.e., Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John.

This last catagory (Disputed books) which the Catholic church not only recognized through oral Tradition but moreover from the Holy Spirit guiding the “church” as the pillar and support of truth 1 Tim 3:15.

If the apostles passed that on orally, why’d it take so long to infallibly define the canon?

Well, why did it take so long to define the Trinity? Homoousious a word created by the council of Nicea 325 AD to further explain the relationship between the persons of the Godhead and what had been once for all passed down (Jude 3).

 

[Bishopite]

[SyCarl;2595238]
I have been reading the Early Church Fathers and am amazed at how many Protestant ideas can be found in them.

Protestant ideas like? When you get back to you home computer, show evidence of the ECF’s teaching sola scriptura or any other non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox truths

It is also interesting to note that they can and do contradict themselves. Unfortunately being taught by an Apostle does not guarantee soundness of doctrine. We see that in the Bible while the Apostles still walked the earth. Paul wrote to the Galatians, Corinthians and Thessalonians to correct false doctrines and he had taught all these churches personally.

What they do is give evidence of the truths lived out in their day, and that they were the Christian leaders–disciples of the Apostles who carried the paradosis (handing on of Tradition and truth.

I do not quote the Church Fathers for the truth of what they say since they are extra-biblical. They do show that Protestant ideas have been set out prior to the Reformation though, even if they were not predominate.

No they don’t.
Extra biblical? Is a lexicon “extra-biblical”?

It is also wrong to take references in Scripture to tradition and read back into them the Catholic understanding of Traditionas expressed today and at the Council of Trent.

Huh? I’ve shown you the plain and simple straighforward words of scripture, that’s what you’ve just asked for in stating that the ECF’s writings are not infallible but they show “evidence” of what the Christianity practiced and taught.

I am not on my home computer right now and do not have acess to my notes from the Eary Church Fathers. I can give one example that I remember from Irenaeus.
Irenaeus clearly indicates that the Gospel was prclaimed in public. He then notes that what was proclaimed in public has now been passed down in Scripture.

Yes, he was a Bishop in the church why wouldn’t he? What you’ve failed to show and can’t show is giving evidence from him that he taught sola scriptura. But let’s see what he taught in the same letter against heresies…
"St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3,3,1-2,4

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about… 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere."
   earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=18

Scripture could really be the only truth when arguing against groups like the Gnostics who claimed that they had traditions or teachings from the Apostles themselves. The controversy was close enough to the Apostolic age that such a possibility could not be discounted. I have yet to come across any major points that the Early Church Fathers relied on or argued except from Scriptures.

Actually that’s not the case. Many of the heretics in the early church argued with the scrolls (scriptures) they had and tried to show from their “interpretation” that their position was correct but orthodox Christian Bishops like Irenaeus argued that they didn’t just revert to scripture for evidence of their orthodoxy but from Tradition as well…
‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199)."
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

 

[Montalban]

Have you forgotten that Paul met Jesus face to face?

Paul is not merely repeating something he heard. Paul’s teaching was considered inspired by God. (2 Peter 3:16)

Ah, so in that instant Jesus brought him up to speed with everything he’d said and taught.

Cool.

However it still doesn’t account for the fact he’s preaching (i.e. writing/talking) of something not previously written (ie. no ‘scripture’).

 

[Montalban]

It is incorrect to state that Protestants say that only reading counts.

Then why ‘sola scriptura’?

First, there is nothings that says oral teaching is wrong. But the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith.

Then there is something less about ‘oral teaching’. You can’t argue both ways.

Teaching must be in accord with it.

Cool. No Catholic or Orthodox denies this. However you believe that it’s the only truth hence ‘sola scriptura’. We don’t.

The illogic of your stance is this…

Jesus spoke to an Apostle…say, John.

John carries around with him the message of Jesus. He carries it faithfully his life preaching the word. BUT UNTIL HE WRITES IT DOWN it’s less superior, because only once he’s written it down, must something be in accord with it.

In fact none of the Christian message was fully faithful until they wrote it down

 

[Ginger2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
Have you forgotten that Paul met Jesus face to face?

Paul is not merely repeating something he heard. Paul’s teaching was considered inspired by God. (2 Peter 3:16)

Quote: Montelban
"Ah, so in that instant Jesus brought him up to speed with everything he’d said and taught.

Cool."

Yes! That is what Paul claimed. That his ministry was directly from God! Very cool.

 

[Montalban]

Yes! That is what Paul claimed. That his ministry was directly from God! Very cool.

Indeed, but for you it’s only ‘cool’ once written down.

What written text did Paul use to check this lesson against?

 

[Bible_Student]

That still misses the point because how do you know, for instance, that the *Acts of Mary *is not inspired by the Holy Spirit

Go to this site and tell me which books are inspired.

Hi Montalban - that’s quite the list and quite the mix! The works contained there that are in the Bible are obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit and this is why they were classified in the canon of Scripture. But I’d be very careful of some of those other books, as they will give you very wrong headed ideas about Christianity. Remember that the deceiver goes about as a roaring lion seeking those whom he may devour. Most of the “Acts of” or “Secret” type prefixed books were labeled as false attributions by the early Church and the early Church Fathers who followed the apostles. There were also many Gnostic works there, which those same early Fathers of the church labeled as heretical works. The supposed Q is a theory and not a historical work. As far as the works of the Fathers, many of them are listed in Eusebius and I believe many of the apologists were certainly solid Christians and some of their work is inspired, certainly that which conforms to canonical Scripture. I read lots of these as well as contemporary works by Christian authors today that both exegete the scriptures, give Christian testimony, advise on walking with Christ and joining Him on mission. I don’t believe those contempory books I refer to or the ancient books rise to the same level as scripture but did the Holy Spirit inspire them? I would say indeed yes. Still I consider them all as secondary sources. Works like “The Shepherd”, the “Epistle of Barnabas” were both actually read in some of our early churches and both were actually found integrated into the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest NT) but they were both excluded from the Canon. I’m of the opinion that Rhema inspiration is very much possible even today but that all inspiration must agree with Scripture, for as the Bible instructs me in Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” If someone presents to me a new gospel in contrast to the Gospel of our Lord then I am to call them anathema. Other books at this url are not Christian works at all, but would fall into period historical supplements - which may be useful for historical context. Altogether its a very mixed bag. Was there one in particular you had in mind? Hope I’ve answered your question? Are you a Scot? I happened to notice the Gaelic at the bottom of your post.

May God Bless, Pat

 

[Ginger2]

Quote Montelban: “What written text did Paul use to check this lesson against?”

What are you talking about? I said that Paul claimed to have been given the Gospel directly from God. The othe Apostles accept and supported his claim.

What lesson are you speaking of?

 

[SyCarl]

Then why ‘sola scriptura’?

It is sola scriptura because the scripture is the source against which teaching is to be measured.

Then there is something less about ‘oral teaching’. You can’t argue both ways.

You use both Scripture and Tradition as your rule of faith. What a priest preaches during a Mass must be in accord with that deposit of faith. Oral teaching with Protestants is the same except with just Scripture as the rule of faith.

Cool. No Catholic or Orthodox denies this. However you believe that it’s the only truth hence ‘sola scriptura’. We don’t.

It contains all the truth we need. Both Catholics and Orthodox follow Sacred Tradition and claim to have Apostolic Succession. Why then isn’t Catholic Tradition exactly the same as Orthodox
Tradition? Whose Tradition is right and how reliable is the oral transmission if the two Traditions differ?

The illogic of your stance is this…

Jesus spoke to an Apostle…say, John.

John carries around with him the message of Jesus. He carries it faithfully his life preaching the word. BUT UNTIL HE WRITES IT DOWN it’s less superior, because only once he’s written it down, must something be in accord with it.

In fact none of the Christian message was fully faithful until they wrote it down

The Apostle’s oral teaching was just as faithful as their written teaching. However Scripture is the only complete infallible authority we have for that teaching.

 

[Montalban]

Hi Montalban - that’s quite the list and quite the mix! The works contained there that are in the Bible are obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit and this is why they were classified in the canon of Scripture

a) how were they ‘obviously inspired’?
b) were they inspired before they were written down? Was it obvious before they were written down?

But I’d be very careful of some of those other books, as they will give you very wrong headed ideas about Christianity.

I am too, however it begs the question - how do you know?

For instance, is the Didache inspired? The Orthodox Church has always used it.

Are you a Scot? I happened to notice the Gaelic at the bottom of your post.

First and foremost, I’m Australian; born here. My heritage is highlander. However I know more Irish than Scots-Gaelic (long story)

 

[SyCarl]

show evidence of the ECF’s teaching sola scriptura or any other non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox truths

Scripture Alone

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so **all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God.**23 Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.- Hippolytus (Against Noetus, Paragraph 9)
newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

Hippolytus says scripture the only source for knowledge of God. There is no other way to learn piety.

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines…So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents.** For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. **And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.- .-Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

The Church teaches but its teaching comes from Scripture. The articles of Faith are taken from scripture and make up the complete teaching of the Faith. The traditions he refers to here are not some separate or additional deposit but the contents of Scripture.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

Those things which are required for faith and manner of life are set plainly set out in Scripture. Scripture is to be used in interpretting Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Quote Montelban: “What written text did Paul use to check this lesson against?”

What are you talking about? I said that Paul claimed to have been given the Gospel directly from God. The othe Apostles accept and supported his claim.

What lesson are you speaking of?

The lesson in which he heard those words, and the one which he thought to repeat them.

He had them in his head before he set them down. He’d heard it somewhere. Was it only *inspired *once he wrote it down?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Then why ‘sola scriptura’?

It is sola scriptura because the scripture is the source against which teaching is to be measured.

But it wasn’t always written down. Jesus spoke the words. The Apostles remembered the words. The words were ‘inspired’ surely, before they actually put it in writing. And, as Paul wrote his first Epistle, who’s other writing was he comparing it against?

You’re in a paradox here. He can’t have compared his writing to writing until something was written.
"Montalban:

Then there is something less about ‘oral teaching’. You can’t argue both ways.

You use both Scripture and Tradition as your rule of faith. What a priest preaches during a Mass must be in accord with that deposit of faith. Oral teaching with Protestants is the same except with just Scripture as the rule of faith.

Just a quick point, we have “Divine Liturgy”, not Mass. As to your ‘deposit of faith’, see paradox above.
"Montalban:

Cool. No Catholic or Orthodox denies this. However you believe that it’s the only truth hence ‘sola scriptura’. We don’t.

It contains all the truth we need. Both Catholics and Orthodox follow Sacred Tradition and claim to have Apostolic Succession.

The Bible itself says it doesn’t contain everything Jesus said or did. Are you saying some of Jesus’ words aren’t important? You’ll see that there’s another thread about Jesus’ brothers. Tradition says he had none. This is not counter to the Bible. And it therefore answers the loonies supposing that Jesus’ relatives are alive today, such as Dan Brown.

Why then isn’t Catholic Tradition exactly the same as Orthodox

For one, we’re not the same church as them

Based on the Bible alone, why’s there 100,000’s of different Protestant groups? Some few handling snakes. Some believe in baptism only for adults, some for children. Others (High Church Anglicans) who have the ‘Eucharist’ but even in their own church others (Low Church Anglicans) have simply a communal meal. There’s far more division within Anglicanism than within Orthodoxy with issues such as women priests, gay priests etc.

Tradition? Whose Tradition is right and how reliable is the oral transmission if the two Traditions differ?

By passing the test of what is taught everywhere. That’s how they judged which books were inspired. Did the Gospel of Mark teach what is known to be true amongst all the churches? Yes. The book didn’t authorise itself. It would be circular logic to think that it did. This is in fact the same illogical argument Moslems put about the Koran.
"Montalban:

The illogic of your stance is this…

Jesus spoke to an Apostle…say, John.

John carries around with him the message of Jesus. He carries it faithfully his life preaching the word. BUT UNTIL HE WRITES IT DOWN it’s less superior, because only once he’s written it down, must something be in accord with it.

In fact none of the Christian message was fully faithful until they wrote it down

The Apostle’s oral teaching was just as faithful as their written teaching.

And there you have it!

However Scripture is the only complete infallible authority we have for that teaching.

Based on what scripture? No scripture says “This is the only thing you need to have”. Sure, it says “All that is written is true” but that’s not the same thing.

It’s like I have a jug of water and a glass. I fill the glass up to the brim. I then say “This glass is full of water”. It doesn’t contain all the water that I have, but it of itself is full. The Bible says it contains the truth, not ALL the truth.

Incidentally, I appreciate you not being insulted when I called your stance illogical. It’s probably too strong a word, and I enjoy our continued discussion.