Do sola scriptura advocates believe that the word of God was transmitted through the person of Paul, and not just Paul’s letters?

[guanophore]

I don’t think that anyone who supports Sola Scriptura would say it applies during a time of revelation while things are being inscripurated.

Actually, many SS advocates do. They maintain that during the time the NT was being penned, the Church used the OT in a SS fashion.

 Once revelation ended and inscripturation was complete, Scripture became the only inerrant record of that revelation.

It is interesting that the Scriptures don’t contain any such teaching.

It is also a good thing this is a false statement, or the Church would not have been able to discern which books belonged in the NT. It was determined from Sacred Tradition, which is an inerrant record of God’s revelation.

Irenaeus talked of both tradition and Scripture but he also says the oral teachings were recorded in Scripture. Tradition didn’t contain more or a different revelation than Scripture.

Yes, the NT is derived from the oral teachings of the Church. Sacred Tradition does contain “more”, but you are right, it is not “different”. Since the two strands come from the same Source, they harmonize with one another.

Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostic heresy. What was one of their claims but that they had a separate oral tradition from the apostles in addition to Scripture. How do you combat that by claiming you have a different oral tradition? You rely on Scripture.

This is why your technique of asking for some Apostolic teaching that “cannot be found in the Scripture” misses the point. Sacred Tradition has to do with HOW scripture is to be understood. It is the lens through which we read the Holy Writings, the lens that was handed on to us by the Apostles.

The Reformers threw away the spectacles, and made themselves a different pair.

He notes the Gnostics claimed that the truth was delivered orally in addition to what was written. How is that any different from what the Catholic Church teaches today?

Do you think it should be different today?

We follow the Apostolic commandment to preserve the traditions just as they were given to us, whether they were oral, or in writing.

If oral transmission could be trusted to continue indefinitely why would the apostles have bothered to write anything at all and when they did write it why would they only leave a partial written record?

The only reason that oral tradition can be trusted is because of the Divine element. God is able to preserve His Word when it goes out, so that it accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent. He preserved the Torah among the Hebrews for 5000 years before Moses wrote down the creation stories. If God is not able to preserve oral tradition, then you can’t trust your OT either.

As far as the “partial record”, there was never an attempt made to include everything. Jesus established a Church, and the writers never imagined that the Sacred Writings would be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them. The Church was solid and functioning well, and the Scriptures were useful (profitable) in the equipping of the saints ( a duty given to people, not books).

The Apostle John was still alive and writing while Gnosticism was starting. Would he have left things unrecorded knowing that they claimed unrecorded teachings?

He left plenty “unrecorded”, as he made no effort to address everything in writing. His duty was to commit the Gospel to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. He noted that a significant problem was caused by those who did not accept his authority.

 

[Cat_Herder]

1. we all know catholic means universal

but this is what it actually says

1. biblos.com/acts/9-31.htm

church throughout all of Judea

What the original text actually says is “ekklesia kataholes.” You translate that as “church throughout all of Judea.”

 

[guanophore]

1. we all know catholic means universal

but this is what it actually says

1. biblos.com/acts/9-31.htm

church throughout all of Judea

Yes, indeed. The Church founded by Christ could be found “through out all” by locating those who were in unity with the Apostolic Teachings, and those who were authorized by them (bishops) to preserve and promulgate those teachings. When a person was travelling, they could inquire for the “catholic church” to find it.

 

[guanophore]

What the original text actually says is “ekklesia kataholes.” You translate that as “church throughout all of Judea.”

This is correct. Luke is writing about the state of the Church in Judea. The passage records that the ekklesia kath holos (the church throughout all) Judea was at peace. The adjective “catholic” stuck, so that the “church throughout all” (the same all over the world) became known by this name.

 

[tester]

What the original text actually says is “ekklesia kataholes.” You translate that as “church throughout all of Judea.”

no it does NOT:
that is not how it works

ekklēsia kath olēs
is not the same as
“ekklesia kataholes.”

please povide a referece for your claim

bible.cc/acts/9-31.htm

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
ecclesia quidem per totam Iudaeam et Galilaeam et Samariam habebat pacem et aedificabatur ambulans in timore Domini et consolatione Sancti Spiritus replebatur

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost.

Darby Bible Translation
The assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were increased through the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

English Revised Version
So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, was multiplied.

 

[tester]

. Luke is writing about the state of the Church in Judea. The passage records that the ekklesia kath holos (the church throughout all) Judea was at peace. The adjective “catholic” stuck, so that the “church throughout all” (the same all over the world) became known by this name.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.

 

[tester]

and now back to the OP:

We all know, when Paul preached, he did so with God’s authority. Do sola scriptura advocates believe that the word of God was transmitted through the person of Paul, and not just Paul’s letters?

**
Though some Catholic apologists assume that Sola Scriptura rules out any appeal to divine oral revelation,(STRAW MAN argument) no Protestant advocate of this doctrine has ever held that view. **

Advocates of Sola Scriptura take as** obvious **that, at some points in the history of redemption, God has revealed His will to His people by means of oral transmissions. For example, this form of revelation was authoritatively used prior to the time of Moses and the inscripturation of the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament writings.

No advocate of Sola Scriptura would claim, for example, that the immediate hearers of Isaiah’s pronouncements were free to disregard his prophetic revelations simply because he had not written them down. This would be a silly understanding of Sola Scriptura.

Hence, Sola Scriptura incorporates the fact that, as a general pattern, God reveals His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturates His Word.
At all points in this process, God’s Word is the supreme norm for Christian thought and practice.

Thus, **when Protestants speak of “Scriptura” we use it synonymously with such designations as “God’s Word” (whether oral or written), **a practice readily found in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Matt. 19:4-5; Mk. 7:9-13; Acts 2:16-17; Heb. 1:6-7).

Catholic apologists often appeal to New Testament oral “traditions” (e.g. II Tim. 2:2; II Thess. 2:15) as immediate refutations of Sola Scriptura. Given the distinctions above, this is a naive move on their part. As stated for any point in redemptive history, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the contention that the Word of God (oral or written) is the sole and supreme norm for Biblical faith.

The central issue, then, which Protestants affirm and Catholics deny, is the claim that the history of redemption demonstrates that God, at some points, revealed His Word temporarily in prophetic/oral form and then inscripturated this norm permanently in written form, with no subsequent authoritative appeals to oral revelation.

Protestants maintain that, following inscripturation, the oral “speaking as a child” is done away with, and our only norm is the “mature,” written Word of God; the latter is our current situation and, most notably, was that of the Reformers.

In contrast, Roman Catholics maintain that some oral teaching authority continues as a norm on par with Scripture (though they do not claim that this Sacred Tradition is new revelation; it is only explicative).

Protestants reject such a “co-supreme” norm and contend that Scripture itself teaches that the Word of God (now written) is our sole and supreme norm. We wholeheartedly reject the supreme authority of any secondary interpretations, explications, or extra-Biblical pronouncements, whether these are alleged charismatic revelations, Mary Baker Eddy’s insights, or Mormon or Catholic “apostolic” authorities.

from reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_issue.html

Joe370, I have send you these links before;’ if you really want to know the Protestant viewpoint please review them.

 

[joe370]

Tester, I will tale a look at those links right now. Are you suggesting that sola scriptura advocates embrace both sacred tradition and sacred scripture?

and now back to the OP:

**
Though some Catholic apologists assume that Sola Scriptura rules out any appeal to divine oral revelation,(STRAW MAN argument**) no Protestant advocate of this doctrine has ever held that view.

Advocates of Sola Scriptura take as** obvious **that, at some points in the history of redemption, God has revealed His will to His people by means of oral transmissions. For example, this form of revelation was authoritatively used prior to the time of Moses and the inscripturation of the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament writings.

No advocate of Sola Scriptura would claim, for example, that the immediate hearers of Isaiah’s pronouncements were free to disregard his prophetic revelations simply because he had not written them down. This would be a silly understanding of Sola Scriptura.

Hence, Sola Scriptura incorporates the fact that, as a general pattern, God reveals His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturates His Word.
At all points in this process, God’s Word is the supreme norm for Christian thought and practice.

Thus, **when Protestants speak of “Scriptura” we use it synonymously with such designations as “God’s Word” (whether oral or written), **a practice readily found in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Matt. 19:4-5; Mk. 7:9-13; Acts 2:16-17; Heb. 1:6-7).

Catholic apologists often appeal to New Testament oral “traditions” (e.g. II Tim. 2:2; II Thess. 2:15) as immediate refutations of Sola Scriptura. Given the distinctions above, this is a naive move on their part. As stated for any point in redemptive history, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the contention that the Word of God (oral or written) is the sole and supreme norm for Biblical faith.

The central issue, then, which Protestants affirm and Catholics deny, is the claim that the history of redemption demonstrates that God, at some points, revealed His Word temporarily in prophetic/oral form and then inscripturated this norm permanently in written form, with no subsequent authoritative appeals to oral revelation.

Protestants maintain that, following inscripturation, the oral “speaking as a child” is done away with, and our only norm is the “mature,” written Word of God; the latter is our current situation and, most notably, was that of the Reformers.

In contrast, Roman Catholics maintain that some oral teaching authority continues as a norm on par with Scripture (though they do not claim that this Sacred Tradition is new revelation; it is only explicative).

Protestants reject such a “co-supreme” norm and contend that Scripture itself teaches that the Word of God (now written) is our sole and supreme norm. We wholeheartedly reject the supreme authority of any secondary interpretations, explications, or extra-Biblical pronouncements, whether these are alleged charismatic revelations, Mary Baker Eddy’s insights, or Mormon or Catholic “apostolic” authorities.

from reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_issue.html

Joe370, I have send you these links before;’ if you really want to know the Protestant viewpoint please review them.

 

[tester]

Tester, I will tale a look at those links right now. Are you suggesting that sola scriptura advocates embrace both sacred tradition and sacred scripture?

no : the point is when Moses, Isaiah, or Paul said something : God’s people did not say " you have to write down first before we believe it"

but…after those writers died , we don’t say that that Joe said that Bob said that Herb said that St Paul said (but didn’t write down) that doctrine xyz is so important your salvation depends on it.

add this link

bringyou.to/apologetics/a60.htm

reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_issue.html

heavy reading; enjoy

 

[guanophore]

**
Though some Catholic apologists assume that Sola Scriptura rules out any appeal to divine oral revelation,(STRAW MAN argument**) no Protestant advocate of this doctrine has ever held that view.

Well, hang around here a while, tester, and you will meet plenty of them, just as I have.

Or you will meet those that believed that the Apostles had this divine oral revelation, but that it was all transferred to scripture, and died with them (was not preserved by the HS as Jesus promised.)

Advocates of Sola Scriptura take as** obvious **that, at some points in the history of redemption, God has revealed His will to His people by means of oral transmissions. For example, this form of revelation was authoritatively used prior to the time of Moses and the inscripturation of the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament writings.

I have always found it curious that SS’s seem to have no problem accepting that God is able to accurately preserve His Word through the Hebrews for 5000 years before Moses penned the Torah, but they can’t believe that the HS can do this for his Church.

No advocate of Sola Scriptura would claim, for example, that the immediate hearers of Isaiah’s pronouncements were free to disregard his prophetic revelations simply because he had not written them down. This would be a silly understanding of Sola Scriptura.

I agree. I fail to see how this bears upon the present discussion, though. I guess you are agreeing with us that teh Word of God can and has existed in oral form, and as such, is also inerrant and inspired.

Hence, Sola Scriptura incorporates the fact that, as a general pattern, God reveals His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturates His Word.

Yes. There has also never been a separation between that written word and the Teaching Authority He has ordained to be the custodian of it.

At all points in this process, God’s Word is the supreme norm for Christian thought and practice.

This is a point upon which we have 100% agreement. It is just that we have received from the Apostles that not all of His Word is confined to the Scriptures.

Thus, **when Protestants speak of “Scriptura” we use it synonymously with such designations as “God’s Word” (whether oral or written), **a practice readily found in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Matt. 19:4-5; Mk. 7:9-13; Acts 2:16-17; Heb. 1:6-7).

It seems like such an expression would just foment confusion, since “Scriptura” is confined to the written word,where the Word of God is not.

What it communicates is that SS do not hold the preached Word in the same esteem.

Catholic apologists often appeal to New Testament oral “traditions” (e.g. II Tim. 2:2; II Thess. 2:15) as immediate refutations of Sola Scriptura. Given the distinctions above, this is a naive move on their part.

How do you figure that? Do these scriptures not clearly indicate that there are two equal strands here?

As stated for any point in redemptive history, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the contention that the Word of God (oral or written) is the sole and supreme norm for Biblical faith.

This statement clearly contradicts itself. No wonder there are so many divergent understandings of what SS actuallly means!

The central issue, then, which Protestants affirm and Catholics deny, is the claim that the history of redemption demonstrates that God, at some points, revealed His Word temporarily in prophetic/oral form and then inscripturated this norm permanently in written form, with no subsequent authoritative appeals to oral revelation.

Well, the only part we disagree upon is that the oral Word in your view appears to “cease” being the inspired and inerrant Word of God when it is written, and we think that the Word of God endures forever. The oral form does not become “corrupted” when some of it is written.

If that were the case, the Contents of Genesis would surely have become corrupted over the 5000 years it was in oral form.

 

[guanophore]

Protestants maintain that, following inscripturation, the oral "speaking as a child" is done away with, and our only norm is the "mature," written Word of God; the latter is our current situation and, most notably, was that of the Reformers.

This is an interesting new twist I have not heard before. I learn something new here every day!

So I guess that means all the Apostles were speaking as children when they preached the Gospel? I guess Paul preached for 2 years at the Temple of Tyrannus speaking as a child?

In contrast, Roman Catholics maintain that some oral teaching authority continues as a norm on par with Scripture (though they do not claim that this Sacred Tradition is new revelation; it is only explicative).

Yes. God is able to preserve His Word, and does so, no matter what form it is in.

Protestants reject such a “co-supreme” norm and contend that Scripture itself teaches that the Word of God (now written) is our sole and supreme norm.

You have yet to show where Scripture itself teaches that it is the sole and supreme norm. It would be great if you could start with the verses you cited at the top of this post.

We wholeheartedly reject the supreme authority of any secondary interpretations, explications, or extra-Biblical pronouncements, whether these are alleged charismatic revelations, Mary Baker Eddy's insights, or Mormon or  Catholic "apostolic" authorities.

Yes, of course! This is what defines what it means to be Protestant.

One must be able to utterly reject the promises of Christ to His Church.

 

[guanophore]

no : the point is when Moses, Isaiah, or Paul said something : God’s people did not say " you have to write down first before we believe it"

but…after those writers died , we don’t say that that Joe said that Bob said that Herb said that St Paul said (but didn’t write down) that doctrine xyz is so important your salvation depends on it.

How do you think Moses came by everything that happened prior to his birth?

Why do you think God trained His people in oral tradition?

Why did everyone who came of age have to be able to recite their history and genealogy orally?

 

[tester]

How do you think Moses came by everything that happened prior to his birth?

Why do you think God trained His people in oral tradition?

Why did everyone who came of age have to be able to recite their history and genealogy orally?

would that include the oral tradition of Lilith and other Hebrew mythology?

Why don’t you tell me what separated God’s divine revelation from these oral Hebrew myths and traditions?

 

[guanophore]

would that include the oral tradition of Lilith and other Hebrew mythology?

Why don’t you tell me what separated God’s divine revelation from these oral Hebrew myths and traditions?

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God. The Source is divine,and it is supernaturally preserved.

myths are from humans, and to my knowledge are not divinely preserved. There are some references to secular literature in the Holy Writings, but that does not raise then to the level of inerrant and inspired.

I notice you did not answer my questions.

 

[joe370]

Tester, is it safe to say that you believe that traditions, spoken by Paul in the following passages, were eventually committed to sacred scripture, and any traditions passed on through the generations, in the CC, were/are not of God?

2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:2

 

[Nicea325]

The church fathers seemed able to refer to New Testament Scripture long before any of these councils.

Yes,but the church fathers did not refer only to the 27 NT books are you seem to perceive.There was plenty of other so-called scripture which did not make the final cut. And how long did it take those church fathers to decide which books were truly inspired scripture. Paul did not sit down and say: What I am writing down here without a doubt is inspired holy scripture. The church decided,not any NT writer or individual.