Is the bible all we need 1

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

Your concept of Sola Scriptura is incorrect.
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Thank you for the definition.

It is infallible, it is God Breathed!

No doubt about that.

Moreover, sola Scriptura affirms that all that the Church and every Christian must believe for salvation and godliness is certainly found in the Holy Scriptures.

I’ll return to this idea in a moment.

Jesus uses “It is written” as authoratative countless times. Does Jesus ever use “tradition” as authoratative? Jesus, as far as i remember never says anything good about tradition!

Why are you limiting me to words spoken by Jesus? You don’t limit yourself this way.

You’re right that Jesus condems *human *tradition. He does not, however, condemn *divine, apostolic *tradition. But, since you asked, I will quote Christ: “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” Mt. 23: 2. Jesus tells his listeners to follow the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. He does not tell them to appeal to scripture. Just what is the “seat of Moses” anyway? Where is it mentioned in the Old Testament? Well, it isn’t. So how does Jesus know about it if He Himself is not appealing to Tradition?

Appealing to the rest of the Bible:

1 Cor 11:2 (hold fast to traditions handed on)
2 Thess 2:15 (hold fast to traditions, whether oral or letter)
2 Thess 3:6 (shun those acting not according to tradition)
Jn 21: 25 (not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture)
2 Tim 2:2 (what you heard entrust to others)
1 Pet 1:25 (God’s eternal words=word preached to you)
Rom 10:17 (faith comes from what is heard)

Jude 1:3 - Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Apparently no new revalation.

This passage nowhere says revelation is restricted to scripture alone. Jude says it is faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints, not scripture.

(2 Timothy 3:15,16). The Bible is also useful for teaching and correction so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished for every good work.

Any grammarian can tell you that in this passage the modifiers *complete *and *thoroughly furnished *describe the man of God, not scripture.

How like the words of Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (De bono viduitatis, 2)

Augustine seems to be limiting himself to one apostle here. Which one? And do you agree that we should limit ourselves to the writings of one apostle? Or is Augustine saying something else?

I find it interesting too that you are appealing to Augustine at all. Shouldn’t you be limiting yourself to scripture?

The early church recognized by the leading of the Holy Spirit what books were God Breathed. All but 5 books were agreed upon by the late 100’s (I think 2cnd and 3rd John, 2cnd peter, revalation)

Yet, above you said, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: *unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, *or traditions of men.”

Where did the early church find in scripture what books belong in scripture? If they didn’t (and you admit they didn’t find all of them), then how could they know later, again without appealing to scripture, that other books should be added?

You also said, “Moreover, sola scriptura confirms that all the Church and every Christian must believe for salvation and godliness is certainly found in the Holy Scriptures.” If so, how did the early Christians, without appealing to scripture, know which books belong in the Bible? In fact, how does any Christian, including you, know which books contain what you must believe for salvation and godliness? How do you know, by appealing to scripture alone, that the Gospel of Thomas is not scripture? How do you know, by appealing to scripture alone, that Revelation is scripture?

Also, if “the early church recognized by the leading of the Holy Spirit which books were God-breathed,” why do you agree with Sproul that we have a *fallible *collection of infallible books? Certainly you’re not going to tell me the Holy Spirit was wrong. Then, if the canon is fallible, it can only be the church that was wrong. And if the church’s decision can be wrong, why do you follow it?

 

[eakswim]

Thanks For All Your Help In Answering These Questions

 

[Ignatius]

eakswim:

I am in conversation . . . .

Actually, your friend is in error here, the New Testament wasn’t determined until the fourth century. That means that the Church moved forward spreading the Faith for nearly 400 years using Sacred Tradition alone. In fact, the New Testament was determined by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit using Sacred Tradition alone. In other words the New Testament is the issue of Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

Your brother in Christ

 

[Will_Pick]

Lazerlike42:

First (and pardon me for using caps but really this is just so ridiculous I have no choice ): JUDE WAS WRITTEN SOMETIME AROUND 67 AD… THIS MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE 1, 2, and 3 JOHN, REVELATION, PROBABLY 2 PETER and POSSIBLY HEBREWS.

If they wish to use this to say it was “once and for all delievered” then they have to say that none of these books are a part of the deposit of faith.

When Jude writes of the “Faith,” he is literally referring to the faith of Christianity. You know how today we might use the word Christianity interchangably with “the faith?” We may say, “You must be ready to die for the faith,” or, “I want to join the faith.” That’s how Jude is using it.

More to come…

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, I see that once again kaycee is not answering my questions.

I do see that he has had time for other threads. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he either forgot about my questions, has not seen them yet, or needs more time for research.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

Well, I see that once again kaycee is not answering my questions.

I do see that he has had time for other threads. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he either forgot about my questions, has not seen them yet, or needs more time for research.

what are you talking about, read my reply to you on 7-31-05! Sorry, If delays occur, I do work for a living.

Peace <><

 

[Kay_Cee]

what are you talking about, read my reply to you on 7-31-05! Sorry, If delays occur, I do work for a living.

Peace <><

And I answered all your questions on Aug. 1.

Your questions, however, raised a new set of questions (see post 61) and you have not dealt with those.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

You’re right that Jesus condems *human *tradition. He does not, however, condemn *divine, apostolic *tradition. But, since you asked, I will quote Christ: “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” Mt. 23: 2. Jesus tells his listeners to follow the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. He does not tell them to appeal to scripture. Just what is the “seat of Moses” anyway? Where is it mentioned in the Old Testament? Well, it isn’t. So how does Jesus know about it if He Himself is not appealing to Tradition?

The “Seat of Moses”, figurative for teachers of the Law, Pharisees. They correctly taught the law, (Scripture) but were hypocrites. This is why Jesus says, “do what they say, not what they do.”. Jesus correctly condemms all their “traditions”!

Appealing to the rest of the Bible:

1 Cor 11:2 (hold fast to traditions handed on)
2 Thess 2:15 (hold fast to traditions, whether oral or letter)
2 Thess 3:6 (shun those acting not according to tradition)
Jn 21: 25 (not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture)
2 Tim 2:2 (what you heard entrust to others)
1 Pet 1:25 (God’s eternal words=word preached to you)
Rom 10:17 (faith comes from what is heard)

There is a false dichotomy between the written word and oral tradition that is without warrant! The text naturally infers that the message is the same, orally or by word. The church has never infalliby defined what Paul or Peter said anywhere! How can you possibly know that this “oral tradition” holds anything other than the same deposit of Faith this is written down? Where in the scripture does it state that the Paul’s written Word and the Oral word contain 2 different messages? It does’nt. To read into those verses the dichotomy of the ONE deposit of Faith is reading INTO the text something that is totally foreign. There is one deposit of faith, to claim it is not found in total from the scripture denies 2Ti 3:16,17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Jn 21: 25 (not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture)

Do I need to know when Jesus said “pass the salt”?

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

The “Seat of Moses”, figurative for teachers of the Law, Pharisees. They correctly taught the law, (Scripture) but were hypocrites. This is why Jesus says, “do what they say, not what they do.”. Jesus correctly condemms all their “traditions”!

What you are ignoring here is that **Jesus **uses a tradition: the seat of Moses. The seat of Moses is nowhere discussed in the Old Testament. How does He know what it is? How does He know His listeners will know what it is? And, going by scripture alone, what makes you think the “seat” is figurative for the teachers rather than an office they hold?

There is a false dichotomy between the written word and oral tradition that is without warrant!

You have no idea how much I agree with this. But it is Protestanism that wants to create a false dichotomy.

The text naturally infers that the message is the same, orally or by word.

How do you know? I don’t see any such inference.

The church has never infalliby defined what Paul or Peter said anywhere!

Not so. The Church has declared certain of their writings to be infallible scripture.

How can you possibly know that this “oral tradition” holds anything other than the same deposit of Faith this is written down?

Well, if we can’t know, how can you know that oral tradition and scripture are the same? Come to think of it, where does scripture say that scripture and oral tradition are the same?

Where in the scripture does it state that the Paul’s written Word and the Oral word contain 2 different messages? It does’nt.

So? My point is that not everything is in scripture.

To read into those verses the dichotomy of the ONE deposit of Faith is reading INTO the text something that is totally foreign. There is one deposit of faith, to claim it is not found in total from the scripture denies 2Ti 3:16,17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I already handled this verse. Complete and thoroughly equipped do not describe scripture. If you think they do, you’re the one reading something into the text.

Jn 21: 25 (not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture)

Do I need to know when Jesus said “pass the salt”?

Where does scripture say that not everything that is recorded about Jesus in scripture is trivial? Why would the writer mention it at all if it were not important?

You did not deal with my questions about the canon at all. Where does scripture say which books belong in scripture? If sola scriptura is right, scripture should handle the problem of what scripture is. Otherwise, how is the believer to know what to believe? You quote 2 Timothy, but how do you know that this book belongs in scripture? (Not saying it doesn’t, but how do you know going from scripture alone?) You claim that the one deposit of faith is found in total in scripture. Certainly the one deposit of faith should cover what scripture is!

Show me from scripture alone how you know which books belong in the Bible. If it can’t be done, sola scriptura is not true, since you have to appeal to something outside scripture to tell me what to believe.

 

[dcdurel]

Jesus said we must believe the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, and they handed this Gospel on to the successors they appointed, the bishops of the Catholic Church. Faith comes from hearing this Gospel that they taught and preached. Jesus said that if we didn’t believe this Gospel, we will be condemned. Thus, if people make up their own personal Gospel based on their personal interpretation of scripture and refuse to believe the Gospel the Church preaches, then they will be condemned.

Faith cannot come from reading the bible, or from listening to someone else read the bible, because God’s word cannot contradict itself. Of course the bible can illuminate the Gospel that the Church teaches and preaches, thus the bible can illuminate our faith. But, if we don’t know the Gospel the apostles handed down by teaching and preaching, that is, the Gospel the Church teaches and preaches today, then we cannot know the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

What you are ignoring here is that **Jesus **uses a tradition: the seat of Moses. The seat of Moses is nowhere discussed in the Old Testament. How does He know what it is? How does He know His listeners will know what it is? And, going by scripture alone, what makes you think the “seat” is figurative for the teachers rather than an office they hold?

Aparently the vast majority of Christendom has managed to be able to ignore this official “Oral office” for some 2000 years.

There is no other reference anywhere else! Your argument from silence only further refutes your claim. To declare the existence of an official Oral office called “the Moses Seat” from one debatable verse is to read volumes into the text that is not there, nor is it ever mentioned again! Is the Moses Seat mentioned when Christ is before the Sanhedrin? Any where in Acts? Are Peter and Paul beaten and jailed by decree of the “Seat of Moses”? It is clearly figurative for teachers of the Law and an unconvincing attempt by Catholic apologist’s to introduce “good tradition” not condemmed by Jesus. Your interpretation would lead to Jesus being incorrect in condemming the Corban Rule, the ritual hand washing, etc… The **disciples should be observing ** the ritual washing and the corbin rule **because the authority “seat of Moses” commanded them to!**Mark 7:7 “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” It is clearly figurative for teachers of the Law who teach from the Torah.

The church has never infalliby defined what Paul or Peter said anywhere! Not so. The Church has declared certain of their writings to be infallible scripture.

Sorry, I was not clear enough. The church has never infallibly defined what Paul or Peter said outside of what is recorded in scripture.

Well, if we can’t know, how can you know that oral tradition and scripture are the same? Come to think of it, where does scripture say that scripture and oral tradition are the same?

Scripture does not create a false dichotomy like you are attempting. It is the one body of Faith delivered once and for all. I am not making the claim that there are 2 seperate bodies of truth, you are. You have not provided any evidence to show that God Breathed revelation is written AND Eternally Oral! Scripture recognizes no big T Oral tradition not written down. Show me verses that hint at big T tradition. Show me verses that say the scripture is incomplete, inadequate, needing to be supplemented. The Church fathers argue from Scripture against heresy, not tradition! There are certainly traditions handed down, candles, facing the east: little t. Some not held by the Church today, but claimed to be of apostolic origin!

I find it odd that there is no Canon of Big T tradition or any indication of what this tradition IS! Can’t someone list what God Breathed Oral tradition might be other than having the sole ability to rightly divide the Word?

I’ll get to the other questions when i have more time. My time is limited recently

Peace <><

 

[kaycee]

dcdurel:

Jesus said we must believe the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, and they handed this Gospel on to the successors they appointed, the bishops of the Catholic Church. Faith comes from hearing this Gospel that they taught and preached. Jesus said that if we didn’t believe this Gospel, we will be condemned. Thus, if people make up their own personal Gospel based on their personal interpretation of scripture and refuse to believe the Gospel the Church preaches, then they will be condemned.

Faith cannot come from reading the bible, or from listening to someone else read the bible, because God’s word cannot contradict itself. Of course the bible can illuminate the Gospel that the Church teaches and preaches, thus the bible can illuminate our faith. But, if we don’t know the Gospel the apostles handed down by teaching and preaching, that is, the Gospel the Church teaches and preaches today, then we cannot know the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That’s more of an argument for No scripture, and only church.

 

[Ghosty]

Aparently the vast majority of Christendom has managed to be able to ignore this official “Oral office” for some 2000 years.

Vast majority? Do you realize that there were NO surviving non-Apostalic Christian groups for 1500 years? Do you realize that the VAST majority, upwards of two thirds to threee fourths, of modern Christians are Apostalic?

Non-Apostalic Christians have been a tiny, tiny minority for most of history, and only recently have they become a not-as-tiny minority.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s an interesting OT perspective on Oral Tradition. Does it say somewhere in the NT that Oral Tradition will no longer be used and Sola Scriptura should be the rule of faith?
kensmen.com/catholic/solascriptura.html

An oral explanation had to accompany the Written Torah. Otherwise, much of it would be incomprehensible. For example:

Exodus 16:29
“See that the L–rd has given you the Sabbath;…let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” What is the meaning of the term “place”? The Oral Tradition stipulates that a Jew is forbidden to walk more than 0.7 miles beyond his city’s perimeter.

Exodus 31:15
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the L–rd; whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” What constitutes work? The Oral Tradition explains that those activities involved in building the portable Tabernacle in the wilderness are prohibited on the Sabbath.

Deuteronomy 6:8
“And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” Without the Oral Tradition, one would never know that this verse is speaking of the tefillin worn by Jewish men during morning prayer. These black, leather boxes contain verses from the Hebrew Bible and are strapped to one’s arm and forehead.

Deuteronomy 6:9
“And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates.” This refers to mezuzoth, parchments inscribed with Biblical verses, which are placed in small containers and affixed to the doorposts of Jewish homes.

Numbers 29:1
“In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy convocation: you shall do no servile work—it shall be a day of blowing for you.” This description of Rosh Hashanah does not specify what exactly is to be blown on the Jewish New Year, but the Oral Tradition does: a shofar (ram’s horn).

Numbers 29:7
“On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation and afflict yourselves; you shall do no work…” Only the Oral Tradition teaches us that “afflicting yourselves” on Yom Kippur means abstaining from all food and drink.

Deuteronomy 12:21
"If the place where the L–rd, your G–d, shall choose to put His Name be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the L–rd has given you, as I have commanded you… "The method of ritual slaughter is not found anywhere in the Written Torah, but it is part of the Oral Tradition.

If no oral explanation had been taught to the nation from the outset, the uniform observance of the Torah’s commandments would have been impossible!

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

Aparently the vast majority of Christendom has managed to be able to ignore this official “Oral office” for some 2000 years.

There is no other reference anywhere else! Your argument from silence only further refutes your claim. To declare the existence of an official Oral office called “the Moses Seat” from one debatable verse is to read volumes into the text that is not there, nor is it ever mentioned again! Is the Moses Seat mentioned when Christ is before the Sanhedrin? Any where in Acts? Are Peter and Paul beaten and jailed by decree of the “Seat of Moses”? It is clearly figurative for teachers of the Law and an unconvincing attempt by Catholic apologist’s to introduce “good tradition” not condemmed by Jesus. Your interpretation would lead to Jesus being incorrect in condemming the Corban Rule, the ritual hand washing, etc… The **disciples should be observing **the ritual washing and the corbin rule **because the authority “seat of Moses” commanded them to!**Mark 7:7 “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” It is clearly figurative for teachers of the Law who teach from the Torah.

You completely missed my point. My point is that Jesus refers to something not mentioned in the scripture of His time, that is, the Old Testament. We can argue ad nauseum about what the seat of Moses is, but that is irrelevant. My point is that Jesus mentions the seat of Moses, knowing that His listeners will understand what He is referring to. The fact that it is only mentioned once is sufficient. And I did not declare that the seat of Moses was an office. I asked how you know it is not.

Sorry, I was not clear enough. The church has never infallibly defined what Paul or Peter said outside of what is recorded in scripture.

Apology accepted, of course. I’m wondering why you think oral tradition must be limited to Paul or Peter.

Scripture does not create a false dichotomy like you are attempting. It is the one body of Faith delivered once and for all. I am not making the claim that there are 2 seperate bodies of truth, you are.

I agree that there is one body of **faith **delievered once and for all. Actually, the Church holds that there is only Tradition but that this Tradition is expressed both in written (scripture) and oral forms. Therefore, there is no false dichotomy.

By the way, if you want to argue that body of faith=scripture, wouldn’t that give you a problem with the Book of Revelations? After all, the scripture that told us that the body of faith was delivered once and for all was written before Revelations was. So if body of faith=scripture, and scripture is all we need, wouldn’t Revelations be adding something to scripture? I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the body of faith unless you think it means scripture. I apologize if that’s not what you meant.

You have not provided any evidence to show that God Breathed revelation is written AND Eternally Oral! Scripture recognizes no big T Oral tradition not written down. Show me verses that hint at big T tradition.

I have already done this (see my post above where I listed verses), but you reject my interpretation. Where does scripture say your interpretation is the correct one? And, yes, scripture doesn’t say my interpretation is the correct one either. But that’s part of my point. Scripture is not self-interpreting. That being the case, how can we know the truth? Wouldn’t this lead to something like, oh, a bunch of different denominations teaching different things? But Jesus said He would not leave us orphans. He said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. How can this happen without a way (like oral tradition) to determine whose interpretation is the correct one?

Show me verses that say the scripture is incomplete, inadequate, needing to be supplemented.

Again, you are assuming everything must be in scripture.

The Church fathers argue from Scripture against heresy, not tradition!

Why are you appealing to something **outside **scripture? Shouldn’t you limit yourself to scripture?

There are certainly traditions handed down, candles, facing the east: little t. Some not held by the Church today, but claimed to be of apostolic origin!

As you point out, these are little t traditions. They are therefore changeable. Big T Tradition means the Word of God handed down, both in written and oral forms. Big T Tradition is **what we believe. **Little t tradition is how we use those beliefs, that is, how we go about worshipping God. Candles can be used or eliminated. They are not a part of what we believe is God’s truth.

Continued in next post . . .

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

I find it odd that there is no Canon of Big T tradition or any indication of what this tradition IS! Can’t someone list what God Breathed Oral tradition might be other than having the sole ability to rightly divide the Word?

You find it odd that what’s oral is not written? Why this insistence that everything must be written down? If everything must be written down, where is the inspiried list (canon) of the *written *Tradition (scripture) written down in scripture?

I’ll get to the other questions when i have more time. My time is limited recently

Peace <><

That’s fine. I’m very much enjoying our debate and looking forward to your answers about the canon.

I hope you’ll forgive me if I didn’t articulate everything well in these two posts. I’ve been very ill–a fever of 103, even after taking a high dose of ibuprophen. I’m better but still running a fever and feeling pretty yucky.

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

You completely missed my point. My point is that Jesus refers to something not mentioned in the scripture of His time, that is, the Old Testament. We can argue ad nauseum about what the seat of Moses is, but that is irrelevant. My point is that Jesus mentions the seat of Moses, knowing that His listeners will understand what He is referring to. The fact that it is only mentioned once is sufficient. And I did not declare that the seat of Moses was an office. I asked how you know it is not.

By the plain meaning of the text. It is certainly a figure of speech for teachers of the Law. I would also hope they could understand figures of speech especially in this sarcastic usage. The one time usage also lends credence that it is figurative. The remainder of the time Jesus calls them Pharisee’s, teachers of the Law, the high priest, etc…

I’m wondering why you think oral tradition must be limited to Paul or Peter.

I did not make that claim. not sure how you arrived at that assumption.

By the way, if you want to argue that body of faith=scripture, wouldn’t that give you a problem with the Book of Revelations? After all, the scripture that told us that the body of faith was delivered once and for all was written before Revelations was. So if body of faith=scripture, and scripture is all we need, wouldn’t Revelations be adding something to scripture? I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the body of faith unless you think it means scripture. I apologize if that’s not what you meant.

The one Body of Faith = the basics of the Faith at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written.

And, yes, scripture doesn’t say my interpretation is the correct one either. But that’s part of my point. Scripture is not self-interpreting. That being the case, how can we know the truth? Wouldn’t this lead to something like, oh, a bunch of different denominations teaching different things? But Jesus said He would not leave us orphans. He said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. How can this happen without a way (like oral tradition) to determine whose interpretation is the correct one?

The majority of scripture IS easy enough to understand when taken at face value. Harder verses are compared to similar verses to arrive at the correct meaing Problems appear when the church tries to read into the text doctrine that is foreign to the original meaning.

Again, you are assuming everything must be in scripture.

Not everything, The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men"

Why are you appealing to something **outside **scripture? Shouldn’t you limit yourself to scripture?

If I want to teach doctrine, I would only appeal to scripture. If I want to show that the fathers appealed to scripture when confronting heresy I can read and quote from their writings. I am not convinced you understand what Sola Scriptura is.

As you point out, these are little t traditions. They are therefore changeable. Big T Tradition means the Word of God handed down, both in written and oral forms. Big T Tradition is **what we believe. **Little t tradition is how we use those beliefs, that is, how we go about worshipping God. Candles can be used or eliminated. They are not a part of what we believe is God’s truth.

Show me the list of Big T tradition! If its on par with scripture, can’t you tell me what it is? Is’nt there an infallible list?

 

[kaycee]

Kay Cee:

You find it odd that what’s oral is not written? Why this insistence that everything must be written down? If everything must be written down, where is the inspiried list (canon) of the *written *Tradition (scripture) written down in scripture?

There is no inspired list! How could there be? The Canon is derived from the letters, not something extra!

If I write 10 letters to my wife, the “canon” of all my letters is derived from the letters, not something new.

Do you understand my drift?

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

By the plain meaning of the text. It is certainly a figure of speech for teachers of the Law. I would also hope they could understand figures of speech especially in this sarcastic usage. The one time usage also lends credence that it is figurative. The remainder of the time Jesus calls them Pharisee’s, teachers of the Law, the high priest, etc…

But Jesus still refers to something not mentioned in the Old Testament, that is, not in the scripture of His time. It doesn’t matter how many times He does this–the fact is that He does this. Since you are going by scripture alone, where does scripture say that its usage is figurative?

I did not make that claim. not sure how you arrived at that assumption.

Because you brought it up. I was wondering why you were mentioning just these two. Sorry if I misunderstood.

The one Body of Faith = the basics of the Faith at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written.

Then you must agree that the one Body of Faith was added to, since more scripture was added later.

The majority of scripture IS easy enough to understand when taken at face value. Harder verses are compared to similar verses to arrive at the correct meaing Problems appear when the church tries to read into the text doctrine that is foreign to the original meaning.

Forgive me, but I see you reading into the text doctrine that is foreign to the original meaning, like trying to make 2 Tim 3:16 mean that we should go by scripture alone. By the way, where does scripture define the one Body of Faith as the basics of the Faith at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written?

Not everything, The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men"

Isn’t one thing necessary for salvation to know what is scripture and what is not?

If I want to teach doctrine, I would only appeal to scripture. If I want to show that the fathers appealed to scripture when confronting heresy I can read and quote from their writings. I am not convinced you understand what Sola Scriptura is.
Show me the list of Big T tradition! If its on par with scripture, can’t you tell me what it is? Is’nt there an infallible list?

The closest thing you will find is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can’t show you a canon because one doesn’t exist. Now, before you get too excited, there is a reason for that. Tradition has to cover things that did not exist at the time scripture was written. Is it okay to clone people or not? Scripture is silent. But Tradition tells us that our beliefs about human dignity cover this issue.

 

[Kay_Cee]

kaycee:

There is no inspired list! How could there be? The Canon is derived from the letters, not something extra!

If I write 10 letters to my wife, the “canon” of all my letters is derived from the letters, not something new.

Do you understand my drift?

Frankly, no, I don’t.

First of all, since you admit there is no inspired list that constitutes the canon, why do you keep asking me for a canon of Tradition?

Secondly, scripture is a lot more than letters. It is the gospels. It is Acts. It is Revelations. And there are other writings out there, like the gospel of Thomas, and the letters of Clement. How do you know the letter to the Hebrews is scripture but the letters of Clement are not? How do you know the gospel of Matthew is scripture, but the gospel of Thomas is not? **By what criterea do you know what is scripture and what is not? Where does scripture cover what is scripture and what is not? **