It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Drawmack]

Drawmack-

I saw that you were annoyed that Teachccd failed to answer this question directly (post #28).

I think that there are numerous passages that reflect the idea that the oral teaching of the Apostles was inspired by God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Paul declares that the teaching delivered to the Thessalonians is not that of men but is the word of God.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the tradition you received from us.

There’s more, but 1 Th. 2:13 should be sufficient.

Yes, the oral tradition of the Apostles was inspired by God. At a time when most people couldn’t read. oral tradition was inspired. In a time when the oral tradition had not been committed to paper the oral tradition was inspired.

However, the Scriptures call Scripture God Breathed. This elevates scripture to a level above just inspiration. A priest, or ministered, might be inspired this weekend to give a homily, or sermon, which really reaches his sheep. Sure that’s inspired, but that doesn’t mean that his words are God breathed.

There’s a big difference between being inspired and being God breathed. In the Bible it repeated talks about God breathing life into people. To say something is God breathed is to say that it is a living creation of the creator.

Okay all that being said, you still didn’t address the second part of my question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, the Scriptures call Scripture God Breathed. This elevates scripture to a level above just inspiration. A priest, or ministered, might be inspired this weekend to give a homily, or sermon, which really reaches his sheep. Sure that’s inspired, but that doesn’t mean that his words are God breathed.

There’s a big difference between being inspired and being God breathed. In the Bible it repeated talks about God breathing life into people. To say something is God breathed is to say that it is a living creation of the creator.

This is incorrect in that you are making a distinction between “inspired” and “God-breathed” that should not exist.

Inspired means “animated by God” which is the same as “God-breathed” since the breath of God is that which give life (Adam & Eve, etc.). Someone who gives a great sermon is not “inspired” in the truest sense of the word but is merely highly motivated, eloquent, etc.

The Apostles were inspired and infallible when they taught and when they wrote the scriptures.

Okay all that being said, you still didn’t address the second part of my question.

My apologies. Would you mind restating it so I don’t miss it?

 

[Drawmack]

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

Okay, let’s evaluate your list based on that.

1. The canon of the New Testament

Okay I agree that this meets the above list.

1. Public revelation has ended

I do not agree with this, there will be a ton of public revelation once the end times in revelation start.

1. There are to be no more Apostles

I do not agree with this, there will be 144,000 (If we take the number literally, otherwise replace them number with the words “a whole bunch”) of Apostles in the time of Revelation.

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

You misunderstand sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura relates only to faith and morals. Besides, just because a person, or group of people, listened to the Holy Spirit once doesn’t mean they always will as is proven by the Catholic definition of Old Testament canon.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And, I pointed out that they do have a Biblical basis.

Drawmack-

Do you think it would be fair to say that Catholic Tradition also has a Biblical basis?

Understand that just because you are personally unfamiliar with that basis, it doesn’t mean that none exists…

 

[Drawmack]

This is incorrect in that you are making a distinction between “inspired” and “God-breathed” that should not exist.

So you would say that if God inspires a homily which really reaches the congregation, then that homily is God breathed?

Inspired means “animated by God” which is the same as “God-breathed” since the breath of God is that which give life (Adam & Eve, etc.). Someone who gives a great sermon is not “inspired” in the truest sense of the word but is merely highly motivated, eloquent, etc.

So, it is impossible for a great sermon or homily to be inspired in the truest sense of the word?

The Apostles were inspired and infallible when they taught and when they wrote the scriptures.

So, no Apostles ever misspoke or taught something that wasn’t correct and all of them left the churches they had planted with a clear understanding of the Gospel?

My apologies. Would you mind restating it so I don’t miss it?

I’m pressed for time could you go back to my original post and work from there please?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay I agree that this meets the above list.

Does the existence of this one extra-Biblical Tradition disprove sola scriptura since I am now obligated to believe the Bible AND the canon of the Bible which is not in the Bible?

I do not agree with this, there will be a ton of public revelation once the end times in revelation start.

An interesting perspective. What verses would you cite in support of this?

I do not agree with this, there will be 144,000 (If we take the number literally, otherwise replace them number with the words “a whole bunch”) of Apostles in the time of Revelation.

Verses?

You misunderstand sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura relates only to faith and morals.

Do I? I struggle to get my mind around it because there seems to be no fixed definition. Here is one I am familiar with:

Sola Scriptura** Defined by Protestant Author James White**

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you would say that if God inspires a homily which really reaches the congregation, then that homily is God breathed?

No, I said the exact opposite.

So, it is impossible for a great sermon or homily to be inspired in the truest sense of the word?

Impossible? Nothing is impossible with God.

So, no Apostles ever misspoke or taught something that wasn’t correct and all of them left the churches they had planted with a clear understanding of the Gospel?

None of the Apostles ever misspoke or taught something that wasn’t correct.

The churches may or may not have had a clear understanding since infallibility has to do with the teaching and not with the hearing.

My “hearing” or “understanding” is not protected by the gift of infallibility; the teaching of the Church is.

I’m pressed for time could you go back to my original post and work from there please?

I have looked back through this thread, and I could not find it. I looked for questions marks…did you actually post your question as a statement that needed to be addressed? What post #? Thanks.

 

[crazzeto]

IF that’s the definition of Sola Scritura, then it’s a contradictory mess and it sounds like who ever wrote that is trying to back pedel out of the claim that everything Christian must be found in the bible (because they know darn well that isn’t true. Where’s “Trinity” in the bible?).

I would like to see anyone justify this portion of the definition you posted:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.

I would like to see a single supporting bible vs. I can on the other hand provide many contradictory vs from the bible.

 

[Awful_Things]

At a time when most people couldn’t read. oral tradition was inspired. In a time when the oral tradition had not been committed to paper the oral tradition was inspired.

Wait a second, where did these two qualifiers come from? Are they from the Bible? Or did you just come up with them? Please show me the source for limiting the oral teachings in this way. I believe this might be what some would call a tradition of men.

 

[bookgirl32]

Okay, I get that. However, the claim about Sacred Traditions is based on the notion of Apostolic Succession. This his is a historic claim, and the Church does not claim infallibility in matters of history.

When you’re speaking of apostolic succession are you referring to the Pope? Just not sure. I can see where it would be an historic “claim”, but it would also be a “faith” claim, therefore making it a matter of faith and morals. This is like saying that the compilation of the books of the Bible, the “table of contents”, is a historical claim only since it is information that has been passed down.

So, fine it doesn’t have to be in the Bible, you can use any reasonable historic document.

No, not really. We can use any official Catholic doctrine of the Church. Not just anything “historical”.

But prove this historic claim and do so in the face of 1 Tim’s requirements to be a Bishop and the fact that different sects and rites practice these traditions different, some even subscribe a different meaning to them.

Again, be more specific. Are you questioning apostolic succession as in the Pope or the infallibility of Tradition? And see my long paragraph below.

This is why I never have and never will say that Catholics are not Christians or act like Catholics need to be converted. So long as what you teach isn’t contrary to Gospel you’re good to go in my book. But, that doesn’t mean I accept those teachings as necessary either.

This is great, and cool with me. (Not that I wouldn’t love you to be Catholic though).

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic Church? Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church with the full deposit of the faith?

Yes.

Do you believe that you should seek to convert me to Catholicism?

I believe that I should do my best to represent Catholicism so that there are no misunderstandings of the teachings. I believe I can have discussions with you about what is truth or not truth or what is the fullness of the truth. I can’t “convert” you. You would have to become a convert yourself . I wouldn’t want to “convince” you, I would want the truth of the Church to convince you.

Sometimes do I really like to be right while arguing on these boards? Yes but that’s my own problem .

Okay, now I see no need to convert you because I hold different beliefs on what Church is than you do, but you should be seeking to convert me according to the Catholic teachings on ecumenism in the CCC.

Hmmmmm, provide more context.

This being the case, I really don’t have to show you anything because I believe that you can be saved as easily where you are as I can where I am.

So, if you really want to stand by this statement what you’re saying is – I don’t have to answer your questions about Catholicism; You have to show me why we’re wrong. You can say that all you want, but it’s probably not going to get many converts.

No, what I’m saying is that if you’re going to debate Catholicism, you have to debate it within it’s own structure. We’re not talking about all questions about Catholicism, or even questions like yours above where you referene a scripture passage that you see a problem with and want a Catholic response in reference to that passage and how the Church deals with it. That’s questioning whether or not the Bible is in contradiction, not asking “where is it in the Bible?” These are two different questions. The first is healthy discussion within the confines of both Protestantism and Cathoicism, the second is wanting the Catholic to limit themselves to Sola or Prima scriptura in order to “prove” the Catholic Church. That’s why the question “show me where in the Bible” (and not “what about this specific thing in the Bible that I’m concerned about”) always ends up going back to a SS or PS argument, because forcing a Catholic to argue within the confines of either (both which the Church teaches are incorrect) is going to set up an argument where the Church can’t win. A strawman argument, in a way.

Those are your beliefs, I do not want to misrepresent myself. I use the capital T for clarity when speaking of both.

Which is what I was doing, in order to avoid a derailment of the thread into what is or isn’t little T or big T or if bit T even existed. I said that to clarify that the Catholic position of Sacred Tradition is what we were talking about, not to convince you of it.

I simply don’t wish to misrepresent my beliefs. Much like those Catholics that refuse to capitalize words like Protestant or say things like POR-TEST-ANT.

You’re not, and hopefully I’m not on mine either. I don’t see a problem with capitalizing Protestant. and I have no idea what “port-est-ant” is supposed to mean? Is this derogatory? I really don’t know!

 

[bookgirl32]

IF that’s the definition of Sola Scritura, then it’s a contradictory mess and it sounds like who ever wrote that is trying to back pedel out of the claim that everything Christian must be found in the bible (because they know darn well that isn’t true. Where’s “Trinity” in the bible?).

I would like to see anyone justify this portion of the definition you posted:

I would like to see a single supporting bible vs. I can on the other hand provide many contradictory vs from the bible.

?? Randy was defining Sola Scriptura when he wrote this. Maybe you’re confused? He agrees with you.

EDIT:

Nevermind, you were agreeing with him. Apparently I can’t read .

 

[Drawmack]

Does the existence of this one extra-Biblical Tradition disprove sola scriptura since I am now obligated to believe the Bible AND the canon of the Bible which is not in the Bible?

I’ve actually been thinking about this today and would like to amend my earlier answer. You said I have to agree that it is not alluded to in the Bible. The Canon of scripture is not defined in the Bible but the fact that we need scripture is stated in the Bible and this statement alludes to the fact that we do need to have a canon. Therefore this is alluded to in the Bible. Thus, it does not meet with your list that we must both agree on. Sorry for not being more clear on this, this morning.

An interesting perspective. What verses would you cite in support of this?

Outside the scope of this thread. You said I had to agree to the four points, I told you why I didn’t, continuing beyond that is outside the scope of this thread and off topic.

Verses?

Outside the scope of this thread. You said I had to agree to the four points, I told you why I didn’t, continuing beyond that is outside the scope of this thread and off topic.

 

[Drawmack]

None of the Apostles ever misspoke or taught something that wasn’t correct.

The churches may or may not have had a clear understanding since infallibility has to do with the teaching and not with the hearing.

My “hearing” or “understanding” is not protected by the gift of infallibility; the teaching of the Church is.

Okay, I was only asking to give you the opportunity to clarify because I thought you’re earlier post alluded to something that couldn’t possibly be true or we’d have no epistles because there would have been no need.

I have looked back through this thread, and I could not find it. I looked for questions marks…did you actually post your question as a statement that needed to be addressed? What post #? Thanks.

Drawmack:

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

You addressed the first part, or at least attempted to, but you didn’t address the second part.

 

[Drawmack]

Wait a second, where did these two qualifiers come from? Are they from the Bible? Or did you just come up with them? Please show me the source for limiting the oral teachings in this way. I believe this might be what some would call a tradition of men.

Could most people read when the Bible was written? While the Bible was being written had the Bible already been written? The qualifications are implicit when you study scripture the way the Catholic Church tells you to which is in the context of who it was written to and when it was written.

 

[Drawmack]

When you’re speaking of apostolic succession are you referring to the Pope? Just not sure.

I was posting quickly and was probably not clear with my words. Here’s how I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong). The doctrine of infallibility is related to apostolic succession, but is not the sum total of apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession covers everything which stems from there being an unbroken chain leading to the apostles (I’m avoiding a full discussion of the laying on of hands for brevity). This is why Churches in schism can have valid sacraments because they have Apostolic Succession. Infallibility is reserved to the Pope, and the communion of bishops when speaking in concert with the Pope (counsel declarations for example). The reasoning for the Pope’s infallibility is because of the unbroken chain on Peter’s chair. Does that clear it up and am I correct?

I can see where it would be an historic “claim”, but it would also be a “faith” claim, therefore making it a matter of faith and morals. This is like saying that the compilation of the books of the Bible, the “table of contents”, is a historical claim only since it is information that has been passed down.

I do not intend to show contempt or disrespect for the Catholic faith, but let me explain why I see a problem with this statement. The Magisterium has declared the doctrine of infallibility on matters of faith and morals only. If that doctrine is, itself, a matter of faith. Then this basically means the Magisterium said “we’re infallible because we say we’re infallible”. To me, this equates to placing your faith in an institution.

No, not really. We can use any official Catholic doctrine of the Church. Not just anything “historical”.

I would disagree with this. I think that a secular source would be perfectly valid unless it can be shown to be incorrect. If we only accept official Catholic reports of history for validating historical claims made by the Catholic Church we run into the same thing as above where the Magisterium is infallible because the Magisterium says they are infallible.

Again, be more specific. Are you questioning apostolic succession as in the Pope or the infallibility of Tradition? And see my long paragraph below.

See above

This is great, and cool with me. (Not that I wouldn’t love you to be Catholic though).

I believe that I should do my best to represent Catholicism so that there are no misunderstandings of the teachings. I believe I can have discussions with you about what is truth or not truth or what is the fullness of the truth. I can’t “convert” you. You would have to become a convert yourself . I wouldn’t want to “convince” you, I would want the truth of the Church to convince you.

Sorry for my sloppy words. Would it be fair to say that it is in accordance with Catholic teachings that all Catholics seek the conversion of all to the Catholic Church? (Noting that only the Holy Spirit can convert and the people are simply His messengers and tools.)

No, what I’m saying is that if you’re going to debate Catholicism, you have to debate it within it’s own structure. We’re not talking about all questions about Catholicism, or even questions like yours above where you referene a scripture passage that you see a problem with and want a Catholic response in reference to that passage and how the Church deals with it. That’s questioning whether or not the Bible is in contradiction, not asking “where is it in the Bible?” These are two different questions. The first is healthy discussion within the confines of both Protestantism and Cathoicism, the second is wanting the Catholic to limit themselves to Sola or Prima scriptura in order to “prove” the Catholic Church. That’s why the question “show me where in the Bible” (and not “what about this specific thing in the Bible that I’m concerned about”) always ends up going back to a SS or PS argument, because forcing a Catholic to argue within the confines of either (both which the Church teaches are incorrect) is going to set up an argument where the Church can’t win. A strawman argument, in a way.

I can see that rational, it even makes sense. Here is what I’m getting at. The Bible talks about tradition and the Bible talks about Scripture. However, it references Scripture as God Breathed. This elevates Scripture to a level far and away beyond anything else. So, why is it necessary to accept that anything else has been elevated to this level without Scriptural support for this elevation?

Which is what I was doing, in order to avoid a derailment of the thread into what is or isn’t little T or big T or if bit T even existed. I said that to clarify that the Catholic position of Sacred Tradition is what we were talking about, not to convince you of it.

Thank you for the clarification.

You’re not, and hopefully I’m not on mine either. I don’t see a problem with capitalizing Protestant. and I have no idea what “port-est-ant” is supposed to mean? Is this derogatory? I really don’t know!

Sorry for the typo it was supposed to be PRO-TEST-ANT. Which, yes, I view as derogatory because it is a manipulation of the word.

 

[Awful_Things]

Could most people read when the Bible was written? While the Bible was being written had the Bible already been written? The qualifications are implicit when you study scripture the way the Catholic Church tells you to which is in the context of who it was written to and when it was written.

Not the case at all. True, most could not read when it was written. Nor could the Bible have been written (past tense) while it was in the process of being written.

Both of these points are “implicit” proof that oral Tradition was necessary at that time, but neither implies that oral Tradition then ended once most people could read or after the Bible was completed. In fact, many other practical reasons can be given for why it must remain (such as problems arising from personal interpretation), so the burden of proof is upon you to establish why it necessarily would have ended after that point.

You are making the assumption that oral tradition stopped then.

In fact, the verse that most Protestants point to in order to support sola-Scripture disproves your assumption. 2 Tim. 3:16 refers (as noted in verse 15) to the Scripture that the readers knew “from childhood”, meaning that it was primarily a reference to the Old Testament. Not only does Paul’s instructions indicate that there was sufficient literacy for instruction, reproof, teaching and correction usin this existing Scripture (showing that there was no necessary need for Oral Tradition above and beyond what we have today). It also indicates, if one follows the Protestant argument, that these existant Scriptures were “sufficient” until such time as the New Testiment was codified. In fact, all of the proof texts used for sola-Scriptura, referring primarily to Old Testiment, show that there was no need for Oral Tradition to hold the people over until the compilation of the New Testament. If such was not the case, then (as Catholics would argue) none of these verses establish what Protestants claim they do, which means there is no Biblical support for sola-Scriptura.

So at best there are verses (without qualifiers except for in your assumptions) for lasting oral tradition.

At worst, there are no verses to provide support for sola-Scriptura, which is (in itself) proof against a statute of limitations on Tradition as there is no indicator of the sufficiency of Scripture alone.

 

[Awful_Things]

Here is what I’m getting at. The Bible talks about tradition and the Bible talks about Scripture. However, it references Scripture as God Breathed. This elevates Scripture to a level far and away beyond anything else. So, why is it necessary to accept that anything else has been elevated to this level without Scriptural support for this elevation?

I addressed this in an earlier post and demonstrated the inspiration of God (his breath) at work in Tradition. No response followed.

 

[Drawmack]

In fact, the verse that most Protestants point to in order to support sola-Scripture disproves your assumption. 2 Tim. 3:16 refers (as noted in verse 15) to the Scripture that the readers knew “from childhood”, meaning that it was primarily a reference to the Old Testament. Not only does Paul’s instructions indicate that there was sufficient literacy for instruction, reproof, teaching and correction usin this existing Scripture (showing that there was no necessary need for Oral Tradition above and beyond what we have today). It also indicates, if one follows the Protestant argument, that these existant Scriptures were “sufficient” until such time as the New Testiment was codified. In fact, all of the proof texts used for sola-Scriptura, referring primarily to Old Testiment, show that there was no need for Oral Tradition to hold the people over until the compilation of the New Testament. If such was not the case, then (as Catholics would argue) none of these verses establish what Protestants claim they do, which means there is no Biblical support for sola-Scriptura.

This entire argument rests on the assumption that someone who is illiterate cannot memorize Scripture that is read to them. If the Scripture is read to them and they memorize it, that is still not oral tradition because someone who is literate can check their memory against what is written and correct them.

 

[Drawmack]

I addressed this in an earlier post and demonstrated the inspiration of God (his breath) at work in Tradition. No response followed.

I missed it, can you give me the post # please?

 

[Awful_Things]

This entire argument rests on the assumption that someone who is illiterate cannot memorize Scripture that is read to them. If the Scripture is read to them and they memorize it, that is still not oral tradition because someone who is literate can check their memory against what is written and correct them.

No it doesn’t.

Read it more carefully. The verse in 2 Tim. tells us that Scripture is profitable for correction, reproof, etc.

This means that it can be used by those who can read (most likely a bigger population than you assume), those who can memorize (fairly common in Jewish culture, and those who can sit and listen to regular proclamations of Scripture (common in regular worship, both Jewish and early Christian). If Scripture is sufficient, then where is the need for Tradition at that point, which you claim is the reason for those verses (the early “necessity” that doesn’t exist now)?

And when, exactly, did that need end? At what point were sufficient numbers literate that Tradition was rendered invalid? It would be helpful to narrow down a period here. We had loads of illliterates in the fourteenth century, when the printing press had not been invented yet. Was Tradition still valid then? The Bible was also not translated into many of the languages into which Christianity was being preached. Was Tradition valid for that reason?

What about now, in cases of communities where individuals are by and large literate, but not at a rate to understand what (according to Peter) are the difficult writings of Paul?

Once again, we have Scripture indicating that we are to follow Traditions.

We have you asserting (with nothing but your assumption) that this was a temporary thing).

We are left with a conclusion that neither Catholics nor Protestants usually accept, which is that all of the Scriptures are not relevant to all people at all times. Once we accept that, we begin picking and choosing verses with reckless abandon based upon historical-critical dismissal.