Sola Scriptura - a Syllogism on 2nd Tim 3:16-17

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps someone could tell us what we need besides written Scripture???

Perhaps someone could tell what we needed before the Scriptures were written? For instance, you quoted Romans. Romans wasn’t considered Scriptural for some time in the Church, several centuries if I’m correct. Hebrews and Revelation faced the same dilemma.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Since the bible was written, compiled and preserved by Apostles and church fathers who practiced the Christian Traditions, they never intended it to be used apart from the Traditions that were handed on to them. In the early church, they had no NT scripture - only the Traditions that Christ and the Apostles taught and which Paul admonished the churches to retain.

Using Scripture alone was not a major issue until the reformers promulgated the idea to distance themselves from the original Church. Tradition and Scripture are the left and right hands of faith.

Christ’s peace.

Then you are saying you do not believe this Scripture:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

You have not really answered my question.

First of all, the Scriptures are said to be ***“God-breathed.” ***Scripture alone is given this designation. Nowhere in Scripture is this term applied to tradition. Paul mentions this to instill in Timothy the confidence in the Scriptures. He reminds Timothy of the difficult times that will be coming upon them and all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (verses 1-9) He tells Timothy to stand firm in the things he has “learned.” Things known from the Scriptures. Paul gives him the answer when he says Scripture is “God-breathed”, which means inspired and infallible. It is profitable for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Paul’s intention is to teach Timothy that he can safely rely on the Scriptures to be useful in teaching true doctrine and right practice, and in rebuking and correcting those who oppose it. No claim is made for any authority of tradition.

Tradition has its place when it comes to such things as when and how to worship, how often, what days, what is to be used during services, and such things that have nothing to do with anything Scriptural. It tradition goes against Scripture or creates new doctrines or beliefs, then it is cursed tradition, or anathema. The early church fathers knew this and most of them understood the importance of Scripture.

My question again was: “what is insufficient about Scripture?”

 

[Old_Scholar]

Perhaps someone could tell what we needed before the Scriptures were written? For instance, you quoted Romans. Romans wasn’t considered Scriptural for some time in the Church, several centuries if I’m correct. Hebrews and Revelation faced the same dilemma.

While some did not want to accept Romans, it was considered Scripture from the time it was written. Peter declared it so in his epistle and some in the early church did not want to believe it because at the time it seemed to elevate Paul above Peter.

However it was always used in the church as Scripture and the Romans accepted as such.

There were many heretics in those days and some of them were constantly denounced by the early church leaders.

 

[NotWorthy]

While some did not want to accept Romans, it was considered Scripture from the time it was written. Peter declared it so in his epistle and some in the early church did not want to believe it because at the time it seemed to elevate Paul above Peter.

However it was always used in the church as Scripture and the Romans accepted as such.

There were many heretics in those days and some of them were constantly denounced by the early church leaders.

Peter declares Paul’s letter to the Romans as Scripture? Or Peter declares some of Paul’s letters as Scripture?

It was not universally accepted in the Church until the late 3rd century, if I’m correct. I might be lumping this in with Hebrews, though, I’m not sure.

 

[NotWorthy]

Then you are saying you do not believe this Scripture:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

You have not really answered my question.

First of all, the Scriptures are said to be ***“God-breathed.” ***Scripture alone is given this designation. Nowhere in Scripture is this term applied to tradition. Paul mentions this to instill in Timothy the confidence in the Scriptures. He reminds Timothy of the difficult times that will be coming upon them and all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (verses 1-9) He tells Timothy to stand firm in the things he has “learned.” Things known from the Scriptures. Paul gives him the answer when he says Scripture is “God-breathed”, which means inspired and infallible. It is profitable for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Paul’s intention is to teach Timothy that he can safely rely on the Scriptures to be useful in teaching true doctrine and right practice, and in rebuking and correcting those who oppose it. No claim is made for any authority of tradition.

Tradition has its place when it comes to such things as when and how to worship, how often, what days, what is to be used during services, and such things that have nothing to do with anything Scriptural. It tradition goes against Scripture or creates new doctrines or beliefs, then it is cursed tradition, or anathema. The early church fathers knew this and most of them understood the importance of Scripture.

My question again was: “what is insufficient about Scripture?”

Scripture is insufficient, when it stands alone. How else do you have so many different faiths with so many opposing doctrines. In other words, Man’s fallible interpretation of Scripture makes it insufficient.

Scripture, though, when it stands with Sacred Tradition - which preceded NT Scriptures by decades - and the Holy Spirit guided Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, though, is the most sufficient.

And you are right, Tradition should not (and does not) contradict Scripture. I think every Church Father recognized this balance. I’d like to ask you which Church Father devalued Scripture. This is an interesting claim that Iv’e never heard before.

 

[po18guy]

Then you are saying you do not believe this Scripture:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

You have not really answered my question.

First of all, the Scriptures are said to be ***“God-breathed.” ***Scripture alone is given this designation. Nowhere in Scripture is this term applied to tradition. Paul mentions this to instill in Timothy the confidence in the Scriptures. He reminds Timothy of the difficult times that will be coming upon them and all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (verses 1-9) He tells Timothy to stand firm in the things he has “learned.” Things known from the Scriptures. Paul gives him the answer when he says Scripture is “God-breathed”, which means inspired and infallible. It is profitable for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Paul’s intention is to teach Timothy that he can safely rely on the Scriptures to be useful in teaching true doctrine and right practice, and in rebuking and correcting those who oppose it. No claim is made for any authority of tradition.

Tradition has its place when it comes to such things as when and how to worship, how often, what days, what is to be used during services, and such things that have nothing to do with anything Scriptural. It tradition goes against Scripture or creates new doctrines or beliefs, then it is cursed tradition, or anathema. The early church fathers knew this and most of them understood the importance of Scripture.

My question again was: “what is insufficient about Scripture?”

Since you come from such a vastly different practice of Christianity, I will try to explain:

Let’s say you were standing at the end of a deserted road 100 miles from home. You are lost, and will die if you do not reach home. You know that a car will take you safely home, because you are holding the owner’s manual of the car. You have read the manual thoroughly and have come to believe that the car can deliver you home, just as the manual says. The manual tells of every feature of the car and how it is to be used. But, you do not have the car, only the manual written about it. Now, the manual is good for teaching, correcting and training in the use of the car, but it is not sufficient to deliver you home. The manual is intended to be used with the car, but only the actual car can save you. Thus, your salvation requires more than just the manual for the car - it requires the car itself.

The car is Christ, Christ in the Eucharist. The manual is Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church has both the car and the manual.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If you are saying that Scripture is insufficient by itself, then you are not believing what the Scripture actually says.

The Scriptures are provided to us so that “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” In this text, the Greek version says that “in order that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.” The word for “complete” is taken from artio” (artios) and means adequately equipped for a task.” (BAGD “Able to meet all demands.”) This implies that nothing more is needed for faith and practice. If the Scriptures make the man of God “adequately equipped for a task,” and if that task is to teach correct doctrine and practice and to correct and rebuke heresy and immortality, then the Scriptures are sufficient for all things that pertain to the man of God in communicating the apostolic writing.

Paul goes even further; he says the Scriptures themselves are able to make the man of God sufficient for these things by using the work ejxhrtismevno (exertismenos, “fully equipped”). The man of God is not only “adequately equipped,” but “fully equipped” to do “every good work.” We can define every god work as teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. That is to say correct belief and practice.

Man’s interpretation of Scripture is another matter. Man can be infallible. God cannot. That is why the pope cannot be infallible as well. He is not God.

There is no need for tradition to compliment Scripture. If tradition contradicts Scripture, as it certainly does in many ways, then as I said before, it is to be accursed.

Just a few of the contradictions are: The Primacy of Peter, the perpetual virginity of Mary, The Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Indulgences, Infant Baptism, Limbus Patrum (which the church has since retracted) and many more.

These are not found in Scripture except by changing the Scripture to a different meaning that a literal one.

As for devaluing Scripture, the RCC position now is that the Pope is infallible and if he does not agree with Scripture, then his word is final. Am I wrong?

by the way…Love your signature…reach out and bring someone…Great

 

[NotWorthy]

by the way…Love your signature…reach out and bring someone…Great

AMEN!!!

 

[Old_Scholar]

po18guy

I really see no analogy between your statement and mine. Yours is a little propitious.

Actually the Bible is the manual alright but it is a manual of how to live your life. There is nothing like a car to help you through it. If you follow the instructions, then you will make it all the way through—that’s for sure.

Suppose however, that you are working hard through life and things are not going well for you. You consult a friend who is supposed to be an expert. He gives you advice that was given to him by a friend who received it from another friend, who received it from yet another friend. This last friend says his friend got it from another friend, etc. etc. Of course they were all experts in their field. Is it a matter of trust?

Would you follow this advice and ignore the instruction manual you received from the builder? Or would you place your fate on the handed down word of mouth that has breached centuries and centuries of problematic error. How could you be sure those who passed down this advice actually was quoting the manual as it was written? You could not be sure, but if you read the manual, then you would have no doubts.

Where would you rather place your destiny? With a known value or an unknown word of mouth substitute? Realizing of course, that without the original word passed down known for sure, would it be something you would want to accept? Over what you know is the truth?

Think about this very seriously…

 

[Romulus]

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Hi Old Scholar, welcome to this thread. Good to get more protestant feedback. I’ve read the new replies. But I’ve noticed nobody is discussing the “Logic” of proving or disproving SOLA SCRIPTURE and/or scripture sufficiency. Everyone has interesting points and information…but it is not laid out in a “sound logical argument”…or in a clearly shown one.

Old scholar, read my post #39. I have shown a “sound logical argument” using a syllogism that shows that scripture is not sufficient since one of the premises is false…if you believe this logical argument is flawed…please show us where the logical argument violates the rules of syllogisms…we are all open to share and learn here. If you need to review on Aristolian Syllogisms, click here

First of all, the Scriptures are said to be ***“God-breathed.” ***Scripture alone is given this designation."

Were not the apostles God-breathed too?..“Having said this He breathed upon them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit…”

Again, I’ll like to see a syllogism that concludes that scripture is sufficient using any scripture in our canon or the commonly used 2nd Tim 3:16-17. So far no i’ve seen no attempt by anyone who accepts SOLA SCRIPTURA…even at carm.org. In fact, like I said earlier, I ran into a protestant at carm.org who thought SOLA SCRIPTURA was silly.

peace be with you

 

[Old_Scholar]

Romulus

Syllogisms are arguments that take several parts, usually with two premises which are assumed to be true that led to a conclusion.

They can be interesting in persuasion but they include assumptions that many people accept. However they allow false statements or unspoken conclusions to appear to be true. There is a difference between truth and validity in syllogisms. One can be true, but not valid; i.e. make logical sense. It can also be valid but not true.

I prefer to use Scriptures to show the sufficiency of Scripture and I would expect one to be able to use Scripture to show any insufficiency of Scripture.

So I pose the question to you I have asked already: What is insufficient about Scripture? And please refer to the Scriptures with your answer.

 

[Romulus]

I prefer to use Scriptures to show the sufficiency of Scripture

Very good, use Scripture…but show us using the scriptures along with “deductive logical reasoning”…a syllogism.

and I would expect one to be able to use Scripture to show any insufficiency of Scripture.

I’ve shown this already in a previous in post#39 using an Aristotelian Syllogism. No where in the bible does it say a, “A God-breathed thing is sufficient”. If you think it is “implied”…show us logically using a syllogism.

Here is another, in fact, from a fellow protestant who doesn’t accept SOLA SCRIPTURA.

If A->B. If B->C. Therefore, if A -->C. Reasoning by Transitivity.

A) All scripture is God Breathed
B) A God-breathed thing is sufficient
C) Scripture is sufficient

C) is true only if A) and B) is true. We know this because both premises must be true in order for the conclusion to follow. Now, we as Christians see that A) is true…it is explicitly stated in 2nd Timothy, can’t miss that.

But, is B) true? A God-breathed thing is sufficient?? True or False? Where in the bible does it state that “A God-breathed thing is sufficient”?? certainly not explicitly… implicitly? If so, show us logically how it is “implied”. I’ll like very much to see it, maybe we are missing something.

So I pose the question to you I have asked already: What is insufficient about Scripture? And please refer to the Scriptures with your answer.

Again, I’ve shown a logical syllogism using 2nd Tim 3:16. C) is false, therefore, Scripture is insufficient…because the minor premise B) is false. So what is it missing?..The Bible as we know it is NOT the ONLY source of revelation from God…Sacred Tradition compliments Scripture. There is also the Teaching Authority which also compliments Scripture, but of course, it should not contradict it.

Scriptural support, 2nd Thesso for tradition…Church that has “final authority” and the church that is the “pillar of truth” and the church that has Jesus’ given authority to “bind and loose”…MATT 18:15-18 and 1 Tim 3:15…Paul tells us in Hebrews 13:17 that we must be subject to them…the prelates.

This is good Old Scholar, thanks for the feedback

peace be with you

 

[Old_Scholar]

First of all you are not stating a truth in your syllogism. You are doing what I have already outlined about syllogisms. You are making a false statement and a wrong assumption. You are saying that b) a God-breathed “thing” is sufficient. This is false. You should re-read my post #67 and #69…

Try stating it this way:

A) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
B) All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
C) Therefore Scripture is sufficient.

C has to be true because A and B are true. Therefore C is true. I made no false assumption but stated a fact, according to Scripture, which, I am sure we both will agree, that Scripture is the Word of God and is infallible.

No syllogism is required to prove that, but there it is anyhow.

Rather than try and use logic and false assumptions, why don’t you simply disprove Scripture is insufficient?

In order to claim that Scripture is insufficient, you must show that Scripture is insufficient. You can’t simply say that because Scripture makes no explicit statement of sufficiency, although I maintain that it does, it is therefore insufficient. You must at least admit the possibility that Scripture could be sufficient without having to say so explicitly. There are other statements that lead us in that direction, but nothing to lead us away from insufficiency.

As a Catholic, you do not require Scripture to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity but you do not hesitate to affirm its truthfulness, do you? Here you are basing your belief on implications and inferences found in Scripture. You may claim you have it on the authority of the church and not because it is found in Scripture but you will not hesitate to prove the doctrine from Scripture if you are challenged on it.

Just as Scripture leads us in the direction of the Trinity, it also leads us in the direction of the sufficiency, not insufficiency. It is upon you and the RCC to prove the insufficiency of Scripture in light of the obviously high authority ascribed to it by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament and to the lack of any appeal or authority of extra-biblical tradition.

Should you be able to prove insufficiency, then you must next show that it is Roman Catholic tradition that fills the gap and not some other church tradition, such as the Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact if the criterion is tradition, there is no logical reason to choose Rome over the Eastern Orthodox Church because they appeal to exactly the same tradition to justify their beliefs to the exclusion of Roman beliefs (e.g., the Filioque controversy, the question of Roman and papal authority, and the Easter controversy, just to name a few.)

If you should decide and show that the Scriptures are insufficient, then you must face the above subject and then you would not be able to use Scripture in order to prove your point because you would have already argued that Scripture is insufficient. So where does that leave Peter and the Pope?

The only reason there was a need for a formal “Canon” of Scripture to begin with was that because of heretics. There was a need to distinguish between inspired, authoritative teaching and mere human opinion. A “Rule” was needed because human opinion is not reliable. A Rule requires every teaching to be subject to and measured for truthfulness. If the early church leaders viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the Catholic Church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a “Rule” or Canon of Scripture? There was no binding oral tradition after the last Old Testament writer laid down his pen.

(2 Thess 2:15), by the way, does not support the notion of a tradition that is different in content from the Scriptures.

Cheers!

:tsktsk:

 

[Romulus]

First of all you are not stating a truth in your syllogism. You are doing what I have already outlined about syllogisms. You are making a false statement and a wrong assumption. You are saying that b) a God-breathed “thing” is sufficient. This is false.

Ok first of all, let me make a correction, I take that syllogism back made by a fellow protestant at carm.org…it is invalid…undistributed middle term… I just figured that out:thumbsup:
Double check me everyone…Here is a java program to help roninabox.com/venndiagram.html

Ok sorry about that, I missed that one…but we all continue to learn .

Now, let us go back to my original syllogism and I’ll go ahead and add the quantifier “Some”:

Disamis

Major Premise: Some M is P
Minor Premise: All M is S
Conclusion: Some S is P

Let Middle term = God breathed things
Let Predicate = sufficient
Let Subject = Scripture

Major Premise: Some God breathed things are sufficient
Minor Premise: All God breathed things are Scripture
Conclusion: Some Scripture is sufficient

Like you said Old Scholar, we all agree that both premises are false, therefore conclusion is false. So the negation is true by the Law of Non-Contradiction…the Negation of the conclusion translates to, “For all Scripture is insufficient”

Here is yet another valid syllogism:

Disamis

Major Premise: Some M is P
Minor Premise: All M is S
Conclusion: Some S is P

Now,
Let middle term = Scripture
Let Predicate = sufficient
Let Subject = God breathed things

Major Premise: Some Scripture is sufficient
Minor Premise: All Scripture are God breathed things
Conclusion: Some God breathed things are sufficient

We all agree that the minor premise is TRUE, it is explicit in 2nd Tim…the major we proved to be false using the first Disamis. So the conclusion is FALSE…again, by the Law of Non-Contradiction, the negation is TRUE, meaning “All God breathed things are insufficient” is TRUE.

Interesting huh…

Try stating it this way:

A) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
B) All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
C) Therefore Scripture is sufficient.

C has to be true because A and B are true. Therefore C is true.

We agree that A and B are true…but I’m sorry Old Scholar…your syllogism is an invalid one…it breaks one of the rules of syllogisms. Rule#2: The middle term is not in the conclusion (by definition). Visit this link for more rules of syllogisms. The middle term in your syllogism is “Scripture.” Yet here is another link to help understand whether syllogisms are valid or invalid. The syllogism you posted cannot even be entered into the java program.

I applaud your attempt Old Scholar and don’t get discouraged, I myself have unknowingly accepted and used invalid arguments due to my lack of experience using deductive reasoning…but we are working on it, gotta learn from our mistakes…it is good that you are using deductive reasoning…and we should all use the help of logic. Let us all continue to learn and share.

 

[Romulus]

I made no false assumption but stated a fact, according to Scripture, which, I am sure we both will agree, that Scripture is the Word of God and is infallible.

Sure we all agree here, but you used invalid deductive reasoning…see my previous post.

No syllogism is required to prove that, but there it is anyhow.

I personally believe deductive reasoning should always be used…if we don’t use proper deductive reasoning…we are in danger of stating false arguments…and of course it is not intentional…it is because of lack of knowledge…so we must help and reprove each other.

Rather than try and use logic and false assumptions, why don’t you simply disprove Scripture is insufficient?

Again, read previous post…

In order to claim that Scripture is insufficient, you must show that Scripture is insufficient. You can’t simply say that because Scripture makes no explicit statement of sufficiency, although I maintain that it does, it is therefore insufficient.

Again, read above in this reply. I’ve showed it. You maintain that it does using an invalid syllogism a.k.a. invalid argument. Use a valid syllogism…use the links I’ve provided so you can design one. We’ll all be interested in seeing it.

You must at least admit the possibility that Scripture could be sufficient without having to say so explicitly. There are other statements that lead us in that direction, but nothing to lead us away from insufficiency.

Again, read above in this reply.

Just as Scripture leads us in the direction of the Trinity, it also leads us in the direction of the sufficiency, not insufficiency.

Actually, one of these days I’ll attempt a proof of the Trinity using the concept of an EQUIVALENCE RELATION. I’ll post a new thread when I have something to share. Leads us in the direction of sufficiency…nope…show us using a valid syllogism.

By the way, it is not my goal here to win arguments here…just sincerely seeking the truth like everyone else, sharing, learning, being patient and rebuking illogical arguments.

peace be with you

 

[Old_Scholar]

I really dont care for syylogisms. I had rather research Scripture and even tradition. However I don’t want to consult any tradition that contradicts Scripture.

The early church leaders, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Papias, Mathetes.

Some of the second century writers can also be believed to a certain extent but soon after that, they began to stray too far from Scripture for my taste.

Time is not available right now but soon I will give you a statement about Sola Scriptura and why I believe it is the final word on things of Morality and Faith and not tradition.

 

[epostle]

I really dont care for syylogisms. I had rather research Scripture and even tradition. However I don’t want to consult any tradition that contradicts Scripture.

Who would want to do that? I suppose it depends on what is meant by tradition. If you mean rubrics and customs, I would have to agree with you. But Tradition, we mean what was taught orally by the Apostles, which is under the same protection as scripture. The two are just different means of transmission of the same word of God. One is written, and one is oral teaching. As St. Paul states, we are obligated to obey them both, and one is not inferior to the other. For example, it is impossible to prove the canon (27 books) of the New Testament in the absence of Tradition.

The early church leaders, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Papias, Mathetes.

These men believed, practiced and taught the rule of faith before there was a Bible as we know it. The rule of faith included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity, and obedience) and others. If you study the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Papias, and Mathetes, you will find that none of them taught in opposition to these Traditions but in fact believed them. Most of these ECF are on this one page:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/volume01.cfm

Some of the second century writers can also be believed to a certain extent but soon after that, they began to stray too far from Scripture for my taste.

The inspiration of certain NT books were still in dispute at this time, some books not being accepted in some areas until after the 3rd century. The ones who were straying from apostolic tradition and scripture (interpreting it apart from Tradition and being too literal) were identified as heretics. The second century saw a variety of Syrian and Alexandrian Gnostics, by Ophites, Marcionites, Encratites, Montanists, Manichæans, and others. All the early Eastern sects fed on the fanciful speculations so dear to the Eastern mind, but, lacking the support of temporal power, they disappeared under the anathemas of the guardians of the depositum fidei. (Deposit of Faith, or Apostolic Tradition, which is protected by the Holy Spirit)

Time is not available right now but soon I will give you a statement about Sola Scriptura and why I believe it is the final word on things of Morality and Faith and not tradition.

We know that human cloning and test tube fertilization are serious immoral acts, but I’m afraid you won’t find them in scripture.

 

[epostle]

Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).
The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1. Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.
   Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.
2. The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book and the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

1. One proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place — just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God’s Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century – by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.

In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.
In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this – essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Romulus]

Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).
The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1. Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.
   Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.
2. The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book and the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

1. One proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place — just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God’s Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century – by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.

In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.
In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this – essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Very interesting info Epostle

 

[Romulus]

I really dont care for syylogisms.

Wow…Old Scholar, you really don’t care for “formal logic”…you really don’t care for “deductive reasoning”…it is a shame…

I had rather research Scripture and even tradition. However I don’t want to consult any tradition that contradicts Scripture.

Research is very good! We should all research. But how would you know if any tradition contradicts Scripture if you don’t care for using “formal logic”??

Some of the second century writers can also be believed to a certain extent but soon after that, they began to stray too far from Scripture for my taste.

But how do you know if your “taste” is correct? Should we all follow our personal “taste” or the “Truth”? Again, how do you know if it “strays” if you don’t want to use “formal logic”?

Time is not available right now but soon I will give you a statement about Sola Scriptura and why I believe it is the final word on things of Morality and Faith and not tradition.

We are all anxious to read it Especially, if you don’t want to use “formal logic” and/or “deductive reasoning” to support and prove SOLA SCRIPTURA.

By the way, you read my proof for scripture insufficiency. Do you have any other feedback other than “I really don’t care for syllogisms”?

Thanks for the feedback,

peace be with you