Sola Scriptura ... again

[VociMike]

You’ve just argued that the authority of those entrusted with the full revelation of God trumps those who would reject that authority based on their (the latter’s) interpretation of scripture.

You’ve just argued for Catholicism over Protestantism. Which is exactly the result that one must derive from the story of the Bereans.

I love the story of the Bereans. It demonstrates the authority of the Catholic Church, and the error of those who reject her based on scripture, in the tiniest nutshell.

And let’s not forget those Greeks, who did not search any scriptures and yet who came to believe, based solely on the witness of the Apostles (that is, the witness of the early Church).

 

[SyCarl]

You’ve just argued that the authority of those entrusted with the full revelation of God trumps those who would reject that authority based on their (the latter’s) interpretation of scripture.

You’ve just argued for Catholicism over Protestantism. Which is exactly the result that one must derive from the story of the Bereans.

I love the story of the Bereans. It demonstrates the authority of the Catholic Church, and the error of those who reject her based on scripture, in the tiniest nutshell.

Again, it says nothing against Sola Scriptura. As Pwrlftr has indicated, the doctrine doesn’t apply during times of revelation. To say otherwise is to argue against a parody of Sola Scriptura and not the actual document.

In any event. Sola Scriptura does not say that anyone who reads that Bible or is taught from it is going to believe it. That is entirely different from whether Scripture contains what it is necessary to believe for belief.

Based on your argument, the Apostles’ oral teaching is not authoritative either since at Berea and elsewhere people heard it an yet all didn’t believe.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Again, it says nothing against Sola Scriptura. As Pwrlftr has indicated, the doctrine doesn’t apply during times of revelation. **To say otherwise is to argue against a parody of Sola Scriptura and not the actual document. **

In any event. Sola Scriptura does not say that anyone who reads that Bible or is taught from it is going to believe it. That is entirely different from whether Scripture contains what it is necessary to believe for belief.

Based on your argument, the Apostles’ oral teaching is not authoritative either since at Berea and elsewhere people heard it an yet all didn’t believe.

I don’t think they care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed!

And yet I’ve heard many Roman Catholics say that eating meat during these times (or on regular Fridays) is a sin. Indeed, this is putting the later decisions of the RCC on an equal footing with God’s teachings.

It was a sin because it violated the Church’s discipline.

It was a sin like running a red light is a sin – not because of anything intrinsic, but because the law says you have to stop at a red light.

Actually, it’s an example of a person communicating knowledge he had. Such information has also been recorded in written form, so the question of the accuracy of that teaching is in far less doubt than some of the claimed traditions of the RCC.

“A person communicating knowledge he had” is what we call Sacred Tradition.

And there’s written evidence showing the ancient-ness of that claim. If only all of these other Roman Catholic traditions were so fortunate as to have written attestation.

Give me one that doesn’t.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Now that’s trying to have it both ways! What does Acts 17:11 say again about the noble Bereans who are still touted today, according to the Protestant interpretation?

According to Acts 17:11 if you can’t prove from scripture what someone tells you orally then scripture trumps oral tradition.

Doesn’t say anything about “still being developed”. It says scripture is the final rule. So in this case scripture was the final rule over the words of the gospel from the very mouths of the apostles, and based on scripture many of them rejected the gospel.

So I repeat, Acts 17:11-12 is the strongest refutation in the entire bible of sola Scriptura.

How can it be a reftation of sola scriptura when sola scriptura was not the norm during the time when the scriptures were being developed. You are arguing, as Sycarl put it, against a parody of what you believe sola scriptura to be.

Let me ask you this, let’s suppose that sola scriptura is actually true and you are a believe in the doctrine. How could you believe/explain that sola scriptura was the norm during the time when the scriptures were being developed?

 

[PC_Master]

It was a sin because it violated the Church’s discipline.

It was a sin like running a red light is a sin – not because of anything intrinsic, but because the law says you have to stop at a red light.

And why is violating that law a sin? It’s not because the law is intrinsically “good” – it’s because God himself taught us to obey the laws of those who rule over you. Thus, running that red light is going against God.

“A person communicating knowledge he had” is what we call Sacred Tradition.

All right. Now, you come to me with tradition X. You say “we know it’s valid because it’s been passed down orally from generation to generation”. I say – do you know those people? Did you witness them passing down this information? Do you have written proof that they believed exactly the same as you do today?

How can you prove that these traditions have not been corrupted?

Give me one that doesn’t.

The papacy has nothing for centuries after Christ. Sure, there were bishops and leaders of local congregations, but not a one that claimed supremacy over the whole church. There are more, but this is the most glaringly obvious one.

(Others might include the assumption of Mary, sinlessness of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, confession to priests, and transubstantiation. But really, discussing stuff like that is getting way off-topic.)

My question remains – how do you know for sure that the modern RCC interpretation of scripture and early writings matches how the authors interpreted them? How do you know it’s not possible for that understanding to have been corrupted?

I’d also like to know the answer to the other question being posed – how can you have a refutation of sola scriptura when the very authors of that scripture are still alive and are still writing revelations received from God?

A more important question – scripture certainly says that the oral teachings of Paul were important – but how do you know that those differed in any way from what he wrote? Perhaps his writings were verbatim recollections of his oral teachings. Can you prove this was not the case?

 

[vern_humphrey]

And why is violating that law a sin? It’s not because the law is intrinsically “good” – it’s because God himself taught us to obey the laws of those who rule over you. Thus, running that red light is going against God.

Really! And drunk driving is not a sin? Nor cheating on your income tax?

Did not christ say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

All right. Now, you come to me with tradition X. You say “we know it’s valid because it’s been passed down orally from generation to generation”. I say – do you know those people? Did you witness them passing down this information? Do you have written proof that they believed exactly the same as you do today?

What is this “tradition X?” And when did I – or the Church – say “tradition X has been passed down orally from generation to generation”.

How can you prove that these traditions have not been corrupted?

Which tradition are you talking about?

The papacy has nothing for centuries after Christ. Sure, there were bishops and leaders of local congregations, but not a one that claimed supremacy over the whole church. There are more, but this is the most glaringly obvious one.a

Clearly you have not read the Church Fathers.

(Others might include the assumption of Mary, sinlessness of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, confession to priests, and transubstantiation. But really, discussing stuff like that is getting way off-topic.)

I’m not sure you understand those issues.

My question remains – how do you know for sure that the modern RCC interpretation of scripture and early writings matches how the authors interpreted them? How do you know it’s not possible for that understanding to have been corrupted?

How do you know the modern Protestand interpretation of scripture and early writings matches how the authors interpreted them?

I’d also like to know the answer to the other question being posed – how can you have a refutation of sola scriptura when the very authors of that scripture are still alive and are still writing revelations received from God?a

Because the authors themselves say they taught more orally than they wrote down, of course!

25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

John, 21,25

A more important question – scripture certainly says that the oral teachings of Paul were important – but how do you know that those differed in any way from what he wrote? Perhaps his writings were verbatim recollections of his oral teachings. Can you prove this was not the case?

Ah, the old “You have to disprove MY theory” ploy, eh?

Sorry, you are the one advancing the theory, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[loscampos]

there is a small essay on this topic at this site:

lococatolico.com/Essays.html

 

[Schabel]

Again, it says nothing against Sola Scriptura. As Pwrlftr has indicated, the doctrine doesn’t apply during times of revelation. To say otherwise is to argue against a parody of Sola Scriptura and not the actual document.

Really? Why? What is your scriptural reference for this belief? Or do you believe that you don’t NEED a scriptural reference?

Where is your scriptural reference that says that the “times of revelation” ended, and when? Are you depending on an extra-scriptural tradition for these beliefs?

 

[Schabel]

A more important question – scripture certainly says that the oral teachings of Paul were important – but how do you know that those differed in any way from what he wrote? Perhaps his writings were verbatim recollections of his oral teachings. Can you prove this was not the case?

Can YOU prove that they were? Why would you believe this, since it’s NOT in scripture?

I wouldn’t make any sense that Paul, who lived with these people for substantial amounts of time, would have said nothing other than what was written down in a few pages during all that time.

In fact, even IF he said nothing beyond what was written, he would have transferred a wealth of discipling just based on what he DID every day – how he prayed, how he said Mass, how he celebrated the Eucharist, how he supervised the baptisms of families (including infants), etc. etc.

 

[PC_Master]

Really! And drunk driving is not a sin? Nor cheating on your income tax?

Did not christ say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

He certainly did. That’s what I was saying! These things are sin because God has said that obeying the laws of our land(s) is important. By disobeying those laws, we disobey God, and that’s why it’s sinful.

What is this “tradition X?” And when did I – or the Church – say “tradition X has been passed down orally from generation to generation”.

Tradition X can be…well, for instance, the papacy. There’s no written record of the bishop of Rome explicitly (or implicitly) stating authority over the whole church for centuries after Christ. You assume that he had such authority by reading the present into the past. You assume that this was simply understood, and passed down in some verbal fashion until it was written down…but how do you know that?

Clearly you have not read the Church Fathers.

I’ve read quite a bit of them, including virtually every text given to me in support of the papacy. That’s why I can certainly say that they don’t support the papacy in the earliest centuries of the church. It’s only later that such an idea is manifested, and then read backwards into history – a practice which is continued to this day.

How do you know the modern Protestand interpretation of scripture and early writings matches how the authors interpreted them?

I never said it did. I’m simply searching for the truth – what I’m asking, however, is not which of the two (RCC or Protestant) is correct. I’m asking whether or not the RCC is right, and how you can demonstrate that.

Because the authors themselves say they taught more orally than they wrote down, of course!

That’s fine – but they didn’t write down what those oral teachings were, so how can you claim to know what they were? Were you there? Do you have a verbatim source of that information (written, strictly passed through oral tradition, or otherwise)? Of course not. This is where I run into difficulty – I have nothing more than the word of the RCC to authenticate it and its teachings. There is no real, tangible evidence in the earliest history of the church to support it.

Ah, the old “You have to disprove MY theory” ploy, eh?

Actually, I haven’t presented any theory here. I’m simply asking how you know that your theory is correct. What proof do you have? The answer is that you have none at all of any decent historicity.

Sorry, you are the one advancing the theory, the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof, as most should be aware, can be shifted to either side without difficulty; any question, theory, comment, etc can be made into an affirmation.

You are affirmatively claiming that the traditions of the RCC hold weight and are without error. I am questioning this, and you choose to rewrite my questioning into an affirmative claim that something else happened.

The problem is that I have not established a theory here. I’m simply questioning yours, and you are choosing not to answer, even with a plausible explanation – I don’t understand what’s so hard about this question…

You say that the RCC can rely on oral tradition (or Tradition, if you prefer) as a valid source of information and belief. But how do you know that these traditions are the same as were taught by the apostles, given that there is no written record of any such teachings in the early days of the church? How do you know, with certainty, that such cannot have been corrupted or misinterpreted at some step along the way?

Please just answer the question, instead of avoiding it.

Can YOU prove that they were? Why would you believe this, since it’s NOT in scripture?

I’m not saying that they were – all I’m saying is that it seems plausible. Your argument (which could possibly be phrased as “scripture on its own doesn’t contain all that’s necessary for salvation”) necessitates that the oral teachings of Paul and others were different from their written teachings. If they were the same, your argument has no merit (because it’s all written down, and thus sola scriptura prevails) – thus it seems reasonable to ask how it is that you know for sure that these oral teachings were different from the written ones.

I wouldn’t make any sense that Paul, who lived with these people for substantial amounts of time, would have said nothing other than what was written down in a few pages during all that time.

Perhaps, but I think it would make no sense if individuals like himself failed to leave a written record of all that was necessary for salvation and Christian living, especially since Paul was aware that the church would continue after he died.

In fact, even IF he said nothing beyond what was written, he would have transferred a wealth of discipling just based on what he DID every day – how he prayed, how he said Mass, how he celebrated the Eucharist, how he supervised the baptisms of families (including infants), etc. etc.

You’re assuming he said Mass, and that he celebrated the Eucharist (as Roman Catholics do). How do you know? Where’s your proof? All you have is supposition.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

A more important question – scripture certainly says that the oral teachings of Paul were important – but how do you know that those differed in any way from what he wrote? Perhaps his writings were verbatim recollections of his oral teachings. Can you prove this was not the case?

It would seem there is very strong evidence this was not the case. Paul said “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

He wouldn’t have had to point out both forms of transmission if one contained what was in the other. If this were the case, there would have been no point in including anything after “us” in this sentence at all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

By disobeying those laws, we disobey God, and that’s why it’s sinful.

And therefore we must obey the laws of the Church as well.

Tradition X can be…well, for instance, the papacy.

The Papacy is not based on Tradition but on scripture. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom.

However, we do see his successors assuming his authority – the Epistles of Clement are clearly the actions of a Pope. Irenaeus clearly acknowledged the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

I never said it did. I’m simply searching for the truth – what I’m asking, however, is not which of the two (RCC or Protestant) is correct. I’m asking whether or not the RCC is right, and how you can demonstrate that.

Right in what?

I’ll offer you a simple challenge – do you admit you could be wrong?

Now if you say, yes, then you should be careful about what you teach others.

If you say no, then you are claiming infallibility (that’s what “infallibility” means, “can’t be wrong.”)

That’s fine – but they didn’t write down what those oral teachings were, so how can you claim to know what they were?

In fact, Sacred Tradition was written down – by the men who heard it. I gave you an example of Polycarp’s testimony that the John who wrote Revelation was John the Apostle.

Another example would be Irenaeus, who was taught and chistianized by Polycarp, and so heard Polycarp talk often about his great mentor, John. It is Irenaeus who tells us that in Revelation John “reckons according to the Greek system” and it is on that Sacred Tradition that biblical scholars are able to confidently apply the Pythagorian System to many of the problems of *Revelation. *

Actually, I haven’t presented any theory here. I’m simply asking how you know that your theory is correct. What proof do you have? The answer is that you have none at all of any decent historicity.

I don’t have a theory – I have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and their immediate successors

The burden of proof, as most should be aware, can be shifted to either side without difficulty; any question, theory, comment, etc can be made into an affirmation.

Not once the discussion has started.

You are affirmatively claiming that the traditions of the RCC hold weight and are without error. I am questioning this, and you choose to rewrite my questioning into an affirmative claim that something else happened.

No – you started the issue. Not me.

You have made an affirmative claim above, that I “have none at all of any decent historicity.” Yet in this short response, I have cited the Petrine Text, and the writings of Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus.

The burden of proof is on you to show these are not historical documents.

The problem is that I have not established a theory here. I’m simply questioning yours, and you are choosing not to answer, even with a plausible explanation – I don’t understand what’s so hard about this question…

First of all, you claim I have a “theory.” If I do, I’d like to know what it is.

You say that the RCC can rely on oral tradition (or Tradition, if you prefer) as a valid source of information and belief. But how do you know that these traditions are the same as were taught by the apostles, given that there is no written record of any such teachings in the early days of the church? How do you know, with certainty, that such cannot have been corrupted or misinterpreted at some step along the way?

Please just answer the question, instead of avoiding it.

How do you know the Bible isn’t a forgery? How do you know that the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas isn’t properly part of the Bible?

Through Sacred Tradition, of course! When you rely on the Bible, you rely on the Sacred Tradition that says these books – and only these books – are inspired.

I’m not saying that they were – all I’m saying is that it seems plausible. Your argument (which could possibly be phrased as “scripture on its own doesn’t contain all that’s necessary for salvation”)

No, it could **not **possibly be phrased that way.

necessitates that the oral teachings of Paul and others were different from their written teachings. If they were the same, your argument has no merit (because it’s all written down, and thus sola scriptura prevails) – thus it seems reasonable to ask how it is that you know for sure that these oral teachings were different from the written ones.

You seem determined to erect a strawman here, insisting we follow your erroneous definition of Sacred Tradition.

Perhaps, but I think it would make no sense if individuals like himself failed to leave a written record of all that was necessary for salvation and Christian living, especially since Paul was aware that the church would continue after he died.

Have you read the Epistles of Paul? Clearly, Paul was addressing specific churches and persons, with specific problems. None of Paul’s epistles lays out his gospel in a structured ABC form – that’s why we must study them to learn his message.

You’re assuming he said Mass, and that he celebrated the Eucharist (as Roman Catholics do). How do you know? Where’s your proof? All you have is supposition.

Read the First Apology of Justin.

 

[PhilVaz]

Thanks for the rebuttal SyCarl.

SyCarl << Does John Chrysostom feel that tradition was worthy of credit? Certainly he does but he doesn’t tell us what that tradition contains. He also makes comments about Scripture…There may be things in oral tradition but all the necessary things are clear and plain in the scriptures. Sounds very much like scripture alone. >>

St. John Chrysostom DOES tell us what the tradition or the Sacred Tradition contained. For that, simply read all his writings for what he believed was true Christian doctrine. That is the tradition or Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church that he believed was received from the apostles. He ALSO tells us what are the clear and plain teachings of the Scriptures. These are:

– the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic Church
– the conversion view of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist
– that the Eucharist was a sacrifice because it is one with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, it is an “unbloody sacrifice”
– the sacrament of confession to priests and penance in the Catholic Church
– the sacrament of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration in the Catholic Church
– that the grace of justification (and sanctification) is ongoing and progressive
– that grace can be rejected, that salvation/justification can be lost
– that St. Peter is the rock and had primacy among the apostles and the early Church
– that prayers should be offered and Mass should be said for the departed Christians

For this last one, Chrysostom specifically says this was received from apostolic tradition:

“Not in vain did the APOSTLES order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the sacred mysteries…” (Homilies on Philippians 3,4)

SyCarl << He says that we have the Scriptures instead of Paul. The apostolic teaching is recorded in the Scriptures. Again while tradition may contain things, we can learn anything we ought to learn from Scripture. >>

What we ought to learn from Scripture, St. John Chrysostom outlines above. What Chrysostom believed is what the Catholic Church still believes today.

SyCarl << Looking more completely at Phillip Schaff, he goes on to explain that the tradition and the Scriptures were of the same substance. They each contain the same teaching…In the above quote Kelly is looking at views expressed in the third and fourth century. About the same period he also says, as Schaff did, that the content of Scripture and tradition was the same. Note that unlike your quote Kelly does not capitalize tradition. >>

Fine, assuming tradition (or Tradition) and scripture (or Scripture) are identical or coincident in content, consider all the beliefs of St. John Chrysostom as representative of that tradition (or Tradition) and scripture (or Scripture) of the Catholic Church whose bishops, priests, saints, and monks faithfully passed on, safeguarded and preserved both the tradition (or the Sacred Tradition) and the scriptures (or the Sacred Scriptures).

Please do not try to turn St. John Chrysostom into an evangelical (Protestant) Christian. It is utterly hopeless. He was an (eastern) Catholic priest, monk, and later bishop of Constantinople with (very) orthodox Catholic beliefs.

Phil P

 

[PC_Master]

It would seem there is very strong evidence this was not the case. Paul said “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

He wouldn’t have had to point out both forms of transmission if one contained what was in the other. If this were the case, there would have been no point in including anything after “us” in this sentence at all.

While it could be interpreted in that way, I don’t think such a thing is conclusive at all. It could simply be seen that Paul is asserting his letters to be equivalent in authority to his very words, rather than saying the two have different contents.

Also, I wasn’t trying to compare just 2 Thes. to the whole of Paul’s verbal teaching – I was comparing the whole of his writings to the whole of his verbal teaching.

And therefore we must obey the laws of the Church as well.

Only if that church has validity.

The Papacy is not based on Tradition but on scripture. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom.

Based on a given interpretation, yes. Based on a common-sense reading…no. The papacy is most certainly based on tradition, because it is believed to have been passed from one generation to the next, though we don’t have written evidence for all of those transitions, nor any of the first few.

However, we do see his successors assuming his authority – the Epistles of Clement are clearly the actions of a Pope.

If so, then Paul’s writings are also the actions of a pope. Or, since we know Paul is not considered a pope, perhaps the actions of Paul and Clement (not to mention others) are simply those of individuals who believe they have the truth, and also believe they have an obligation to share that truth with those who have fallen into sin. This, I would say, is the role of every mature believer.

Irenaeus clearly acknowledged the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Provide a quote, please?

Right in what?

In its assertion that its own tradition is valid.

I’ll offer you a simple challenge – do you admit you could be wrong?

Certainly. I never said otherwise.

Now if you say, yes, then you should be careful about what you teach others.

I’m not teaching anything – I’m asking for substantiation of the Roman Catholic position with real, tangible proof.

In fact, Sacred Tradition was written down – by the men who heard it. I gave you an example of Polycarp’s testimony that the John who wrote Revelation was John the Apostle.

Fine – so where’s the written proof of the validity of tradition that is different than what is found in scripture? Where is the written proof of the papacy in the first couple of centuries? Where is the written proof of Marian devotion? Surely those who heard these things from the apostles would have written it down as you’re saying, right?

Another example would be Irenaeus, who was taught and chistianized by Polycarp, and so heard Polycarp talk often about his great mentor, John. It is Irenaeus who tells us that in Revelation John “reckons according to the Greek system” and it is on that Sacred Tradition that biblical scholars are able to confidently apply the Pythagorian System to many of the problems of Revelation.

And so we have almost direct testimony to something. Third-hand knowledge is a lot more palatable to me than twelvth-hand knowledge.

The anciency of a source goes a long way to determining its credibility.

I don’t have a theory – I have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and their immediate successors

And your interpretation of their words and meaning is the theory I speak of. You assume they meant to support the papacy, etc – yet do you have direct, unambiguous writings that say that? Nope. You have a theory that your interpretation is correct…but without proof, it’s only a theory.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Not once the discussion has started.

That’s nonsense. I have yet to claim a theory as true, and so the burden of proof, if placed on me is actually a burden of proving that something never happened – a well known impossible-to-prove situation in logic. In any event, you’re just playing semantical games, rather than answering my question – how do you know that the tradition of which you speak could not have been corrupted between the time the apostles supposedly spoke it, and the earliest written records detailing it, which are often centuries after the apostles lived?

No – you started the issue. Not me.

I wasn’t the OP.

You have made an affirmative claim above, that I “have none at all of any decent historicity.” Yet in this short response, I have cited the Petrine Text, and the writings of Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus.

And each of these claimed evidences is lacking:

The “petrine text” is reliant on your interpretation, though other interpretations are not only plausible, but more likely. It also relies on the office of pope being transferred from one to the next, and there’s no written evidence that this happened.

Clement wrote with authority, but no more so than Paul did. Therefore, authoritative writing cannot be a sign of the papacy unless you’re willing to call Paul a pope.

Polycarp and Irenaeus – what specifically did they say that affirms the value of tradition over scripture, or any concepts such as the papacy, etc?

The burden of proof is on you to show these are not historical documents.

I completely agree that they are historical documents. But they don’t have anything in them that unambiguously affirms what you’re claiming they do. Thus, it’s your interpretation that is flawed – the documents just don’t say what you’re saying they say. It’s rather simple. You’re the one claiming they say certain things, so it seems the next logical step is for you to produce specific quotes, and for us to quantify what the authors actually said.

First of all, you claim I have a “theory.” If I do, I’d like to know what it is.

All right, I’ll just ask you what it is – do you believe “Sacred Tradition” has merit, and if so, does that merit extend above and beyond what is independently affirmed by scripture?

How do you know the Bible isn’t a forgery? How do you know that the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas isn’t properly part of the Bible?

You’re avoiding the question – I asked how you know that the tradition you hold to is valid. Attacking the canonicity of scripture seems off-topic, and is certainly a red herring.

Through Sacred Tradition, of course! When you rely on the Bible, you rely on the Sacred Tradition that says these books – and only these books – are inspired.

Actually, I don’t. I believe there are other works which may or may not be inspired. But that’s a completely different topic. You and I both seem to agree that all works within the Protestant-accepted canon are inspired, right? So why are you agruing it?

The point of this debate was whether or not other sources of information (supposed oral traditions, writings of other authors) can be considered to be as reliable and valid as scripture. You say that oral traditions are reliable, but you have yet to show a single proof that these oral traditions cannot easily be corrupted.

No, it could **not **possibly be phrased that way.

So you’re saying scripture alone does contain all that’s necessary for salvation?

Have you read the Epistles of Paul? Clearly, Paul was addressing specific churches and persons, with specific problems. None of Paul’s epistles lays out his gospel in a structured ABC form – that’s why we must study them to learn his message.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the messages isn’t completely contained within.

Read the First Apology of Justin.

If there’s a specific bit you’d like to comment on, please quote it here. Don’t just say “go read the early fathers” as if the meaning of such documents will be agreed upon by all without discussion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The “petrine text” is reliant on your interpretation, though other interpretations are not only plausible, but more likely. It also relies on the office of pope being transferred from one to the next, and there’s no written evidence that this happened.

Clement wrote with authority, but no more so than Paul did. Therefore, authoritative writing cannot be a sign of the papacy unless you’re willing to call Paul a pope.

Polycarp and Irenaeus – what specifically did they say that affirms the value of tradition over scripture, or any concepts such as the papacy, etc?

You seem determined to claim Sacred Tradition is something it is not in order to further your argument.

The Church does not claim Sacred Tradition is somehow “over” scripture. Sacred Tradition can explain and make scripture more clear. I pointed out how Polycarp’s epistle assures us that John the Apostle wrote Revelation – the author of Revelation, beyond giving us his name, does not tell us who he is.

I pointed out how Irenaeus tells us John used the Greek or Pythogorian numerology system in Revelation – something modern scholars use in interpreting Revelation.

Let me continue this on the next post because of the character limitations in this forum.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To understand Sacred Tradition, let’s take a nickle tour of the Bible.

Genesis is a good example of oral tradition written down much later than the events it describe. Unless, of course, we are willing to believe there was a human being living before the Creation (so he could be an eye-witness) and that being lived through the Flood, the life of Abraham and didn’t die until after the death of Joseph. Clearly, Genesis is based on oral tradition written down much later than the events described.

The same is true with the other books of the Pentateuch, and there are many scholarly studies that demonstrate these books were written long after the events they describe.

Look at a Jewish copy of the scriptures – each page is usually divided into quarters. The upper left quarter condains the scripture (the part that is in our Bible) The remaining three quarters contain Rabbinical Tradition.

Now look at the New Testament:

The Gospel of Matthew – written by Matthew, an Apostle and an eye-witness.

The Gospel of Mark – written by Mark, not an Apostle nor an eye witness. Mark was Peter’s amaneuensis, and wrote based on what Peter told him.

The Gospel of Luke – written by Luke, not an Apostle nor an eye witness nor even a Jew. A follower of Paul, Luke tells us he investigated everything to write his gosple – clearly relying on oral transmission.

The Gospel of John – authorship uncertain. For several reasons, scholars believe it may have been written by a Johanine school, relying on threir memory of John’s teaching and preaching.

The Epistles of Paul – mostly written by Paul, not an eye witness. Paul was taught by the other Apostles, most notably by Peter. Some of his epistles are of doubtful authorship – a good example being Hebrews, which is included in the Canon because of it’s traditonal association with the Pauline school.

The Catholic Letters – the Epistles of James, John, Peter and Jude, which may or may not have actually written by the Apostles whose names they bear. They are in the Bible because Sacred Tradition associates them with those Apostles, and because their content agrees with the Sacred Traditon of the Church.

Revelation – written by a man who gives us his name, John, and who is identified by Sacred Tradition as the Apostle, John.

Non-Canonical writings. There are about 40 known “Gospels.” Some we have in their entirity, others are known only through fragments, and some are known only because they are mentioned by ancient writers. Why are these “Gospels” and other writings not in the Bible?

Sacred Tradition tells us why – the Early Fathers knew of and rejected these documents.

 

[PC_Master]

And the same very early fathers did not support many of the doctrines and dogmas the RCC holds today – at least, not that I can tell.

Now, are you going to provide some quotes that tell exactly what was in this sacred tradition, or not?

 

[PhilVaz]

PC << Now, are you going to provide some quotes that tell exactly what was in this sacred tradition, or not? >>

Yeah, I’ll answer for Vern with some help from Yves Congar. This is his summary on the beliefs of the ante-Nicene Fathers on Scripture/Tradition:

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only, but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The “rule of faith” or “rule of truth” was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of conduct, behavior/practice, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted “materially” of the Scriptures, but “formally” of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition – the Church’s Tradition – is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow “the order of tradition” received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not “succession of doctrine” only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century – these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally “sufficient” or exclusive.

That’s the tradition or Tradition or sacred tradition or Sacred Tradition. Congar believes the Fathers also held to “material sufficiency” and only passed on customs/practices through oral apostolic tradition rather than doctrine. An example of these in the next post, if I can find them. I’ve posted them before here and on Envoy boards.

Phil P