Classical Protestantism has not considered the existence of God’s word in oral form to militate against Sola Scriptura. If the Catholic Church could actually produce the oral record of God’s Word existing today, that verse would be more convincing.
That verse very clearly indicates that understandings and practices of the Church were transmitted outside of Scripture.
lord make me an instrument of your peace" by st francis of salesYes, exactly, it’s “pofitable” but not independent of the Church.here is another verse i found interesting. " all scriptures is god breathed and is useful for teaching,rebuking,correcting and training in righteousness" ( 2 tim 3:16). the bible is useful for all of these, but this verse certainly never promotes scripture as the final authority for our faith. iam truly learning so much from this fundamentalist.
If it’s transmitted outside of Scripture but you don’t have any solid record of it, why should I believe you when you say you have additional–outside of the Scriptures–inspired words that should be obeyed? If you’re aware of the existence of such words, then you can object to Sola Scriptura on a theoretical level; but until you can produce such teachings, you won’t convince anyone interested in the practical.
Classical Sola Scriptura understands that the Scriptures are to be interpreted in the context of the body of Christ. Since your understanding of Sola Scriptura is more aligned with that of fundamentalists or the misrepresentations common in Catholic apologetics, may I ask what Protestant works you’ve read on the subject? I am interested to know from where you have derived your understanding of this Protestant doctrine.
We can know it is true by what Scripture that has been written down.
***2 Th 2:15 *…stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth…
It’s an objection that is not practical. Until you can produce oral teachings that clearly were taught by Paul, the existence of such in the past has no bearing on Sola Scriptura in the present.
Until this oral tradition can be produced instead of referred to, the objection is not practical.
I am glad to hear that. I greatly appreciate Shibboleth’s efforts to explain the doctrine and your willingness to learn about it from said.
Yes, it does because it shows that Church has teachings that were transmitted outside of Scripture. These teachings are present in the Church today. There are practices that we have today that are not in Scripture, yet of course do not contradict Scripture. Scripture is inspired but it is not the complete picture and Paul indicates that.
You are certainly forgiven.
I don’t argue that the Scriptures contain every word that the Apostles received from Christ. However, have you considered that the Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation (2 Timothy 3:15)? Without even mentioning other passages that suggest or demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in containing the full message of salvation, how much more would the New Testament Scriptures be sufficient if the Old Testament was?
It is better to view Sola Scriptura not as something which is overtly proven through Scripture itself, but as a process of elimination. Where does the word of God manifest itself today? Since I am only aware of it being contained in the written form, that is where I turn.
The reason I am interested in Catholicism is because I have prayed that prayer. I came very close to conversion through Opus Dei in NYC; at one point during my time with them they offered me the chance to be spiritually mentored by their local priest. However, God’s answer to my prayer was to keep me out of the Catholic Church.
Until you can produce these teachings in a way that would give them the same credibility of the written Scriptures, I cannot believe your claim that your church is in possession of them. Other denominations or religious movements make claims similar to yours regarding the existence of an oral tradition, yet come to different beliefs. How can I know if your church is following the oral tradition correctly? I need to examine it for myself, and I can’t do that until it’s presented for analysis.
OK, I will answer that but in order to answer that I need to know what you base the credibility of the Scriptures on. Then I can address the credibility of the Church by the same standards.
Although my views are not very developed in this area, such issues as integrity of early manuscripts and internal criticism are important. I would prefer that you produce the oral tradition in such a way as I could examine it to make sure that your church is following it. It would be similar to me comparing the Scriptures to your church’s teachings and to see if it follows them.
Quoting other authors is fine if you find them to be expressing your opinion in an articulate fashion, but I don’t think quoting David Currie helps at this point of the discussion. The quote you’ve referenced agrees with your position on the matter, but doesn’t provide me with any relevant material to interact with; it doesn’t address 2 Timothy 3:15 and my argument about salvation.
Actually Matt, you have invented a burden of proof here that is of your own making: that the apostolic succession must be contained in Scripture. Does Scripture actually say that it must, did you just assume it, or what? In addition, your contention that the “association is unwarranted” is false from Scripture alone! There is, in fact, evidence of apostolic succession from Judas to Mattias. All you have done is to create an apparent dichotomy between “apostolic succession” and “succession of the papal office” - they are the same thing. 1.Peter was an apostle. 2. He held a special place among the Apostles - the Rock, name changed, almoxt exclusively listed as first, etc etc. 3. Peter has died. 4. His office has been succeeded by others throughout history. 5. The “See of Peter”, the succession to his special apostolic office belongs to the man who occupies the unbroken chain since Peter’s death. The briefest of searches into history will tell you that John Paul II is his successor.