Why is sacred tradition infallible, where is the proof?

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, it is Divine Revelation which is infallible.
Chapter 14, Gospel of John.

 

[Good_Fella]

Just throw the counter question: Why is Scripture infallible, where is the proof? Your friend certainly won’t find it in the Bible. :bible1: Sacred Scripture is capital :twocents: borrowed by Protestants from the Catholic Church. They can assent to their belief in the infallibility of Scripture only by acknowledging its institutional source which is the same as that of sacred Tradition, if they choose to be humble that is.

Protestants will tell you that sacred Scripture is the word of God without any qualification. For this reason Scripture is infallible. But they won’t find this proposition in the Bible, just as they won’t find the dogmatic statement ‘Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception in view of the foreseen merits of Christ’ in the NT. Still they might argue that Scripture is self-authenticating by virtue of its content. But unless the Catholic Church hadn’t ruled otherwise, one could claim that the Didache or Gospel of Barnabas is the word of God for the same reason. I’m afraid they can only place their trust in the infallible ruling of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit to assent with the certainty of faith that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

In any event, Scripture is indeed the word of God, but more precisely it is the written word of God . Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the unwritten word of God. And what we find in the written word we also have in the unwritten word, since the latter proceeded before it. Sacred Scripture is essentially a confirmation of sacred Tradition (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). So if Scripture is infallible, it’s because Tradition is infallible. Scripture resulted by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Tradition by the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the course of time. Meanwhile, by unwritten word we don’t mean spoken by the apostles and their associates and witnesses. This is the oral Tradition of the Church. Sacred Tradition is the word that has been declared to us by the Holy Spirit himself about the mighty deeds of God in salvation history (cf. Jn. 16:12-13). For the apostles and Christians of the first century, sacred Tradition was the OT brought to new light. For the early Church of the Post-Apostolic Age and beyond sacred Tradition was also the NT brought to greater light. Jesus promised his Church that the Holy Spirit would be with her “forever” (cf. Jn. 14:16) so that the gates of hell should not prevail (cf. Mt. 16:18).

The infallibility of the Church as the Rule of Faith was prophesied by Isaiah.

*And a path and a way shall be there, and it shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it, and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein. *
Isaiah 35,8

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1)

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Lucretius]

Just throw the counter question: Why is Scripture infallible, where is the proof? Your friend certainly won’t find it in the Bible. :bible1: Sacred Scripture is capital :twocents: borrowed by Protestants from the Catholic Church. They can assent to their belief in the infallibility of Scripture only by acknowledging its institutional source which is the same as that of sacred Tradition, if they choose to be humble that is.

Protestants will tell you that sacred Scripture is the word of God without any qualification. For this reason Scripture is infallible. But they won’t find this proposition in the Bible, just as they won’t find the dogmatic statement ‘Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception in view of the foreseen merits of Christ’ in the NT. Still they might argue that Scripture is self-authenticating by virtue of its content. But unless the Catholic Church hadn’t ruled otherwise, one could claim that the Didache or Gospel of Barnabas is the word of God for the same reason. I’m afraid they can only place their trust in the infallible ruling of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit to assent with the certainty of faith that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

In any event, Scripture is indeed the word of God, but more precisely it is the written word of God . Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the unwritten word of God. And what we find in the written word we also have in the unwritten word, since the latter proceeded before it. Sacred Scripture is essentially a confirmation of sacred Tradition (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). So if Scripture is infallible, it’s because Tradition is infallible. Scripture resulted by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Tradition by the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the course of time. Meanwhile, by unwritten word we don’t mean spoken by the apostles and their associates and witnesses. This is the oral Tradition of the Church. Sacred Tradition is the word that has been declared to us by the Holy Spirit himself about the mighty deeds of God in salvation history (cf. Jn. 16:12-13). For the apostles and Christians of the first century, sacred Tradition was the OT brought to new light. For the early Church of the Post-Apostolic Age and beyond sacred Tradition was also the NT brought to greater light. Jesus promised his Church that the Holy Spirit would be with her “forever” (cf. Jn. 14:16) so that the gates of hell should not prevail (cf. Mt. 16:18).

The infallibility of the Church as the Rule of Faith was prophesied by Isaiah.

*And a path and a way shall be there, and it shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it, and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein. *
Isaiah 35,8

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1)

PAX
:heaven:

There is another connection to the infallibility of the Bishops in the Old Testament, my friend. In the Old Testament, the high priest wore a uniform that had two mysterious objects, called Urim and Thummim. These things, in dire situations, could be used to get an infallible answer from God. As I said, the priest did not have the infallibility personally, but he had it as part of his uniform: as part of his office as high priest. This corresponds then the infallibility of the Bishops. First, the Bishops themselves are like the high priest (read the Church Fathers). Second, Bishops are not infallible in themselves: they are infallible only due to their office. Third, they are only infallible in extraordinary instances: Faith and morals. You can see how this would also connect to Papal infallibility.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, infallibility is in the doctrines properly defined at major ecumenical Church Councils. This infallibility is due to the wisdom and guidance of the Hoy Spirit.

An interesting source of information is the Index of Citations which begins on page 689 of the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *The Ecumenical Councils begin on page 720. Catholic teachings from these Councils can be found in the CCC paragraphs on the right. See explanation on page 689. Also see CCC 20-21 for an explanation of small print. Additional sources of information are found in the paragraph references in the margins of the Catechism and in the footnotes. The Index of Citations also lists information sources from Scripture and well as from the Early Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, etc. etc. etc.

 

[steve_b]

How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

• For almost 400 years there WAS no bible (written tradition). That’s right, no difinitive canon had been established before that. Therefore no difinitive canon = no bible…
• The canon (the written tradition) was difinitively decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome, 382 a.d. here is that decree. rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html . Count the books. It’s 73. The same canon OT and NT we have today.
• Protestants otoh have scripture lite, as a result of 7 OT books removed by Luther. Luther having accepted the canon the Jews who didn’t accept Jesus established for themselves. Jews who did accept Jesus used the Septuigint . BTW, most of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the Septuigint.

Tradition, as Paul teaches, is both

oral and written.

• 2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
• iow, Not oral alone, nor written alone, but both oral AND written, and both are authoritative, and both are to be held firmly.

Who has been there for 2000 years? The Catholic Church
ll:

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true,

One has to be able to appeal to an authority that confirms the truth of sacred tradition. An authority that is bonafide and legitimate. Not some man made tradition, but a tradition that is established by Jesus Himself. Only one authority on the planet fits that discription. The Catholic Church. #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)
II:

how do I believe that purgatory, …

Just because the word “purgatory” isn’t in the bible does it mean the bible doesn’t speak of it.

1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day**(“1 cor 3 RSVCE - On Divisions in the Corinthian Church - Bible Gateway”)] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Who goes through that process on “The Day” but one who is being purified for heaven. Why is that process necessary? Besides being revealed to us in scripture, no one gets to heaven without being perfectly spotless. Revelation 21:27

purgatory isn’t a 2nd chance. It’s only for people who die in a state of grace, i.e. without mortal sin on their soul, and need purification before heaven. Let’s face it, who dies perfect? I’d say very few.

Those going to hell go straight to hell.
II:

Mary being sinless,

Here’s an 11 minute video on Mary. It’s well worth your time to view it. Hit pause often if you’re taking notes
youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8
II:

confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible.

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right,

Due to space I can’t begin to answer all your questions.

Your frustration is coming from a lack of knowledge. You’re in the right place here on CA. Take your time, ask questions, and start studying.

and above all, Calm down and enjoy the journey

 

[Good_Fella]

There is another connection to the infallibility of the Bishops in the Old Testament, my friend. In the Old Testament, the high priest wore a uniform that had two mysterious objects, called Urim and Thummim. These things, in dire situations, could be used to get an infallible answer from God. As I said, the priest did not have the infallibility personally, but he had it as part of his uniform: as part of his office as high priest. This corresponds then the infallibility of the Bishops. First, the Bishops themselves are like the high priest (read the Church Fathers). Second, Bishops are not infallible in themselves: they are infallible only due to their office. Third, they are only infallible in extraordinary instances: Faith and morals. You can see how this would also connect to Papal infallibility.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

There certainly is a connection between the Old and the New Testament in many ways which we can’t afford to take for granted or dismiss to comprehend what God has chosen to reveal to us. This link does indeed apply to the mediums by which God chooses to reveal Himself.

By going back to the OT, we see that God has revealed His truths in both written and unwritten forms ever since He had first manifested Himself to Abraham and then Moses. The unwritten word proceeded first when God spoke to Abraham and then to Moses. From God Moses received both the Torah (Scripture) and the Talmud (Tradition). Moses received the Torah via the written text which alongside was the oral version or commentary which has developed over time just as sacred Tradition has been passed down to us more or less orally in the Catholic Church by an appointed hierarchical teaching authority. The Talmud consists of a manuscript which contains all the ethics and laws orally handed down. It is also referred to as the six orders of the Mishna: the compilation of what has been handed down orally. It is a monument of Judaic tradition no less than the writings of the Church Fathers and Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church are via oral transmission. The Talmud is basically the Torah in oral form and serves to explain the hidden meanings in the written text so that lay people can better or fully understand what God has revealed to them in writing. This same principle applies to Christianity. Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church by the proper teaching authority and not by private individuals like Martin Luther or John Calvin. I see no reason why God would choose to change the manner in which He reveals His truths to us as forms of learning and instruction. The apostles themselves certainly saw no reason for it.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

We should observe that Paul enjoins the Thessalonian community to hold on to the traditions that were not only spoken by the apostles, but were also contained in the written texts of theirs. The written word of God proceeds from the spoken word ( the oral Tradition) which in turn originates from the unwritten word, that which has been declared by the Holy Spirit (sacred Tradition) (cf. 1Jn. 4:6). The relationship between Scripture and Tradition is symbiotic in nature. They interact and coexist with each other as mutually inclusive in one body. So the two mediums of divine revelation mustn’t be separated from each other in order to survive, or more precisely to be infallible. Once Scripture is divorced from Tradition, it is no longer an infallible source of divine revelation (cf. Acts 8:26-34). It becomes even more fallible and destructive once it is taken out of the hands of the divinely appointed teaching authority of the Church (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, since the written word of God proceeds from the unwritten word of God. This is the order God Himself has infallibly and immutably ordained when he first appeared to Abraham and then to Moses. Immutability is a moral attribute of the Divine essence. Certainly God cannot act contrary to who He is.

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition.”
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]

Thanks, Lucretius, for drawing our attention towards the connection between the Old and the New Testament.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Lucretius]

There certainly is a connection between the Old and the New Testament in many ways which we can’t afford to take for granted or dismiss to comprehend what God has chosen to reveal to us. This link does indeed apply to the mediums by which God chooses to reveal Himself.

By going back to the OT, we see that God has revealed His truths in both written and unwritten forms ever since He had first manifested Himself to Abraham and then Moses. The unwritten word proceeded first when God spoke to Abraham and then to Moses. From God Moses received both the Torah (Scripture) and the Talmud (Tradition). Moses received the Torah via the written text which alongside was the oral version or commentary which has developed over time just as sacred Tradition has been passed down to us more or less orally in the Catholic Church by an appointed hierarchical teaching authority. The Talmud consists of a manuscript which contains all the ethics and laws orally handed down. It is also referred to as the six orders of the Mishna: the compilation of what has been handed down orally. It is a monument of Judaic tradition no less than the writings of the Church Fathers and Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church are via oral transmission. The Talmud is basically the Torah in oral form and serves to explain the hidden meanings in the written text so that lay people can better or fully understand what God has revealed to them in writing. This same principle applies to Christianity. Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church by the proper teaching authority and not by private individuals like Martin Luther or John Calvin. I see no reason why God would choose to change the manner in which He reveals His truths to us as forms of learning and instruction. The apostles themselves certainly saw no reason for it.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

We should observe that Paul enjoins the Thessalonian community to hold on to the traditions that were not only spoken by the apostles, but were also contained in the written texts of theirs. The written word of God proceeds from the spoken word ( the oral Tradition) which in turn originates from the unwritten word, that which has been declared by the Holy Spirit (sacred Tradition) (cf. 1Jn. 4:6). The relationship between Scripture and Tradition is symbiotic in nature. They interact and coexist with each other as mutually inclusive in one body. So the two mediums of divine revelation mustn’t be separated from each other in order to survive, or more precisely to be infallible. Once Scripture is divorced from Tradition, it is no longer an infallible source of divine revelation (cf. Acts 8:26-34). It becomes even more fallible and destructive once it is taken out of the hands of the divinely appointed teaching authority of the Church (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, since the written word of God proceeds from the unwritten word of God. This is the order God Himself has infallibly and immutably ordained when he first appeared to Abraham and then to Moses. Immutability is a moral attribute of the Divine essence. Certainly God cannot act contrary to who He is.

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition.”
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]

Thanks, Lucretius, for drawing our attention towards the connection between the Old and the New Testament.

PAX
:heaven:

One of the main reasons I rejected and reject Protestantism is the emphasis on tradition in Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism and in Catholicism. It reveals how Catholicism truly is the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham Remenber, though, only the Mishnah is the divine tradition. The Rabbis commentary are more like the Church Fathers: not infallible, but still a witness to tradition.

The yetzer-hara and yetzer-hatov distinction is also another of my favorite connections.

Christi pax.

 

[Good_Fella]

One of the main reasons I rejected and reject Protestantism is the emphasis on tradition in Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism and in Catholicism. It reveals how Catholicism truly is the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham Remenber, though, only the Mishnah is the divine tradition. The Rabbis commentary are more like the Church Fathers: not infallible, but still a witness to tradition. Christi pax.

The Talmud is also known as the Oral Torah. The Torah comprises the whole of Jewish law and tradition as they are written down in the 5 Books attributed to Moses (Pentateuch). The Torah is somewhat ambiguous, so Moses had to explain the meanings contained in it orally to enable the people to understand more clearly. What he originally said had passed from mouth to ear from him to the people through generations until the 2nd century B.C… Hence, the Talmud is basically the oral version of the written Torah. It compares with the oral Apostolic Tradition in Christianity. Rabbi Judah Prince eventually compiled all the oral commentaries into a 63 volume document which is the First Mishna, the first written rendition of the Talmud (Oral Torah). This manuscript is a monument of the divine Tradition. When Moses ascended Mount Sinai the first time, God spoke to him, and what he heard he explained to the people. He received the Ten Commandments written on stone the second time he went up to legally seal in a sense the covenant which God had established with His people who were presently engaging in an act of idolatry. And even then, God first spoke to Moses before the Ten Commandments were inscribed in stone. What God had declared to Moses on both occasions constitute the divine Tradition, just as the declaration of the Holy Spirit first made to the Apostles forms the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Moses wrote down everything he heard and understood from God during the time the Israelites were wandering in the desert for 40years while the oral Tradition continued to be transmitted by mouth to ear. Similarly in the 1st century of Christianity, the oral Apostolic Tradition of the Church continued to be transmitted by mouth to ear while the Gospels and Epistles were being written. For this reason the Christian Bible cannot be entirely an infallible source of divine revelation for Protestants, since they have rejected much of what belongs to the oral Apostolic Tradition of the Apostolic Catholic Church and consequently the divine Tradition which has originated from the Holy Spirit.

*And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. *
2 Timothy 2, 2

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

How is sacred tradition infallible, how is it verified, I told my protestant friend that it is infallible because of the fact that a bunch of the magisterium is a lot of the clergy and the pope, the pope brings up an issue and then they all pray about it and find the right answer. Please help me, is this the right answer, is this how the magisterium works?

Also how is sacred tradition true, what makes it true, how do I believe that purgatory, Mary being sinless, confession, and other things, if it isn’t mentioned in the bible. How do I believe in offering things up if it is so unclear in the bible…ALL of it is unclear in the bible, all of the things from the bible relating to tradition Are unclear the bible verses that people say verifies tradition is about as clear as being blind…

It makes no sense… I was crying about it on my way home, from frustration, everything of my catholic faith is gone, all of it, I am in despair…All my protestant friends at my college say they are right, but all Catholics say they are right, what do I believe??? I am in RCIA,19… and on the route to baptism, yet why am I catholic if I doubt and cannot believe most of the traditions…I feel like crying…

I want to be a saint, I must always keep suffering for God…But isn’t this too much…??? All I have left that is of God is the fact that I know he somewhat was crucified for me based off faith, history is muddy about it…And the fact that God is good but even then that sometimes gets taken away from me…

The view of the CC East and West and the EOC is: God established that His word is transmitted down through time authoritatively and normatively by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church (=STC)

(1) Tradition, viewed through the lens of SS as an isolated addition to the results of one’s own interpretation of Scripture alone here in 2015, is not infallible. Infallibility is a charism given to the Church living in the context of apostolic apostolic tradition and Scripture. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14 also v 12) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word. The clearest exercise of this is in the Ecumenical Councils after the pattern of the apostles in Acts “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:8).

(2) Tradition (within the whole of STC) is found in what are often referred to as the “monuments of Tradition.” These include:

(a) consent among the Fathers of the Church
(b) the teaching of the magisterium, most importantly, Ecumenical Councils
(c) the Liturgies of the church throughout time
(d) the Doctors of the Church
(e) ordinary expressions of the Christian life in actions and customs
(f) Sacred canons and sacred customs
(g) the saints (as bearers of tradition)
(h) theologians

(3) Taken as a whole the teaching and practice of the NT authors on tradition (really STC) as opposed to SS is clear and overwhelming. I have attached below a collection of data from the NT authors. I would suggest that you: (a) read each one and answer whether as stated it is true or false; and then (b) ask which it all more clearly adds up to: STC or SS? Some of the statements are to establish boundaries–not that you hold them.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

QUESTION: What is the complete method God has chosen to preserve and transmit down through time the whole of His word (revealed truth) that He wished humanity to have?
Is it: (a) STC as defined in my post above; or (b) sola scriptura as understood variously by Evangelicals?

Given that:

1. The apostles are our source of knowledge about the teaching, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus either as His witnesses (the Twelve) or an inspired teacher (Paul) [Lk 1:2; 24:48; Jn 15:27; 20:30; 21:24; Acts 1:3,21-22; 10:40-41; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:3].
2. Jesus told the twelve apostles to preach and teach [Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 10:42]. The word of God was transmitted by the apostles orally first: the Gospel was carried by believers [Acts 2 esp. v 42; Acts 5:42; 6:4; 15:35; 18:11; 20:27; 1 Thes 2:13; 1 Tim 2:7; 1 Jn 1:2-3; 1 Pet 1:23,25]. The oral word is the entire reality and revealed content of the Christian faith including the correct interpretation of the Old Testament given by Christ and handed on interpersonally to and in the body of Christ by the apostles. This is the word of God / word of the Lord / the Gospel. (see texts above especially Acts).
3. The word spread orally [Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20; 1 Thes 1:8; 1 Tim 2:9; 2 Tim 1:13; Jude 17], and people came to the faith and were saved by the oral word [Jn 17:20; Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:14; 11:1; 16:32-33; Rm 10:8-17; 1 Cor 4:15; 15:1-3; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; 2:6-7; 1 Tim 6:12; 1 Pet 1:23-25; 1 Jn 2:24] which is a norm [Jn 12:50; 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:6-9; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 1:13].
4. The oral transmission of the word stemming from the apostles will not die out [1 Pet 1:23-25].
5. The apostles are, therefore, the foundation of the Church [Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14; also Acts 2:1-14,41-42,47; 5:41-42].
6. Not everything that Jesus or the apostles taught or did was written down in scripture [Jn 16:12-13; 20:30-31; 21:24-25; 1 Cor 11:34; Philip 4:9; 2 Jn 12; 3 Jn 13-14].
7. In three passages Paul expressly enjoins his readers to hold to the “tradition(s)” (paradosis) they have received before he wrote to them [1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6].
   In addition, the verb form, paradidomi, usually translated as “deliver” or “hand on,” is used in reference to transmitting the whole faith before the letters were written [Rm 6:17 teaching “delivered”; 2 Pet 2:21 commandment “delivered”; Jude 3 the faith “delivered”]. See also Philip 4:9.
8. Fellow workers and successors were appointed by the apostles over the flock [AA 14:23; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1,15; cf. 1 Tim 5:19-21, 22]. Paul states that the Holy Spirit has appointed them overseers (AA 20:28). In Col 1:7 we learn that Epaphras, a fellow worker with Paul, founded the Church at Colossae.
9. The process of handing on the faith orally through successive generations of believers is acknowledged, affirmed, and ordered. [Rm 10:17; 1 Thes 1:8; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; 2 Cor 8:16-18; Col 1:6-8; Tit 1:9] The process pre-dates the letters and the content is not specified.
   [In connection with this Paul uses the noun *paratheke (a thing entrusted for safe keeping : a deposit : a trust) and the verb paratithemi (to entrust for safe keeping : to deposit). Paul entrusts to Timothy the charge to preach the Gospel (1 Tim 1:18) and reminds him to guard what has been entrusted to him (6:20); he repeats his injunction to guard the trust/deposit (2 Tim 1:14) as he himself has (1:12) and then further tells Timothy to entrust it to others so they can orally teach yet others (2:2). It is hard to imagine a more apt description of tradition.]
10. Jesus willed to establish a church (not claiming any particular church or denomination or leadership structure here: just a church) [Matt 16:18; 18:17].

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

1. Paul identifies the body of Christ as the church [Col 1:18, 24; Eph 1:22].
2. Jesus established only one church, one body of Christ–all local churches in NT are concrete expressions of the one church founded by Christ. (no claims here as to which church) [Eph 4:4; also 1 Cor 12:12]
3. It follows from the above and is expressly stated in Eph 3:10 that the oral apostolic word is made known through the Church.
4. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14) and the “mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word.
5. The apostles and other NT authors did not write under inspiration as private individuals, but as members of the body of Christ for members of the body. (e.g., Paul’s letters are to churches already formed in person by him or others.)
6. The NT writings were read in the context of the oral preaching handed on and of the body/community receiving it, usually established by that apostle/writer [1-2 Cor; 1-2 Thes; Gal; 1 Jn are examples].
7. No NT author teaches that everything taught by the apostles that God wanted humanity to have and transmit was written down. In fact, the NT suggests just the opposite.
8. No NT author teaches that the authoritative transmission of the oral apostolic word by the body of Christ was to cease after the NT canon was collected.
9. Biblical authors do not portray or teach that the word of God is an exclusively written word or that the word of God is limited to, equivalent to, and coextensive with the written text of Scripture. [e.g., “God said, ‘Let there be . . .”; Ps 29—“the voice of the Lord”; Is 30:30-31—“voice”; Is 55:10-11—the word goes forth from God’s mouth; 1 Thes 1:8—the word of the Lord sounded forth; 1 Thes 2:13–what they received from Paul before the letter was written was the word of God, etc. Also #s 2-3, 6-9 above.] No biblical author teaches, if you will, that the pen is mightier than the word.
10. There is no text in the NT that makes the express, direct, and self-referential assertion that we must go solely by the Bible (the written word) to derive the whole of sound doctrine. e.g., “The complete set of truths that God wanted to give humanity are to be found by the individual or collective interpretation of the Bible alone.”
11. “Scripture(s)” in the NT with one exception (2 Pet 3:16) means the Old Testament (Jn 5:39, 13:18; 17:12; AA 18:24, 28; Rom 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3,4, Jas 2:23. Search under graphe. gramma is used in 2 Tim 5:13)
12. The canon of the NT is not listed in the NT. The canon of the OT is not listed in the text of the Bible.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Thanks for your thoughtful and excellent defense of STC Fr of Jazz! I’ve saved all three posts in a document. Your efforts are really appreciated.

 

[mijac]

12 Reasons Why it is both Church and Bible or Neither
Bible Alone is not Biblical Per Scripture - “It Is Man Made Tradition”

1. No where does the Bible Teach that it is the Sole Authority. Not in 2 Tim: 3:15-16, Heb 4:12, or Act 17:11 or anywhere else.
2. The Bible teaches repeatedly that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred oral word, teaching, preaching, traditions as well as the Sacred Written Word. 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 6, 2 Timothy 2::2, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2Tim 1: 13, Titus 1:3, 1Cor 15:2 , Phi 4:9, Gal 1:16, Eph 3:8, Col 1:28, Malachi 2:7, Matt. 23: 2-3, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, Joh 20:22 He breathed on Apostles.
3. The Bible teaches in 1Tim 3:15 that the church is the pillar and foundation of all truth, it does not teach that the Bible is pillar and foundation of all truth.
4. Bible teaches us that everything is not in the Bible, John 21:25, John 20:30
5. The great commission was to go out and preach and teach Matthew 28:18-20, and to instruct to other worthy men to do the same 2 Timothy 2:2
6. We are instructed to obey and submit to our leaders/Church Heb 13:7,17
7. Where problems arise we are instructed to take it to the church Mat 18:17
8. For the first 1500 years the whole idea of Bible as the sole authority was completely a foreign concept and never would have been accepted among the people. We are privileged people, we have Bibles in most every Christian home. For the 1st 1500 years most people did not have this privilege , only the wealthiest of the wealthiest could have such a thing. This was far to expensive for the population at large. It wasn’t until after the invention of the printing press was the Bible readily available for people to begin to afford. All the Bibles prior to then were meticulously copied by hand by the monks in the monastery by the very church which is rejected by all of Protestantism. Copying the Bibles by hand meant there were no where enough to go around not even close. Bible alone was then an impossibility prior to 1500’s.
9. Apart from the traditions of the church, church fathers, church councils we have no legitimate way of knowing which books are in the Bible part of the cannon. So the Bible must be substantiated by an outside source.
10. Apart from the traditions of the Church, church fathers, church councils we do not know who the authors are of the four Gospels. So the Gospel writers are substantiated by an outside source. Unlike Paul in his epistles, none of the four Gospel writers identify themselves as far as who is writing the Gospel.
11. There is not any Christian who can make the claim that they were able to understand the meaning of Scripture without someone and or books teaching them how to interpret Scripture from someone else’s perspective…
12. The man made tradition teaching of Scripture as sole authority has caused nothing but division within the Body of Christ from the 1500’s on too the point where we now have over 30,000 different denominations and nondenominational churches all teaching something a bit different than others. All based on individual self interpretation of the meaning of Scripture. The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of such mass confusion and contradictions.