The apostles did not practice sola scriptura. They did however regard their oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition.
Catholic View = written equal to oral
Protestant View = written alone.
Doesn't it strike you as ironic that it is the Catholic position that is found in scripture?
The Protestant would agree there was a time when Scripture was oral in the preaching of the prophets , Christ and the apostles. Once their writings were written down and they died off, then all we have are their writings alone which are considered inspired-inerrant Scripture. There is nothing else in the church today that is inspired-inerrant.
ReplyDeleteIf the RC wants to claim that there is an oral tradition today that is equal to the Scripture then he needs to demonstrate exactly what that is with specific examples. I have never seen a RC do this.
Howdy Meyu and welcome to my blog,
ReplyDeleteThe Protestant would agree there was a time when Scripture was oral in the preaching of the prophets , Christ and the apostles.
======
This simply highlights the irony. You admit the catholic view is scriptural in that the apostles regarded oral tradition on an equal level with scripture.
======
Once their writings were written down and they died off, then all we have are their writings alone which are considered inspired-inerrant Scripture.
======
It should be noted that scripture nowhere says that there would come a time that sola scriptura is valid.
======
There is nothing else in the church today that is inspired-inerrant.
======
AND
======
If the RC wants to claim that there is an oral tradition today that is equal to the Scripture then he needs to demonstrate exactly what that is with specific examples. I have never seen a RC do this.
======
A common protestant tactic is to say that if we cannot prove the existence of another infallible authority, it follows that scripture is the sole infallible authority. It is true that when making the affirmative, we should seek to prove it. However it must be understood that just because the infallibility of the church or oral tradition is not proven to your satisfaction, it does not follow that we must conclude, by default, that the bible teaches Sola Scriptura. If one affirms that it does, then they still need to provide proof even if there were no other infallible authorities in existence today.
But I don’t want to assume where you are coming from. I have met protestants who will argue that the bible does not need to teach sola scriptura and then there are some who assert it does. Which one are you?
Now another point to consider. If I was not able to prove the existence of another infallible authority, it still does not grant you the right to assert that there are no other infallible authorities. That is an affirmative, and it is one, that even by the protestants own principle, needs to be proved. Yet the common protestant reply to this is, “we cannot prove a negative”. An example is often given such as the ball pen example, where if you were to try and prove that no other ball pen existed like the one you have, you would have to search the galaxy, the entire earth, every store etc. But if you are not able to prove the negative, then what gives you the right to affirm it? The best you can do is say that you don’t know of any other infallible authority. But there is a huge difference between saying, ‘I don’t know of any other infallible authority’ and ‘there are no other infallible authorities’. The former does not need to be proved, but the latter does.
*"prove a negative" should be 'prove a universal negative'
ReplyDeleteHapax Paradidomi,
ReplyDeleteIt is not irony to acknowledge that the oral teachings of the apostles would be considered inspired-inerrant. That's just a fact. That does not impact in the least Sola Scriptura since all we have today is the written Scripture. During the time of Christ for example there would have been 2 inspired-inerrant sources. One would have been the OT and the other the Lord Christ Himself who spoke orally. Today we are left with the Scripture alone.
You do bear the burden of proof if you are claiming that there is another source that is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is. Failure to do so, would mean that the Scripture alone (sola) is true.
There are many ways to argue for Sola Scriptura. One powerful argument is from the nature of the Scripture itself as being inspired-inerrant Word of God. This being the case means that the Scripture is the highest authority in the church since it is the Word of God.
=====
ReplyDeleteIt is not irony to acknowledge that the oral teachings of the apostles would be considered inspired-inerrant. That's just a fact.
=====
The irony is that you are claiming we need to get our belief about what is and is not an infallible authority from scripture ALONE, but the apostles themselves did not subscribe to your view, i.e., they did not believe that scripture was the SOLE infallible authority. Put it this way, If I am to follow your advice and structure my belief system according to the apostles, then I could not, just as they could not, subscribe to sola scriptura.
=====
You do bear the burden of proof if you are claiming that there is another source that is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is.
=====
I already addressed this and I agree. But you can't use this to skirt your own burden of proof.
=====
Failure to do so, would mean that the Scripture alone (sola) is true.
=====
This is an example of skirting your burden. In essence you are saying that if I make a positive assertion then I have to prove it. If you are going to make a positive assertion then you have to live by this burden as well or you are using a double standard. If you wish to only plead ignorance of any other infallible authority, than you are relieved of your burden.
=====
There are many ways to argue for Sola Scriptura. One powerful argument is from the nature of the Scripture itself as being inspired-inerrant Word of God. This being the case means that the Scripture is the highest authority in the church since it is the Word of God.
=====
But it doesn't follow from your argument that written medium is the highest authority and here is why. Oral tradition also carries the stamp of being s inspired-inerrant. So if being inspired-inerrant qualifies the medium as being the highest authority than it follows that both written and oral medium bear that stamp.
What else did the apostles believe was an infallible authority?
ReplyDeleteDo we not agree that at least that 66 books of the Bible are inspired-inerrant?
What oral tradition today carries the "stamp of being inspired-inerrant"? Please give me some examples.
====
DeleteWhat else did the apostles believe was an infallible authority?
====
Their oral tradition.
====
Do we not agree that at least that 66 books of the Bible are inspired-inerrant?
====
At least.
====
What oral tradition today carries the "stamp of being inspired-inerrant"? Please give me some examples.
====
My knowledge is not exhaustive but I can say at least two:
1) Our knowledge of what is and is not scripture.
2) Interpretation
What is an oral tradition of the apostles that is not recorded in the Scripture? Examples please.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I would like to point out that many people who ask me this, are coming from an illogical and contradictory angle:
Delete1) They ask me to prove my authority from scripture but then assert they don't have to prove theirs from scripture. I think that is simply an unfair requirement.
2) I am asserting that they are ORAL traditions. By definition an oral tradition could not be prove explicitly from scripture, for it it could than it would not fall under the classification of an oral tradition but rather under the classification of written tradition. So it is plain silly to ask me to prove an oral tradition from scripture.
Now with that said, an example is the designation of what is scripture. Luke or Acts do not make any statements that indicate they are inspired or scripture or even inerrant. So who told us they are? Where does one get this knowledge?
All I'm asking you is to demonstrate an oral tradition of the apostles that is not found in Scripture. Perhaps there were some. I'm not asking you to prove an oral tradition from Scripture.
ReplyDeleteThat is not a illogical and contradictory request.
How the church determine what the NT canon was is a separate issue. I want to see if there is some oral tradition that the apostles believed not recorded in Scripture.
====
DeleteAll I'm asking you is to demonstrate an oral tradition of the apostles that is not found in Scripture. Perhaps there were some. I'm not asking you to prove an oral tradition from Scripture.
====
Thanks for clarifying!
====
How the church determine what the NT canon was is a separate issue. I want to see if there is some oral tradition that the apostles believed not recorded in Scripture.
====
Actually is not a separate issue if the apostles handed on that knowledge orally. That would qualify it as an apostolic oral tradition.
Think of it like this: I can argue that the apostles knew that acts was scripture. But, they, nowhere specified in writing that acts is scripture. They then handed that knowledge on to their followers orally. That qualifies as an apostolic oral tradition.
DeleteYou can argue all you want that the apostles thought Acts was Scripture but never prove it.
ReplyDeleteActually I think I have more reason to believe that the apostles knew acts was scripture than you have for thinking it is scripture. You tell me how you know acts is scripture and then I will tell you how I think Paul knew acts was scripture and then we will see who's reasoning holds up. :).
DeleteAnd on the flipside, if I am not able to prove that Paul knew what scripture was, then how are you able to prove that acts is scripture?
The church of the 4th century used various tests to determine the canon of the NT. One was apostolic. Was a book-letter written by an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle. Luke was associated with Paul and his gospel and Acts were accepted as Scripture based primarily on this.
ReplyDeleteNow, how did Paul know Acts was Scripture? How do you know if he read Acts?
=======
ReplyDeleteThe church of the 4th century used various tests to determine the canon of the NT. One was apostolic. Was a book-letter written by an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle. Luke was associated with Paul and his gospel and Acts were accepted as Scripture based primarily on this.
=======
So is it your argument that you know that it is scripture because they told you so?
BTW How does the test, 'Luke was closely associated with an apostle' tell us that it is scripture? Don't we need to know that is designated as scripture first before we can apply the test?
=======
Now, how did Paul know Acts was Scripture? How do you know if he read Acts?
=======
It certainly would be interesting if that were the case, but I think such a view would be problematic for the test you stated above. How would being an associate of Paul prove that something Luke wrote was inspired if Paul never read what he wrote? It seems that in order for such a test to carry significance is if it is understood that Paul actually read and approved of Luke's work, or was a collaborator on it.
Acts being Scripture does not depend on Paul reading it. Luke's association with Paul and the early church having such a high regard for his gospel would mean Acts would be accepted as Scripture because it accurately tells of the events and people it deals with.
ReplyDeleteNow tell me: where does "oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition"? What examples can you give for any oral traditions of the apostles?
Meyu,
Delete====
Acts being Scripture does not depend on Paul reading it. Luke's association with Paul and the early church having such a high regard for his gospel would mean Acts would be accepted as Scripture because it accurately tells of the events and people it deals with.
====
1) you already pointed out that one of the tests used to determine what was scripture is wether the author was an apostle or a companion of an apostle. I already pointed this out to you before, that you need to show why it was necessary for him to at least be a companion of an apostle. You apparently ignore this point. If Luke's historical record could be recognized independently as scripture than why establish a test that he be the companion of an apostle? As you would have it, Luke doesn't need to be a companion. However the early church did not make their decision to recognize Acts as scripture based solely on Luke's own merits.
2) Your argument assumes that scripture is inerrant because the people recognized it as such. But that is problematic because the protestant view of inspiration is that without it being inspired, you have no guarantee that it is inerrant. So till you establish that it is inspired, you can't say that it is inerrant and hence you cannot say the people recognized it as such. Continuing on…. Since sola scriptura depends on the scripture being inerrant, it follows that you cannot demonstrate the book of Acts as your final authority till you have established that it is inerrant. And you cannot establish that it is inerrant till you establish that it is inspired. Just because a writing appears to be accurate does not automatically qualify it as being inerrant or inspired, for if it did, than any accurate writing about God could be said to be inspired. So you still need to demonstrate how you know it is inspired. Using tests that would essentially establish any writing as inspired, will not help you.
Now tell me: where does "oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition"? What examples can you give for any oral traditions of the apostles?
Delete====
I already gave you an example, the designation of what is scripture. I stand by this. You are attempting to discredit my argument by utilizing flawed reasoning, that is, you argue that Luke's book can be recognized as scripture on its own merits, even though Luke never designated it as either scripture, inspired, or inerrant and even though the earliest christians utilized tests which did not rely solely on Lukes own merit.
I realize that I don't have anything written in scripture where it says that the apostle passed on a tradition of what qualifies as scripture. Like wise I don't know of any specific statements by church fathers to that effect. But I believe I have more ground to stand on then you do and think that if your own argument is compelling to you then mine should be all the more compelling.
You require me to give you proof that this was tradition passed on by an apostle.
1) I cannot give you a statement from scripture that says the apostles passed on knowledge of what is scripture. But you are in the same boat because you are not able to give me a statement from scripture that says that acts is scripture. So obviously, you are being unfair if you expect me do give one when you yourself cannot give one.
2) I cannot give you a statement from the early church fathers that says Paul passed on the knowledge of what is scripture. But this does not hurt my point nor does it help your point. What could you argue here? You could say that we have plenty of statements from the early church fathers that says Acts is scripture. But that does not help you, because you would still need to demonstrate how they (the ecf) know it was scripture. Did God tell them directly? Did they apply tests that helped them arrive at the knowledge? If so then you will need to show which tests actually tell them that a writing was inspired at the time of it's creation. Remember that the writing does not tell you itself. Did they just guess? I realize that you referred to the tests of the ecf in selecting which books go into the canon, but I don't think those tests identified the books as scripture. And if you are not able to reproduce their tests to identify what is scripture, then you really don't have a leg to stand on. I think the books were already designated as scripture through tradition and then the tests were applied to validate the claim.
It is not unreasonable to think that they know what is scripture from the apostles passing that knowledge on. I think unless you can provide an alternative means that actually enables us to identify what is to be designated as scripture, then I can't see any reason why you would reject my assertion.
You have not proven that "the designation of what is scripture" was an oral tradition of the apostles. All you have done is to assert it. You gave no documentation for it.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that you don't "have anything written in scripture where it says that the apostle passed on a tradition of what qualifies as scripture." Remember: you are claiming that "oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition". How could you possibly know this when there is no evidence for it?
We can address later how the church of the 4th century determined what was the canon of the NT. Right now we need to focus on oral traditions carrying equal weight with the Scripture.
======
DeleteYou have not proven that "the designation of what is scripture" was an oral tradition of the apostles. All you have done is to assert it. You gave no documentation for it.
======
What I have done is given you more than you can give me on this matter. In other words you are demanding a level of proof that you are willing to forgo anyways if it suits you. This is demonstrated in your answer regarding what is scripture.
======
We can address later how the church of the 4th century determined what was the canon of the NT. Right now we need to focus on oral traditions carrying equal weight with the Scripture.
======
No, first we need to address what our criteria is for accepting something as true. Other wise it is useless to proceed if you are allowing your self one standard while denying me that same standard.
I know that you can't demonstrate what is scripture and in the end you end up depending on tradition to tell you. Which means in the end you are proving that the book of Acts is scripture using the same argument I am using to prove that there are oral traditions coming down from the apostles.
I won't budge from that point. Have a good weekend :)
There is no disagreement on what Scripture is between us. We know what Scripture is. You can pickup a Bible anytime and know that is Scripture. You can't do this with any oral traditions of the apostles.
ReplyDeleteAll i'm asking you is to demonstrate what the oral tradition of the apostles was. So far you have not given me one example what it was nor any evidence for it. Just as the texts of Scripture must stand on their own so must an oral tradition of an apostle.
I certainly can demonstrate what Scripture is. The first characteristic would be: was it written by a prophet or an apostle? The second characteristic would be: does it speak with the authority of God-Christ?
Ball is in your court to show an oral tradition of an apostle using these principles.
reply to meyu
Delete====
Ball is in your court to show an oral tradition of an apostle using these principles.
====
the problem is you haven't really done anything with the ball when it was in your court. i pointed out that you are operating on a double standard. instead of putting that claim to rest you have reinforced it. the double standard is that you require me to prove my argument with a level of evidence that you dont require for a belief that you accept.
====
There is no disagreement on what Scripture is between us. We know what Scripture is. You can pickup a Bible anytime and know that is Scripture. You can't do this with any oral traditions of the apostles.
====
well my bible has 7 more books than yours, so no I don't think we agree. and on the books where we have agreement we disagree about how we know these books are scripture. of course i think it is really just that you, for some reason, are not thinking it through. the way that i know what is scripture allows me to also except the existences of apostolic oral traditions.
====
All i'm asking you is to demonstrate what the oral tradition of the apostles was. So far you have not given me one example what it was nor any evidence for it.
====
i have given you more evidence for why i believe the existence of oral tradition than you have given me for why you believe acts is scripture. I will reiterate my evidence:
1) the fact that the early church accepted acts as scripture, even though acts never makes that claim and no other inspired author makes that claim. how can you accept acts as something if you don't know that it is that something? how did they know?
2)the fact that we can only know that acts is scripture, from tradition.
====
Just as the texts of Scripture must stand on their own so must an oral tradition of an apostle.
====
the problem you are overlooking, is that the fact that it is scripture does not stand on it's own.
====
I certainly can demonstrate what Scripture is. The first characteristic would be: was it written by a prophet or an apostle? The second characteristic would be: does it speak with the authority of God-Christ?
====
the first problem is, those tests do not prove that it is scripture. in order for them to prove that they are scripture, the test must prove that the writings are inspired in their creation. if you think the tests do prove it, then you need to demonstrate this. the second problem is you are leaving out a more important test, the test of tradition. the third problem is the fact that the book of acts was not written by an apostle.
We already agree that the Scripture (66 books) are inspired-inerrant. (we can discuss the other 7 later).
ReplyDeleteDo you know how the NT canon was determined?
What you are claiming is that there is that "oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition". You need to produce some proof for this claim.
Lets look at Acts again. What oral tradition from the apostles can you produce from the 1st century that the apostles knew Acts was Scripture?
Do you know how the NT canon was determined?
Delete====
My answer below will be given keeping the book of Acts completely in mind.
You have never made an exhaustive reference to the tests. I don't know if you know what they all are. However I am assuming that you have some idea that there are more than just being an apostle or being acquainted with an apostle. Another couple would be the writings agreement with orthodoxy and the acceptance of the writing by the churches. These two latter tests are a reference to tradition.
But for this conversation, how the canon was determined is not the issue. What is the issue is, how they know that something is scripture or not. In order for it to be incorporated into the canon, they have to know it is scripture. In order for them to know it is scripture, they need a good reason for thinking it is scripture.
The tests used to determine the canon only work if the writing is regarded as scripture already. The tests cannot tell you if the writing is scripture, they can only help to validate the claim which was already in existence.
It is important to note that there is no church father who supplied a list of criteria on how to recognize which writings belong in the canon. The criteria that is often spoken of, are criteria that are gleaned from here and there. For example Augustine in "On Christian Doctrines" said : "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive"
What does that mean? It means that christians already regarded the book of Acts as scripture before the tests were even fully formulated. We don't have any evidence of some period of time right after the apostles died where the christians got together and formulated a list of tests to determine, out of all the writings they had, which were and were not scripture. At a later date we see them using tests in order to validate the claims made regarding the writings, i.e., the claim that Acts was scripture, or the claim that 1 Clement was scripture. But Acts being designated as scripture was already well in place.
For example, Irenaeus regarded acts as scripture. The question now is, how did he know that it is scripture without using the tests? If Irenaeus didn't use tests and the tests wouldn't help him anyway then there are only two possible ways he could know that Acts is scripture. 1) God told him directly/. 2) He learned it from tradition.
Irenaeus tells us himself that he was personally acquainted with Polycarp who was personally acquainted with the apostles. See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html
The idea that the apostles would have told Polycarp that Acts is scripture and that Polycarp would have shared that info with Irenaeus and others certainly is much more sensical than the idea that they used tests which were not yet available and would not have led to that conclusion anyway or more sensical than the idea that God spoke directly to Irenaeus. And many of the fathers make reference to unwritten traditions being handed down by the apostles.
Does history tell us that the information was specifically given that way? No. But unless you can offer a better solution, than you are simply the pot calling the kettle black.
====
DeleteWhat you are claiming is that there is that "oral tradition as carrying equal weight with their written tradition". You need to produce some proof for this claim.
====
Both the gospel of Luke and Acts are anonymous. No doubt we can discover in Acts that Luke was a companion of Paul but we can only discover in tradition that Luke was the author of Acts. So even if you try to utilize the companion of an apostle test and even if it could prove that Acts is scripture Oral tradition is still your ONLY evidence that Acts is scripture.
====
Lets look at Acts again. What oral tradition from the apostles can you produce from the 1st century that the apostles knew Acts was Scripture?
====
My reasoning is above. As I have stated many times, you are not able to meet the criteria that you put on me.
Why are we spending all this time discussing how the canon was determined and not on the issue of your traditions that are supposed to be inspired-inerrant? Just as there were tests to determine what Scripture is we can apply these same tests to traditions that are said to be equal i.e. inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is. These methods will help us to determine if there truly are traditions equal to the Scripture.
ReplyDeleteTo refute sola scriptura you need to demonstrate another source that is also inspired-inerrant. Once you have done this, then you will have shown sola scriptura is false.
DeleteI get the impression that you are either not reading what I wrote or you are not comprehending it.
=====
Why are we spending all this time discussing how the canon was determined and not on the issue of your traditions that are supposed to be inspired-inerrant?
=====
I specifically said "But for this conversation, how the canon was determined is not the issue. What is the issue is, how they know that something is scripture or not.".
=====
Just as there were tests to determine what Scripture is we can apply these same tests to traditions that are said to be equal i.e. inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is. These methods will help us to determine if there truly are traditions equal to the Scripture.
=====
You will need to prove that those tests actually show us that a writing is inspired-inerrant. You are just assuming they do, however you haven't proved it. As I have already pointed out, the book of Acts was already regarded as scripture before the tests were given. You need to explain how Acts was regarded as scripture before the tests were even used.
=====
To refute sola scriptura you need to demonstrate another source that is also inspired-inerrant. Once you have done this, then you will have shown sola scriptura is false.
=====
All I have to do is demonstrate that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source. Nuff said!
Meyu,
ReplyDeleteDo you distinguish between the inspiration of scripture AND the inspiration of the message?
There is a distinction. For example the message of Paul was inspired before it was even written down. Then when it was written down, inspiration came into play AGAIN. Not that the message was inspired again. For you cannot inspire it again because simply put the word of God is the word of God. Nothing changes it, nothing else needs to happen for it to be the word of God.
Inspiration of the message speaks to the content of the message as originating from God. Where as the inspiration of the scripture speaks to the process of that message being written down. So to say that the message itself is inspired is one thing.
I think you are confusing the two ultimately. You are arguing for the inspiration of the message. But what I am asking you to show me is that those writings were actually created by inspiration. Keep in mind that a writing itself does not need to be inspired in order for it to contain in it inspired truth. An example of this is the fact that your bible is a COPY of inspired scripture, but it is not itself inspired. However the message is inspired even if your or my copy of the bible is not inspired. It is inspired in the sense that the message originated with God.
Again, why spend time talking about the NT canon which we both accept as inspired-inerrant instead of oral traditions and traditions that are supposedly inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is? What oral traditions specifically has your church said is inspired-inerrant? I'm not asking about any of the writers of Scripture but of anyone outside the Scripture. For example, is there anything a church father wrote that is considered inspired-inerrant by your church?
Delete=====
DeleteAgain, why spend time talking about the NT canon which we both accept as inspired-inerrant instead of oral traditions and traditions that are supposedly inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is?
=====
Meyu, I made it clear we are not talking about the canon. Something can be scripture without being in the canon or without a decided canon. That is
the case with the early church fathers. So you need to distinguish between canonization and the recognition of what is scripture or designated as scripture. So no need to keep repeating your point "why spend time talking about the NT canon" when that is not what I am doing.
How a writing came to be recognized as scripture is relevant to this discussion if the writing can only be recognized as such through tradition.
====
You have not demonstrated "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source." You assert this but have not given any proof of it. You have no proof of how the apostles looked at Acts or even if they read it.
Remember: you are the one that believes in an oral tradition of the apostles. All I'm asking you is to prove what it was.
====
Actually I am using your argumentative approach, which you believe to be valid. If it is valid for you then why is it not valid for me?
You told me that in order for me to disprove sola scriptura, I need to prove an inspired inerrant oral tradition. Well this road can run both ways. If you want to disprove that our knowledge of what is scripture comes from the apostles, then you need to demonstrate a post apostolic test that will enable us to know what scripture is. You have already made at least one attempt, but I refuted your attempt, i.e., the test you gave forth doesn't actually tell us that a writing is scripture. If you cannot demonstrate such a test, then by your own principle it follows that my claim, that our knowledge of what is scripture comes from the apostles, is true. As I have repeated myself so often in our discussion, I can argue using the same rules.
I am not sure that we can actually move forward as we are now just repeating ourselves. So far you have dismissed most of my argumentation as being irrelevant or by ignoring it rather than interacting with it. You don't think you have to prove anything but you expect me to prove everything, and you expect me to do so using a different standard than you allow yourself. What do we accomplish by that approach?
And if we only know what is scripture via tradition, then there is your inspired inerrant tradition. Now see if you are willing to allow me to operate on the same standard that you hold yourself to.
DeleteTo be sure there is tradition related to the canon of the NT. However, we don't have any oral tradition for it. We don't know what the apostles said about the canon of the NT outside of the brief comment in 2 Peter 3.
ReplyDeleteThere is no oral or written record "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source." It does not exist. What this means is that Sola Scriptura is true given that there is no record, nor proof, nor example of the apostles holding to another inspired-inerrant source. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is the Word of God and is therefore the highest authority in the church. It has no equal.
I absolutely do expect you to prove that the "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source." So far you have not done so. You have not even been able to identify it in any way.
BTW- the apostles had nothing to do with canonizing the NT.
====
DeleteTo be sure there is tradition related to the canon of the NT. However, we don't have any oral tradition for it. We don't know what the apostles said about the canon of the NT outside of the brief comment in 2 Peter 3.
====
As I said, I am not talking about the canon. I am talking about how something can come to be recognized as scripture. And as I pointed out already a writing can be scripture although it was not added to the canon.
Tradition is not just related to how we know what is scripture, it IS how we know what is scripture. The question is, where did that tradition come from? Knowing that we know what scripture is from tradition, are you willing to say that tradition started post-apostlic? If so then you still have the task of showing how they obtained the knowledge of what was scripture in the first place in order to pass that knowledge on.
====
There is no oral or written record "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source." It does not exist. What this means is that Sola Scriptura is true given that there is no record, nor proof, nor example of the apostles holding to another inspired-inerrant source. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is the Word of God and is therefore the highest authority in the church. It has no equal.
I absolutely do expect you to prove that the "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source." So far you have not done so. You have not even been able to identify it in any way.
====
You already agreed that the apostles have oral traditions. And you already agreed that they are inspired. Scripture shows this. Why are you now denying it? Did we not already discuss this and I argued that the apostles have oral tradition? Do I need to show this again?
====
BTW- the apostles had nothing to do with canonizing the NT.
====
Round and round we go…. :) I never made that claim. Where do you get that I did?
When the apostles taught something orally that would be an en example of something that is oral. It would also mean its inspired-inerrant if it is from God. However, no one knows what these oral teachings were. The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT and no where else.
ReplyDeleteWhat this means is that the only thing in existence today that is inspired-inerrant is the Scripture. This is part of what makes Sola Scriptura true. It alone is inspired-inerrant. No apostolic oral tradition is since we have no record of it. Therefore Sola Scriptura is true.
====
DeleteWhen the apostles taught something orally that would be an en example of something that is oral. It would also mean its inspired-inerrant if it is from God.
====
You said, and I quote "There is no oral or written record "that the apostles held to another inspired-inerrant source.". It would be more useful if you pick a position and stay with it.
====
However, no one knows what these oral teachings were. The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT and no where else.
====
Would it matter to you any if you had a specific statement from an early church father that claimed to hold to an unwritten tradition of the apostles? If so, why would it matter?
====
What this means is that the only thing in existence today that is inspired-inerrant is the Scripture. This is part of what makes Sola Scriptura true. It alone is inspired-inerrant. No apostolic oral tradition is since we have no record of it. Therefore Sola Scriptura is true.
====
Again you utilize a standard that you will not permit me to use. Explain how that is fair?