" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1-4)
Here we see that Luke is compiling the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles with a very specific purpose in mind, in fact, it appears that it was originally written for a single person, Theophilus.
You are singing my tune! :) The little inside gag here is that I am currently using this EXACT passage to try to make a case to Jo Kus (and everyone) that the idea of Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture. So, I'll join you in that specific purposes were in mind. I'll even specify and say that one of them was to clarify that the written word (from an authoritative source) was superior to oral tradition. :)
The Scriptures were revealed by the will of God, and the human authors acted under divine Inspiration. This is the understanding that we Christians have received from the Church. (The Scriptures themselves do not tell us this, rather it is the Church. I would say that, off hand, only the Revelation to John tells us that it is divinely revealed.
I have found it to be a matter of friendly disagreement as to what "divine inspiration" actually means. It boils down to a free will issue, and it has surprised me how many other issues "boil down" to free will. As to scripture for supporting its divine revelation, what would you say about this oft quoted passage? :
2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (emphasis added)
---------------
Incidentally, you and I still rely on the Church, however, to tell us that the Revelation to John is Scriptural.
I actually give the nod to God on that one. :)
Martin Luther, for example, is said to have believed that the Revelation to John was not Scriptural.
I think I have read on this thread that he did have objections to it, and some other books, but ultimately he did not excise any books of today's Bible from his beliefs.
Rather, God worked through the human authors working within His Church to create the individual books of Scripture, and He worked through His Church to canonize and preserve the Scriptures.
You have phrased that in a rather thought-provoking way. :) My question would be that if God worked within His Church to create the individual books of the scripture, then why is it that so much interpretation is needed of the scripture to match extra-scriptural Tradition? It would seem to me that if the scripture and Tradition were truly harmonious, then the actual text of the scripture should stand on its own, within reason. Instead, it has been my experience on this thread that the text of scripture must be interpreted to mean things that the words do not say.
Just a very few examples are that "all" does not mean "all" in Rom. 3:23, "Eternal" does not mean "eternal" in verses like John 3:16, and grace is insufficient for salvation despite Eph. 2:8-9. This is never mind important theological issues such as Mary's sinlessness and infant baptism, which are not strongly supported in the Bible. It puzzles me that if God had wanted His Bible to clearly agree with the Tradition practiced, that He would have arranged for the two to more easily work together, without all the stressing and straining.
From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church. Such a prism is not evident in large part in the Bible itself, it must be added. This seems to me to be a pretty secretive way for God to get the message out and preach to all nations.
[On 1 Cor 5: 9-13] Here we have the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians and referencing a previous letter that he has written them. Since this is the first letter to the Corinthians, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul had written them a previous letter ...
Good find, IQ. That is reasonable support.
It puzzles me that if God had wanted His Bible to clearly agree with the Tradition practiced, that He would have arranged for the two to more easily work together, without all the stressing and straining.We are not Muslims. We do not believe that God dictated the books of the New Testament word for word to amanuenses. The books which the Church later collated into the New Testament were divinely inspired, but written by imperfect men for specific purposes, as IQ has pointed out.
Rather than ask why the New Testament is not a systematic theology book, a better question is why, for 1500 years, nobody expected it to be.
This time, despite numerous examples to the contrary, you are so far off the road, you left the planet. Please call 9-1-1.
FK, I am flabbergasted! I didn't say that oral tradition was superior to written. Over and over, I have said, at the very best, that oral tradition is EQUAL to written, once determined its source is God. Of course Luke's Gospel is a good thing and it compiled some of the Apostolic Tradition into one location. I never argued THAT! What I argue is that THIS is NOT Sola Scriptura! Think about what you are trying to prove: That the Bible ALONE is enough. Where does Luke even remotely imply that everything besides written Scripture is enough by writing an account??? Do you think that Luke is saying "Now that I have written an orderly account, Theophilus, throw away anything not explicitly within this book"? "Stop doing and believing what you were taught that is not within the pages of THIS book"? You are desperate seeking something that is not there, brother.
Regards
From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church.
The scripture is verified and explained primarily with other scripture, and with linguistics. This is why "all" is not "all", etc. This has been explained to you a dosen times on this thread. Where alternative readings logically exist, but one reading is supported by Tradition for extrascriptural reasons, I pointed it out. For example, there is no scripture to positively say that Mary remained a virgin; the Purgatory is not the only possible explanation of the parable of unmerciful debtor, etc.
There is a certain fallaceous pattern in how you have argued the scripture, at least with me. First, a doctrine is picked with scant scriptural support. Next, I admit that it is something positively known from Tradition but not contradicted by Scripture. Then you rise to the challenge and bring up something in the scripture that could be interpreted your way. I explain that it also can be explained the Catholic way, and back it up with other scripture and linguistics. Then you say "-- But I read it the natural way". At this point the purpose of the exercise is forgotten and we argue about what is the natural reading. But this is not the issue, and in fact what is the natural reading to the 21 century American quite often is not the natural reading to a 1 century Jew anyway. The issue is, -- Is the Catholic reading possible, not -- Is it natural.