Now you are either being obtuse or you just like to argue. How could a non-existent book be the SOLE determinant, the guide that Christians would follow? Is this your idea of being funny or are you serious?
No, I'm being serious. :) I do not think that God's inspired word came out of whole cloth. When I read Paul's letters I presume that he generally wrote what he was teaching. So there was correct doctrine out there. Once it all came together in the form of the Bible it became the standard. Oral and written error came forth both before and after this time, but God made sure none of it made its way into the Bible.
FK: "I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture."
Why is this a problem? They are equally the Word of God (presuming "oral Tradition" = Apostolic Tradition, part of which got written down in the Bible, part of which got written down by the Fathers or "practiced" in the Liturgy). Because I believe in “oral” Tradition does not mean I put them above Scripture.
It sure looks like you do. By "oral Tradition" I meant all extra-scriptural Tradition. Is there a term for that? I still haven't seen an argument against my contention that extra-scriptural Tradition dominates the scripture because it defines the scripture. The scripture does NOT define the extra-scriptural Tradition.
FK: "You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene."
Say what? The Scriptures do not relay any such thing. Moses came down the mountain with stone tablets, not Moses "oral tradition". Unless you claim that Moses did a Mohemmed and wrote them himself.
My focus was on that you diminish the written word because there was oral tradition before it. You lessen the authority of the NT because oral teaching preceded it. I assumed that you also diminish the authority of the Ten Commandments (also written) because there was oral teaching before they came about.
So you believe everything written?
No, I said "If something is written from God ..."
We take the Apostles words that their letters ARE the word of God! That is the "proof". Because they SAY so! What other evidence do we have that their writings ARE the word of God BUT their witness?
We have specific scriptures, but the Church won't accept them perhaps because it might diminish the role of men, and their say so.
Either you believe what they wrote AND said, or you don't.
I know what they wrote, so I believe it. I can't possibly know what they said aside from what they wrote.
Thus, there is no "telephone" game because GOD HIMSELF guides His Church. Certainly, this is a matter of faith - but no more than believing that the Bible is from God.
We have both read the Bible, cover to cover. Is it really only a matter of faith to you that the Bible is from God?
IF something merely needs to written, then explain the first 25 years of Christianity.
I have never said that anything written equals something true. I have said that anything written from God beats out anything else "claimed" to be from God.
Explain the Church's decision to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. Where is that written in the OT?
My understanding is that Sunday was chosen because Christ rose on a Sunday. What does that have to do with anything? Those types of things are not a matter of doctrine or theology. It doesn't help my witness to say that we worship on Sundays. I don't understand the cause for any of these questions you are asking. You have drawn distinctions before between practices and theology, but now you are treating them as the same thing.
And secondly, I have given you ANOTHER means by how a man can be "thoroughly perfected" - the teaching community. This is where Sola Scriptura fails. It says Scripture is USEFUL, not ABSOLUTELY necessary. ... You can't really believe that a person must READ to BELIEVE, do you? Paul says we must HEAR the Word, not read it! Note, one does NOT find out about the Gospel by “reading a book”. It is PROCLAIMED by another.
You know that I am an evangelical Southern Baptist, and yet you are arguing that I am against preaching! If you really think that those who believe in Sola Scriptura are against preaching, then you do not understand the fundamentals of the belief. Sola Scriptura does not throw out oral teaching. It establishes what is authoritative. Any oral teaching that is consistent with scripture is good. Jesus taught orally. How could we be against oral teaching as a principle?
That is built upon the PRESUMPTION that the Bible catalogs the entire Christian belief in written words. It doesn't. The Bible is a collection of what the Apostles (and those close to them) wrote. They ONLY ADDRESSED things that they felt needed further explanation. Things that everyone believed were not given much attention. When the Corinthians wrote to Paul, he didn't respond by giving them an entire exposition of the faith - only answers to the questions they asked. The Bible doesn't address everything that Christians believe, nor does it do it in a systematic or complete way. To say it does it merely speculation - since there is no evidence from Scriptures or later writings that this was the case.
Oral and written error came forth both before and after this time, but God made sure none of it made its way into the Bible.
What makes you think there was error in the oral teachings of the Apostles? What evidence do you have that oral was wrong and written was infallibly correct?
I still haven't seen an argument against my contention that extra-scriptural Tradition dominates the scripture because it defines the scripture. The scripture does NOT define the extra-scriptural Tradition.
This "Tradition" is our paradigm of looking at the Bible. The Bible is meant to be read a certain way. It makes no sense that the Bible was written and open to ANY interpretation. The Apostles and such wrote it and meant certain things by it - it is not meant to be interpreted by the whims of particular people who have no clue on what the Apostles are writing about.
My focus was on that you diminish the written word because there was oral tradition before it. You lessen the authority of the NT because oral teaching preceded it.
I am merely relating the obvious chronological development of God's revelation to mankind. That was God's will. Just because I recognize that oral tradition came first, I now do not consider the Scriptures as important? That is ridiculous. I am merely recognizing what should be obvious to any unbiased man...that oral tradition came first and oral tradition shaped the Bible. The two are inseparable.
No, I said "If something is written from God ..."
So if I say "this is God's Word", followed by some sort of baloney, you'd believe it because I preceded it with "this is God's word"?
We have both read the Bible, cover to cover. Is it really only a matter of faith to you that the Bible is from God?
The Bible was not written all at once - but by many men over the ages. We have been told it is from God - but this is why we call it "faith".
I have never said that anything written equals something true. I have said that anything written from God beats out anything else "claimed" to be from God.
Really, what is the difference? Are you trying to say that because something is WRITTEN that it is from God, it is beyond reproof???
My understanding is that Sunday was chosen because Christ rose on a Sunday. What does that have to do with anything?
BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN! Was it not WRITTEN that the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath? But then Christians, based on ORAL teachings, change the day of the Sabbath - a LAW of God!!! What does that have to do with anything????
Sola Scriptura does not throw out oral teaching. It establishes what is authoritative. Any oral teaching that is consistent with scripture is good. Jesus taught orally. How could we be against oral teaching as a principle?
I am not talking about oral teaching. I am talking about men interpreting Scripture. The Bible doesn't interpret itself - many people can get different things from the same passages - as we have clearly found out.
Regards