FK: "The little inside gag here is that I am currently using this EXACT passage [Luke 1:1-4] 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."
JK: "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."
What are you talking about? I never accused you of that view. I know you think they are equal. Without saying anything about your view to IQ, I simply said that my disagreement was that I think that the written IS superior. How did you reach this conclusion?
Where does Luke even remotely imply that everything besides written Scripture is enough by writing an account???
Well, no where, but I think I know what you meant. I am using this passage in Luke as support for Sola Scriptura, not as a definition of it. Luke gave me the clear impression that he thought that if one wanted to be SURE about a teaching, then write it down.
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"?
No, that would be building way too much into the passage and I am not doing that. Luke was thinking of what HE had to say. He opted to write it down in order to be sure.
Sorry, I misread your post. My head hurts...
I am using this passage in Luke as support for Sola Scriptura, not as a definition of it. Luke gave me the clear impression that he thought that if one wanted to be SURE about a teaching, then write it down.
That doesn't support Sola Scriptura. At all. It merely means that written material is superior to oral material, as one can readily access all the material in one place. Oral tradition, by nature, is generally not in one person's "head". Even if so, it takes more effort to extract it. Written material is there and available to be read - and re-checked if incorrect. Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, says that anything NOT written is to be discarded. It places written material as the source and arbitrator of any other information. Luke does not at any point make this claim. Nor does the Church. Ever. The Scriptures are vital to the Church - but only when understood in the sense of the Apostolic Tradition, not independently as a work by themselves - which subjects them to MISINTERPRETATION. Even in the second century, the Church Fathers were writing about this very fact and were exasperated! How dare those heretics twist the meaning of our Scriptures! Thus, they saw the need to trace their ancestery back to the Apostles in some of their writings.
Regards
Certainly there is great value in a written record. But I can't see separating writing and teaching, especially in subjects of any complexity or depth, that cannot be fully reduced to a fixed set of symbols/concepts.
For exmple: Mathematics is the "language" with the greatest claim to precision, yet even its written word is no guarantee of communication of knowledge, writer to reader. If you 'know' E=MC^2, do you 'know' the Theory of Relativity? Even after the publication of the Special and General Theory of Relativity, it's said only three people understood it for the first decade.
Knowing the words (formula) and 'knowing' are two different things. The written word has tremendous value; however, it alone does not magically result in knowing in the reader.
Writing down and correct teaching - person to person communication by all possible media - cannot be separated.
thanks for your post.