Both are infallible and both have been written eventually. The only real difference is that it takes more time to cull the contents of Apostolic Tradition. Neither can be "modified", although our understanding of EITHER can vary over time. Even Protestants have different understandings regarding Scripture passages in time - such as those on slavery.
We just disagree that a non-inspired work can be inerrant. You use the argument all the time
Are you saying the teachings of the Apostles were not inspired by God?
We just disagree that a non-inspired work can be inerrant
I think the Apostles taught that all of their teachings were from God - thus, inspired by Him. I don't understand how you can toss out their teachings based on whether THEIR hand actually wrote something or not. Did Moses write about HIS own death? But you still see Deuteronomy as inspired by God?
When Jesus says His sheep follow His voice, it really means the sheep follow His voice as translated through the Church. We can't hear the voice of Jesus, we only hear the Church. And so on, and so on with a thousand Biblical teachings. Under this view Jesus is not a personal God at all, He is the executive who only speaks to middle management. :)
God speaks to the entire Church. We believe in the "sense of the faithful", the Spirit working within each individual to sense what God is leading the Church to believe. However, we believe it takes the Church bishops, the successors of the Apostles, to interpret that "sense". There are many different "voices" but only one truth. Thus, if we are one Body, we would presume there be one Mind of the Church. It is found within the "sense of the faithful", but how do you figure out which "voice" is correct? The Church guides the bishops to interpret that voice, so that when future heretics teach something, the BISHOPS can read this "sense" and say "we don't believe that, nor does the Church". Each individual bishop is a representative of his particular local church, so to speak. He "reads" that local "voice" and determines what the faithful think on a subject.
This is similar to the gift of tongues and the gift of discernment in individuals. What good is tongues if no one can understand them? Thus, Paul says that the gift of discernment is more important for the entire Church. The gift is given primarily to the Bishops.
I'm no Bible scholar, but I have read every word, as doubtless you have. So, I would say that if you can come up with a writing that even approaches the Bible in completeness, wisdom, consistency, love, doctrine, historical accuracy, (add ten more adjectives that are the Bible), then maybe I would look into Mormonism
So I couldn't write an Esther, a Philemon? I don't think it would be too difficult to write something that agreed with what was written before, one that shows love and wisdom. Internally, you couldn't prove that it wasn't Scripture. The ONLY way you can prove that something is not Scripture is if an outside means is used. Historical evidence. Outside witnesses to it.
A further question. What is to prevent someone from claiming to write something ELSE that is "Scripture" and claim it is from God? The Scripture says nowhere that the canon is closed! That is Apostolic Tradition! When if I wrote something and then claimed it was from God? How would you prove it wrong? When if I claimed to find something written by Peter or John? How would you prove INTERNALLY that it wasn't? Sorry, without external means, you CAN'T know what is or what is NOT the Bible. The same applies to other so-called Scripture. You will use external means to disprove the Koran, or Indian Scripture.
Based only the merit of the book by itself, without anyone else vouching for it, do you believe there is an equal to the Bible on earth?
The Bible is a compilation of letters. Some of them, at first glance, don't appear to belong or are not exactly what you would call "edifying" writings. The Book of Esther never mentions the word "God", unless you read the Catholic version from the Septuagint... And why is Philemon ONLY from God and not Paul just writing a letter?
Read some of Psalm 58: Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD. Let them melt away as waters [which] run continually: [when] he bendeth [his bow to shoot] his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces. As a snail [which] melteth, let [every one of them] pass away: [like] the untimely birth of a woman, [that] they may not see the sun. Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in [his] wrath. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
It is writings such as that which led MANY people to believe that there were two separate Gods, the Demuirge of the Old Testament and the God of Love of the New Testament. Can you honestly tell me that Psalms 58 and the Gospel of Luke is written by the same God - WITHOUT EXTERNAL WITNESS??? No linguistic person would see any similarities between the teachings of Psalm 58 and the Gospel of Luke. It is ONLY the witness of the Church that tells us that BOTH are from the SAME GOD.
Regards
Oral teaching is infallible? I must have misunderstood. So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?
Are you saying the teachings of the Apostles were not inspired by God?
I wouldn't imagine so, but I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men. I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years. The only evidence we have that it is all God-inspired is the word of the men who depend on that being true, along with a Bible passage or two massaged to fall in line with this view.
I don't understand how you can toss out their teachings based on whether THEIR hand actually wrote something or not. Did Moses write about HIS own death? But you still see Deuteronomy as inspired by God?
I never necessarily toss out anything, I just test it against the Bible as the Spirit leads me to interpret it. If a required interpretation strains logic and reason beyond all bounds, then I can't accept it. I don't believe God wrote the Bible for the purpose of hiding it from us. As for Moses, doesn't it seem reasonable that Joshua appended the obit?
So I couldn't write an Esther, a Philemon? I don't think it would be too difficult to write something that agreed with what was written before, ...
I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors". You have the unfair advantage of having studied the complete Bible as much as you have. None of them had that. You could parrot what the Bible already teaches, but they didn't have anything close to your knowledge. You would have been a "super priest" to them. :)
What is to prevent someone from claiming to write something ELSE that is "Scripture" and claim it is from God? The Scripture says nowhere that the canon is closed! That is Apostolic Tradition!
Well, considering how many extra books have been added to the Bible over the last 1600+ years, I don't see this as a huge problem. I'm sure that if someone did claim to find an unknown work it would be put through every test imaginable and there would be a big fight about it regardless.
I have never argued that external evidence is useless. It is especially useful to disprove something. I was only saying that while there is plenty of external evidence also in support of the Bible's authenticity, I do not need the RCC to bless it for me to know that it is God's word. The Bible speaks for itself.
The Bible is a compilation of letters. Some of them, at first glance, don't appear to belong or are not exactly what you would call "edifying" writings.
Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits. I'm not sure if you are arguing that some evil, ingenious team of miscreants could manufacture an equal to the Bible as a whole. I don't think they could, because I know God would not be behind it.
It is writings such as that [Ps. 58] which led MANY people to believe that there were two separate Gods, the Demuirge of the Old Testament and the God of Love of the New Testament. Can you honestly tell me that Psalms 58 and the Gospel of Luke is written by the same God - WITHOUT EXTERNAL WITNESS??? ... It is ONLY the witness of the Church that tells us that BOTH are from the SAME GOD.
I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church. In many senses, the OT and NT covered very different material. Any comparison has to be against the work as a whole. To understanding, the Spirit will lead us as He will, and on His timetable.