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
If you reject the church, apostolic succession and tradition, then you must rely solely on what you have left. Sola Scriptura.
But, what remains is actually sola scriptura as I read it. This then becomes identified as the Word of God.
”I want my teaching to be unjudged by everyone, also by all angels. For since I am certain of it, I will be your judge and also that of the angels, as St. Paul says (Gal. 1:8), so that the one who does not accept my teachings may not become blessed. For it is God’s and not mine; therefore, my court is also God’s and not mine.”
--Martin Luther
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.