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
If you believe that, you can believe anything.
"Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded..." -- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.5.
"The Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it; nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture." -- Thomas Watson
Why would God have bothered to inspire the writing of the Bible if His goal was to have it be incomplete? Does God have a long history of doing things half- ..... baked? But I have to remember again that you believe that the Bible is inerrant based on the same authority that you believe that extra-scriptural Tradition is inerrant. If a committee votes that the Bible is inerrant, and another committee votes that the writings of a particular Saint are also inerrant, then why wouldn't that Saint be on a par with the Apostles?
[continuing] They ONLY ADDRESSED things that they felt needed further explanation. Things that everyone believed were not given much attention.
Really? So let me get this straight. Everyone believed in an infant baptism, but further explanation was needed as to whether Jesus ever said anyone should get baptized? (What was the additional info?) And, everyone believed in a sinless Mary, but further explanation was needed as to whether she was the mother of Jesus? And finally, everyone knew that Jesus went down into hell, but further explanation was needed that He even died on the cross? Seems like the cart is before the horse in all these cases. Odd ducks, these early Christians.
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 didn't say that. I said that "error" came forth both before and after, and I meant error from any direction. I do not think the Apostles erred. As you know, I believe that the scripture proves itself to be infallibly correct. And, I do not say that everything oral is automatically wrong. If it passes the scriptural test, then it could very well be fine. Do you think that all extra-Biblical Tradition must pass a scriptural test? Or, in stark opposition, do you believe that Extra-Biblical Tradition is correct definitionally, so that any perceived conflict must be weighed in favor of the Tradition, and Biblical interpretation must therefore be made to conform?
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"?
No, if you said "this is God's word ...", I would ask you to show me where it says that in God's word, the Bible. If you couldn't, then I would know that it's baloney. :)
FK: "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???
There is a big difference. The only things written from God are the 66 books of the Bible. They are true and superior to anything else, oral or written, claimed to be from God.
FK: "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????
I don't think very much. The Commandment itself notes that it is a symbolic remembrance, which is, of course, good. But I don't think God is too hung up on whether the actual day is a Saturday or a Sunday, or a Wednesday (other Protestants might strongly disagree with me on this part). To me, the important part is just so long as there is a day of worship and remembrance. I believe that the Sabbath was made for man. I take my attitude from the words of Jesus on this very subject:
Matt. 12:11-12 : 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."