You state that you agree that the Scriptures are sufficient, however, it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by sufficient... and sufficient for what?
I believe that the Scriptures contain in some manner everything necessary for eternal life.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the usefulness and Inspiriation of Scripture is commended to the power of the oral tradition." Are you asserting that "Inspiration" applies to something other than the written God-breathed (inspired) Word of God, aka: the Scriptures?
Yes. First, the Inspired Word of God is Jesus. We call the Scriptures "the Word of God" by analogy, since nobody believes that the Scriptures are the Second Person of God. I am saying that "the Word of God" applies to the oral Tradition as well as the Written one--as the Scriptures themselves testify (cf. 1 Tim 1:8, 2:13)--and that these two forms are inseparable in the life of the Church, which is "His Body, the Fulness of the One" Cf. Eph 1:22-23.
I would not deny the necessity of "teachers" within the Church (cf. Eph 4:11ff). However, it still remains true that the Scriptures are in and of themselves perspicuous and self-interpreting, else how would the teacher come to understand what they say?
Your statement about summarizes the paradox of it. But a book or even the Book cannot interpret itself, or proclaim itself, but can only be interpreted by the Holy Spirit, and those with the Holy Spirit, Who scrutizes even God (Cf. Eph 2). This is why the Bereans and the Eunuch couldn't understand the Scriptures until they recieved those with the Holy Spirit. Cf. Acts 17:11, 8:31.
I'm not sure I suggested that "Tradition was at first inspired,... etc." Where did "tradition" come into this dialog? I surely didn't mention it.
If the oral tradition wasn't inspired then the quotations of the Apostles may only tell us what the Apostles said, rather than what is inerrantly true. But you had said that Scriptures were given orally at first, then in writing, suggesting the Inspiration of the Apostles, as at Pentecost. Acts 2:1-3etc. I see no reason why God would have Inspired the Written Word rather than the oral Word, or how it could be called such if it were not inspired.
Re: "Apostolic oral tradition" continues you say? How could that be since the Apostles have all died. Are you suggesting that the office of Apostle has continued, i.e., Apostolic Succession so that there are actual Apostles today who meet the qualifications of Apostle which the original 12 plus Paul had to meet, not excluding having been with the Lord Christ during His earthly ministry? Paul seems to refute any such idea of some apostolic tradition by finalizing their role in his letter to the Ephesians:[2:19-22]
The Apostles died, but are not dead.
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.Ephesians 2:19-22 says nothing against Apostolic Succession. In fact Eph 3:10 says that the wisdom of God is made known through the Church (Cf 1 Tim 3:15). And Eph 2:19 refers to "the household of God", which is elsewhere called "the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth". It also describes the development of doctrine, not as if anything can be added to the Apostolic deposit (verse 20), but as a "growing" (2:21-22; 4:13, 16). Cf. Mt 4:31=32, Luke 2:19, 51-52.
So just as every man grows in his understanding of what the Apostles left "once for all", so does the Church, which is why she needs concrete, visible authority in the Body to define this growth in understanding.
Historicaly, I think Church has always believed that the Catholic Bishops are these Successors of the Apostles (cf 2 Tim 1:6), with all Biblical interpretive authority. Cf. Titus 2:15. I find this idea both in the Scriptures, and in all the fathers: including the earliest, such as Clement Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus ...etc.
So we agree on the materially sufficiency of Scripture, and both want to know exactly what Scripture means.
