The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

You state that you agree that the Scriptures are sufficient[/b], however, it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by [i]sufficient... and sufficient for what?

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?

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? The "missing element" is of course, the Holy Spirit Who works through and by the Scriptures to enlighten the mind. (Jh 14:26; 1Jh 1:27) Without the initial work of regeneration, the Scriptures will not be able to be rightly understood and especially put into practice. (cf. Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14-16)

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.

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:

Once the foundation of a building is layed, it does not continue to be built. It's sole purpose is to undergird all that proceeds. Everything thereafter is built upon the foundation.

I believe that the Scriptures contain in some manner everything necessary for eternal life.


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.


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.


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.


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.

That plainly isn't what Paul is writing to Timothy (3:16,17) nor to us. What Paul wrote was that the Scriptures are sufficient for ALL matters of faith and life, not just "eternal life". The inspired written Word of God as revelation is where God has given believers all that is necessary for both justification, sanctification and the hope of eternal life. Every matter for life and eternity is contained therein either by direct command or in principle.

I can't recall anywhere where the Lord Christ is referred to as "inspired". Could you point where you find this in Scripture, please? Secondly I have to assume that your references to 1Tim 18; 2:13 were not what you really wanted to refer to since neither has anything remotely to do with "oral tradition". You keep asserting that oral tradition is on the same level and authority of the inspired written Word, i.e., the Scriptures, but nowhere have you provided any indication that this is so. And where is this oral tradition? Do you have copies of it?

And, returning to "oral tradition", it seems to me that it was God's intention to preserve the inspired written Word and nothing else otherwise Jh 20:25; 1Jh 1:4; Lk 1:24; Acts 1:1, et al carry no weight. There is no possible way to discern what was actually done nor said by Christ, the Apostles concerning God's will outside of Scripture.

I disagree. The Scriptures are self-interpreting, aka: Scripture interprets Scripture. That men are to make use/apply the teachings of Scripture is not in dispute. We are to practice exegesis vs eisogesis, i.e., to bring our own ideas to the Bible and therein try to justify/prove our presuppositions. That certain men have been given a greater measure of understanding as gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church again is not a matter of dispute. But they too are to be judged according to what the Scripture says by ALL. This is possible since ALL true believers are given the same Spirit through and by Whom the Scriptures are to be read, understood and applied. Even Paul recognized this fact and counseled the Bereans to judge his teachings from the Scriptures. (cf. Acts 17:11; cp. Jh 8:31)

What I perhaps should have said is that the record of what the Apostles spoke as recorded in Scripture was inspired. There was no "oral tradition" only the inspired writings which record all that God intended for the Church to know. Not everything the Apostles spoke was "inspired" as in theopneumotos, i.e., inerrant and infallible and with full authority from God. For we have recorded instances where Peter, for example, spoke wrongly or acted sinfully. But the record of these events is inspired.

What does that have to do with Apostolic Succession? Re: the referenced passage speaks nothing of the Apostles continuing to be actively involved in the Church. Rather, even a cursory reading of the three places where this text appears (Matt 22:32; Mk 12:27 and Lk 20:28) reveals that Jesus was referring to the resurrection of the dead in answering the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.

Re: Ephesians 2:19-22 where you state that it "says nothing against Apostolic Succession but indeed it does as explained. The Apostles were called to establish the new covenant Church and to equip men to carry on. The foundation was laid, Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. The edifice, aka: Church was built UPON that foundation. There is no need for a continued building of the foundation.

After reading this dialogue, patricius79's arguments sound remarkably similar to the discussions I have had with JWs.
Just to mention one discussion that I had with a JW.
I believe he was reading from a Watch Tower. He said something to the effect that if one was stranded on a deserted Island and only had one book, they would be better off with Watch Tower material (can't remember the exact wording) than the Bible, because they would not be able to understand the Bible.
The person went on to tell me that there are only 12 people with in all the world that can rightly interpret the Scriptures, that is why they distribute material such as the Watch Tower.

Tom

I wanted to give a response briefly before I respond in depth.

Whenever I read Scripture with good intention I will see the Truth ... so my interpretation will always be correct, as far as it goes ... but that doesn't mean that I will see the whole Truth by myself ... rather I must read the Scripture until death looking always for the fulness of Truth ... and listening to others ... so that is what is at stake to me ... that I don't want to limit the Scripture ... but to be open to their whole meaning ... which required humility, and submission to the Holy Spirit ... rather than "O.K. I got it", and since I've got it, I can't learn from other Christians ... from today or what the Church has passed on since the beginning ...

... Paul says that the Scriptures--by which he clearly meant the O.T.--are "capable of giving you wisdom for salvation" ... but all this is said in the context of Paul's Gospel (cf. 2 Tim 1:6, 13;2:2;3:10-11, 14 ... so there is no Sola Scriptura message here ...since Scripture is "useful" for "teaching, correction, rebuke, and training in righteousness"--i.e. the oral Gospel--which perfects a man...

I agree... and would add that this Written Word is inseparable from the oral Word (i.e. "Tradition") ... referred to in Mt 16:18-19, 2 Tim 1:13;2:2, 2 Thes 2:15;3:6, 1 Cor 11:1-2, 16, 23, 34;2 Jn 12, Lk 1:1-4, Is 59:21, Luke 10:16, Mt 28:20, 1 Thes 1:8, 13; Acts 16:4, 2 Cor 3:2-3 ...

... in the context of 2 Tim 3:15-17, we should remember that Paul was referring to the O.T., and that nobody understood the Gospel from the O.T. alone, but only through the Magisterium (i.e. through the presence of word Jesus and His Apostles, those they appointed (cf. Acts 14:23), those their appointees appointed (cf. Titus 1:5) etc ... and of course all the good sheep ...

Methinks you are being rather presumptuous.

Agreed. It is a very widely held "opinion" today that a professed believer only needs "The Holy Spirit and my Bible" to be able to know all things. This opinion has been rightly labeled, "Solo Scriptura".

Again, I believe you have classically, as a RC, missed the meaning of the text. What Paul wrote Timothy in the previous verse:

transcends the narrow definition of "Gospel", i.e., repent and believe upon Christ for the remission of your sins, aka: justification. The CONTEXT demands that Paul is assuming the salvation of Timothy and thus the use of the word "salvation" here encompasses far more than justification. The meaning is, therefore, that the Scriptures to provide wisdom; application of biblical teaching, aka: doctrine, to ones life which is sanctification. The two verses immediately following show further that this understanding is the correct one as Paul says the Scriptures are profitable for:
- teaching
- reproof
- correction
- instruction which is in righteousness
with the end "That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." Clearly Paul is speaking of sanctification which is a true believer's preparation for heaven.

Those passages speak nothing of "oral tradition". Secondly, we have not been told what it was exactly which Paul or John taught their respective hearers. However, what we DO know is what Paul and John and the other inspired authors wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit. They alone are self-attesting to their origin, i.e., God. There is no possible way of determining what someone said nor if what they said was "inspired", i.e., infallible and inerrant. God is the author of the Scriptures and has in His infinite wisdom determined to preserve them and nothing else. Your argument holds no water as it has no bottom. The same argument is used by every sect and cult in regard to their epistemological sources.

Really? Now that's revelatory, but clearly in direct contradiction to what the Scriptures teach concerning the saints that lived prior to the coming of Christ. They may not have known the details of what the types and shadows pointed to but they were well aware of what was required in the Gospel and what it was to live a life of righteousness. (cf. Jh 8:56; Gal 3:7-9; Heb 11:13,39; 1Pet 1:10-12; 3:19-20) They all were justified by faith in Christ and lived by faith unto holiness. (Hab 2:4; cp. Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38)

Lastly, your use of the word "Magisterium" to refer to the Lord Christ and His apostles is offensive, never mind unwarranted, as if the Roman State Church's "Magisterium" is to be equated with them.

... I simply mean that in Christ dwells the whole fulness of the Holy Spirit, bodily ... as Paul says in Colossians 2:8 ...


Sorry ... I mean 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13 ... the oral Word is certainly equal to the Written or it wouldn't be called the Word ... as it is here... and as to where this oral tradition is ... it is in the historical Kingdom, which is the Church ... cf. Is 9:7 ...

"Oral Tradition"? The text says that the Thessalonicans faithfully preached the Gospel, which Gospel is written in Scripture. What "sounded forth" is said to have been "the word of the Lord" which again is the Gospel and that which pertains to it. They spoke nothing that they weren't taught and which was written by inspiration. And again, if you want to continue to maintain that such texts "prove" oral tradition, there is absolutely no way you can verify what it was exactly that these Thessalonicans spoke which is different than Scripture. Secondly, Paul nowhere affirms that what they did speak was inspired but only that it was true and faithful to what he himself taught and which by the Spirit he wrote in his Epistles. (2Pet 3:16)

Here, it is Paul referring to his own preaching/teaching along with those who accompanied him which the Thessalonicans received as being from God. That which they were taught and which God deemed essential for all to know was written down through the ministration of the divine Spirit, aka: inspiration. There is no hint of an ongoing "Oral Tradition".

And here we are given a prophetic word concerning the Messiah who will come to establish His kingdom with all righteousness, which He did. It is known as the "invisible Church", i.e., the true Church which consists of all of God's elect. There isn't even a hint of "Oral Tradition" here either.

What you have consistently shown is your lack of understanding in biblical hermeneutics. You are simply trying to defend the error(s) of Rome which are indefensible. What we here have been witnessing is a classic example of "eisogesis" and a perfect example of what Peter wrote about in 1:20,21, which I had the privilege of preaching on just recently. What we have in Scripture did not come about by men who first dreamed up a thought and then found a way to prove it from Scripture. No, rather what the true prophets and teachers of God wrote/spoke came directly from God through the work of the Spirit. All that which they wrote is said to be divinely inspired; the inerrant and infallible written Word of God. There is no one aside from those authors who penned the Scriptures that can said to be "inspired". Neither anyone in the Roman State church nor anyone elsewhere has been divinely inspired to either speak or write inerrantly or infallibly from God. There is certainly something called "Oral Tradition" and it is fraught with the erroneous fabrications of corrupt and sinful men. Why would anyone want to embrace such a thing unless of course, they are listening to their "father" who is the father of lies. (Jh 8:44)

The Apostles continue to play a role in the Church, unless you think that a foundation has no role in the life of a house ... but they are alive ... cf. Jn 8:51, Rev 7:15

And since I am living by the Scriptures, I can only follow leaders that were appointed through the Apostles ... and must follow the Pillar of Truth(1 Tim 3:15), as the Israelites did (cf. Ex 13:20-22) ... the Catholic Church being the Church described in Holy Writ ... cf. Is 2:2, Mt 5:14...


The Scriptures cannot testify to themselves, any more than Christ can (cf. Jn 5:31) ... and as John and the Father testified to Christ, so do the Church Fathers, inspired by the Spirit (cf. Mt 16:19, Jn 14:26) testify to the Scriptures, their Canon and meaning ...

... but the reformers ...having tried to separate the authority of the Bible from the Biblical Church ... were not of one mind ... Cf. 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2 ...


right, and this Gospel is the Written and Oral Tradition ... cf. 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:1-2, 16, 23, 34)... while most were illiterate ... and the Canon was not completed for decades after Pentecost (nor the Canon discerned for centuries), even as the Gospel was being preached in its fulness (cf. Acts 5:20) ...

I don't see anything wrong with what you say here, since you are not making a case--based on 2 Tim 3:115-17--for separating the authority of Scripture from that of the Church. A correct interpretation of Scripture definitely gives everything a person needs for their life, justfication, salvation, etc ...

The chasmic difference between your view and mine is more than obvious. The Scriptures are "divinely inspired" and thus all-sufficient, inerrant and infallible. The Church, however, and I am referring to the visible Church is not vested with being inspired and thus has a delegated and subordinate authority since it is not inerrant nor infallible.

The point of my response was to correct your erroneous interpretation of the passage and its consequent fallible application.