Given how the Bible was used and quoted by the Church Fathers, and even how Jesus uses the Old Testament (how he uses scripture) I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with claiming the Bible is only a Liturgical book - but I would be interested in hearing that expanded or clarified as it sounds like an interesting idea.
The Bible and the Church Fathers also quote oral tradition and the Old Testament also relies on oral tradition or quotes it. Historically the Bible would only be read in the liturgy of the Church, each area or city would probably only have one Bible in a specific Church at the time of the Roman Empire and through the medieval ages and would be read to the people during the liturgy. Regular people simply did not have copies Bibles in their homes until quite recently in the 1800s or so if I’m not mistaken. Here’s some quotes from the New Testament detailing the requirement of adhering to Apostolic tradition:
1 Corinthians 11:2 – Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and
maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 11:34 – if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.
About the other things I will give directions when I come.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 – because our gospel came to you
not only in word, but also in
power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
1 Thessalonians 4:2 – For
you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 2:5 – Do you not remember that when I was still with you
I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 – So then, brothers, stand firm and
hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either
by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 – Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and
not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 – O Timothy,
guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.
2 Timothy 1:13 – Follow the pattern of the
sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 2:1-2 – You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have
heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 3:14 – But as for you, continue in
what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
Philippians 4:9 – What you have
learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
2 John 1:12 – Though I have much to write to you,
I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to
come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
3 John 1:13-14 – I had much to write to you, but I would rather
not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and
we will talk face to face.
Acts 2:42 – And they
devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 8:28-31 – …and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.” Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “
Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “
How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”
So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Acts 15:27 – We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will
tell you the same things by word of mouth.
2 Peter 1:12-15 – Therefore I intend always to
remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to
recall these things.
John 17:20 – I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will
believe in me through their word…
And now for the Church Fathers:
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius,
Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (
Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (
Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (
Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (
Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord” (
Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (
The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (
Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (
On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (
Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (
Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
I'm sorry, I think there may be a grammatical typo which could make me misread what you're saying, but I will try anyway and forgive me if I misunderstand.
I don't see why the Apostolic Tradition can't stop at the Bible - why did they form the Bible in first place? If it was merely 'part' of the Apostolic Tradition, why did they not form another Bible later on, and then another, and another?
The Bible was a collection of extant writings that were gathered up and canonized by the Church under specific conditions. The Apostolic traditon of the Church is what determined the canonicity of any book or letter that was to be included in the Biblical canon in the first place, which is why Sola Scriptura is ridiculous when you actually look at it from a historical perspective. Why would they form another Bible, when canonicity determined what was to be considered inspired and what wasn’t.
I don't see how that follows. Sola scriptura does not negate Tradition or the Church Fathers (it never has). It simply makes the FINAL authority to be the Bible, not the ONLY authority.
I’m not saying it negates tradition, it does however make attempt to make it obsolete or null. Also that seems to be an excuse more then anything else, if it’s your final authority on matters then your basically free to pick and choose what you like when it comes to tradition and the Church Father’s and exclude the rest whenever you feel like it. This is what the “reformers” did and what many Protestants both knowingly and unknowingly continue to do, this is nothing more then an excuse for Protestants to pick and choose what they like and reject what they don’t like, rendering Church tradition and the Church Fathers null and void.
No it doesn't really. I don't see how it could. As I said above, scripture is FINAL authority not ONLY authority.
How does that make any sense if scripture itself requires another tradition that determined its existence? Also as I said previously this is nothing more than an excuse on behalf of Protestants and other reformed groups to pick and choose what they like from tradition and the Church Fathers and reject the rest when ever it suits them, how do Protestants accept the Council of Ephesus yet reject its dogmatic decrees and canons, such as the its dogmatic pronounciation on the real presence of Christ:
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it . . . but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.” (Session 1,
Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
I wonder what John Calvin made of this, since if he was alive at the time of Ephesus he would have been condemned as a heretic for teaching Nestorianism by denying the real presence like Nestorius did on the basis that Christ isn’t physically present in the Eucharist.
I don't know of any part of the Bible that appeals to Oral Tradition. I know those that appeal to scripture, and Acts 2:42 appeals to the teaching of the apostles, which, as I've stated, appears to be finalised by the canon. (And why wouldn't it be?)
How about Matthew 2:23:
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets,
that he would be called a Nazarene.
You won’t find the statement in bold anywhere in the Old Testament and Matthew isn’t simoly making it up since he would have been called out by the Jewish audience of his time, so this is him quoting and appealing oral tradition right here. Acts 2:42 refers to the teachings of the Apostles, how was it finalized in the canon, I’m 100% sure not everything the Apostles taught is in scripture by John’s own admission in John 21:25:
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Many teachings of Christ weren’t written down by John and we can reasonably assume many teachings weren’t recorded in the New Testament, yet were past down orally:
In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, “
It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35
You also won’t find the statements attributed to Christ here in bold anywhere in the four Gospels or anywhere else in the New Testament, so where was the Apostle Paul getting this from well he actually gives an answer:
The Gospel which is preached to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now let us reject the traditions of men (Sola Scriptura):
“They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.” You have
disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men
Mark 7:7-8
.
