Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[racer]

2 John 1

12 Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full. 13 The children of thy sister Elect salute thee.

3 John 1
13 I had many things to write unto thee: but I would not by ink and pen write to thee. 14 But I hope speedily to see thee, and we will speak mouth to mouth. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Salute the friends by name.

You miss the point, WA. Yes, the apostles preferred to speak directly to whomever they were teaching. But, the question is "how did they communicate what they wanted the churches to know when they were not able to speak to them directly?" Did Paul or John send messengers with verbal messages to the churches? Did they say to a footman, "I need you to go <wherever> and tell them that this is how they are to conduct themselves?" No. When they were unable to speak directly to whomever they were instructing, they communicated to them in writing. Why is that do you think?

John 21
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Reread the verse. Two points here, 1) this verse specifically states that Jesus DID too many things to possibly have written them all down; NOT that Jesus TAUGHT too many things to write in one book. 2) this verse is merely referring to the book of John, not the whole of Scripture.

Acts Of Apostles 1
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

What is your point? That Jesus placed no value on the written word? Have you counted the times Jesus said, "It is written?"

Therefore sola scriptura is unable to give us the fullness of what Jesus did, said, taught and everything else that even happened afterwards whereas John had much more to teach.

A personal assertion made by you which is, as usual, completely unsubstantiated.

Anyone who believes in sola scriptura must rectify these phrases and show us where these things are written.

WA, if you would just make the effort to educate yourself on Sola Scriptura, you would save yourself a lot of unnecessary and pointless time making arguments against a doctrine that nobody here advocates or asserts.

 

[racer]

This is my responce to racer's question. I will post part of it here because , it is appropriate.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

This is an excerpt from one of the letters of Ignatious of Antioch and dicipel of St. John the Apostle. This was written abot 200yrs. before the Creed.


CHAPTER IX,--REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

And this is are excerpts from the Creed.

....and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father; ...
...I look for the resurrection of the dead

The faith expressed in both by St. Ignatious and the Creed are the same.

I can see the continuity of the Faith with in Tradition. I can see this objectively.



See above.

Peace

But, this information is Biblical, SCRIPTURAL, and nothing that Ignatius says can not be found in Scripture. So, I'm missing your point. What you have here is historical writing affirming what we have in Scripture. Nobody denies that history supports Scripture. You and I are just as privy to this information as was Ignatius, because we have the Bible. Of course, Ignatius was taught directly by John, but there's nothing in this particular quote that's not in Scripture.

 

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

Nobody said that the apostles were ignorant stooges, well, except you..

The point is that they are not perfect.. just like you and I are not perfect..

Scripture is the word of God.. it's not the word of men, its author is God.. accept it or not.. that's fine.

Peter admonishes those who speak, to speak the oracles of God.. Does that mean that every thing which he ever spoke after he received the spirit, were the oracles of God?

Perhaps you think so, perhaps you think that they're perfect.. that's fine.. I really have no further desire to go back and forth with you on this..

So good evening.

1 Peter 4
11 If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ: to whom is glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.

For one thing, when they preached it was thru the Spirit.

ACTS 2
.2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. 5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. 7 And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? 8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,

Acts 2
40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

No where does scripture tell us the written doctrines....but the doctrines of the Apostles...of which were taught to them THRU the Holy Spirit, for that time, and for all time!!!!!

The Lord's Church is for all times, and until the end of time.

 

[WarriorAngel]

But, this information is Biblical, SCRIPTURAL, and nothing that Ignatius says can not be found in Scripture. So, I'm missing your point. What you have here is historical writing affirming what we have in Scripture. Nobody denies that history supports Scripture. You and I are just as privy to this information as was Ignatius, because we have the Bible. Of course, Ignatius was taught directly by John, but there's nothing in this particular quote that's not in Scripture.

He called the Church Catholic. [Captial C]

 

[racer]

Actually scipture tells us quite succintly that oral teachings happened.

Nobody denies that the original teachings were done orally, WA. Nobody denies that today, the majority of teaching is done orally. We don't go to church and sit to the pews and read our bibles. We go to be instructed and to hear the word preached.

But, during the earthly ministry of Jesus and the apostles, the Gospel was not only preached for instructional purposes. Another reason it was done orally was due to a lack of writing materials and the fact that most people of the time were illiterate.

So I would not say it lacks......it defines an absense of everything else that sola scriptura lacks .

Which is what, WA? Tells us what this oral teaching contained that was lacking in Scripture--please?

So scripture.......in essense tells us that things were taught orally. Know what I mean?

Nobody claims the written word replaced oral teaching. It didn't/doesn't. It wasn't meant to. It only assures that what is taught is Truth and can be affirmed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sola scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

I know what sola scriptura is.

 

[racer]

He called the Church Catholic. [Captial C]

Huh? Where? And if you are implying that Ignatius used the word "catholic" meaning "Catholic" instead of universal, you better be able to back it up. Otherwise, it's a blatant falsehood.

BTW, for some reason, I don't think that was his point of posting that quote at all.

 

[racer]

I know what sola scriptura is.

Your arguments, presumptions, and baseless disputes clearly exhibit the fact you do not. This is yet another baseless assertion made by you that you have yet to substantiate or prove.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Which is what, WA? Tells us what this oral teaching contained that was lacking in Scripture--please?

God's Trinitarian essense...for one.
The NT Bible [The Church choose which was Divinely inspired.. ]
IN fact, I have yet to see a Christian disclaim the Trinity...and yet the WORD IS NOT in scripture.
[Non Trinitarians dont count]

 

[WarriorAngel]

SOURCE; Encyclopedia.......

Sola scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

AS mentioned above!

 

[WarriorAngel]

• 
  I. True Meaning of Infallibility
  II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility
  III. Organs of Infallibility
  • 
    [*]Ecumenical Councils
    [*]The Pope
    [*]Their Mutual Relations
  IV. Scope and Object of Infallibility
  V. What Teaching is Infallible?

 

[racer]

God's Trinitarian essense...for one.
The NT Bible [The Church choose which was Divinely inspired.. ]
IN fact, I have yet to see a Christian disclaim the Trinity...and yet the WORD IS NOT in scripture.
[Non Trinitarians dont count]

The word Trinity is given to the concept defined in Scripture. The Trinity is definitely Scriptural.

 

[racer]

SOURCE; Encyclopedia.......

Sola scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

AS mentioned above!

Good grief, WA, anybody can go to an encyclopedia or dictionary and find a definition for a word. That doesn't mean they have any notion of what it means.

The fact you resorted to an encyclopedia is enough evidence to the fact you do not understand the concept.

 

[GenemZ]

Actually Jews are traditionally bound too, for instance the prayer for the souls in 'purgatory' [not sure what they call it] and they pray for 11 months for their loved ones souls.

Its called "sitting shivah." Its not praying for the dead. Its a mourning period. One must gather a minion (ten Jewish males over thirteen years old) and they pray in their grief. I never seen it done for 11 months in any Jewish home. I do not know where you got your data from. I have sat shivah at times, and its no where for 11 months. Maybe for a week. I think you mean that they say a prayer at a certain time of the day, or week, for 11 months. Its no big deal, except for the immediate loved one who is grieving. Its not anything to do with purgatory, or for the dead itself. Its a Jewish tradition of coping with grief.

On Saturday service there was a time to say Kaddish. It was prayer in rememberance of a dead father, or mother. It was done in rememberance. It was not a prayer on the behalf of the dead. I recall, because as a young boy I once stood up during Kaddish by mistake and began saying the prayer with great emotion (Its said in Hebrew). My Dad smiled and said for me to sit down. That "he was not gone yet." He chuckled.

Purgatory is an OLD doctrine.....very ancient.
And they believe as we do, that we can pray for relief for their souls while they are waiting to be released.

Jews don't believe that at all. Its pagan belief, at best.
Jews pray as a means to cope with their grief in mourning.

Since they know there is a Bosom of Abraham...... and a place where Christ said He spoke even for those souls.

That is not taught in the OT Scripture. That was revealed by Christ.

NOT part of the OP exactly, but Tradition is an oral teaching... not always put word for word into writing.

Tradition never held the same weight as Scripture to the Jews. Legalism made obedience to tradition into a religious fetish. But, to the Jews who were not legalistic, they were obedient to tradition as to honor God. Yet, Jesus bucked the tiger when he began slamming the religious leaders who had the authority given them to "bind and loosen." For, they were creating traditions that were being used to replace Scriptural truth. Jesu ripped into them for it. They sneered and hated him for it.

BUT there is OT quotes for purgatory. And an alluding to it in the NT

It makes me wonder why those verses are not supplied by you. I never found them. Mind sharing this with us uninformed Bible students? And, please stick to the canon of Scripture used by the Jews when quotinmg the OT. I never saw the Apocrypha when attending service in Temple (Shule). Nor was it to be found in my OT given to me for my Bar Mitzvah.

Grace and Shalom, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Tradition and scripture are siamese twins and cannot be seperated.

Traditions change according to the times.

That is why traditions are provided for.

Scripture never changes.

They are not twins in any way, manner, or form.

Isaiah 40:8 niv
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever."

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

This is an excerpt from one of the letters of Ignatious of Antioch and dicipel of St. John the Apostle. This was written abot 200yrs. before the Creed.


CHAPTER IX,--REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

And this is are excerpts from the Creed.

....and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father; ...
...I look for the resurrection of the dead

The faith expressed in both by St. Ignatious and the Creed are the same.

And everything stated in those words are to be verified in Scripture. Sola Scriptura types would find those words passing the test!

If the creed never existed before?

And was written for the first time today?

Someone knowing Scripture could have written the same thing, for the first time.

That's the beauty of being Sola Scriptura. It must agree with the Word of God. When it does? Ten people around the World can all write the same creed and have never met each other, nor seen each other's writings. But? Tradition? Unless its Scriptural? It will not happen that way. For it must be made up if its not Scriptural (based upon Sola Scriptura).

Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[xapis]

And everything stated in those words are to be verified in Scripture. Sola Scriptura types would find those words passing the test!

If the creed never existed before?

And was written for the first time today?

Someone knowing Scripture could have written the same thing, for the first time.

That's the beauty of being Sola Scriptura. It must agree with the Word of God. When it does? Ten people around the World can all write the same creed and have never met each other, nor seen each other's writings. But? Tradition? Unless its Scriptural? It will not happen that way. For it must be made up if its not Scriptural (based upon Sola Scriptura).

[/size]Grace and truth, GeneZ

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to genez again.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

Well....


Actually, "infallable" comes from a doctrine of Scripture and not from the principle of Sola Scriptura, but that can slide. The principle simply says that Scriptura is the final norm - the principle doesn't "teach" anything about that norm; it's not doctrine.


Also, Sola Scriptura says NOTHING about Tradition per se, it simply says that the teaching (Tradition) cannot serve as it's own Canon or Rule or Norm - thus cannot "share" the role of Final Norm with Scripture. Most that use this epistemological principle hold Tradition in very high esteem, often considering it essential, but they use it in hermeneutics, not as a norm since that would create the very problem principles of norming are meant to avoid. Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura - to different ideas there.


MY thoughts...


- Josiah

 

[WarriorAngel]

Its called "sitting shivah."

Actually what you quoted is NOT the prayer for the dead.........sorry I was drowzy and could not recall the name, but it is called the Kaddish AND is the prayer for the dead.

They pray 11 months for their departed. AND even if you do not agree with Macabbees as scripture, you certainly must agree it is part of Jewish history.

They [Maccabees and company] prayed for the dead,,,,and the reason was because they knew they had been using idols, but because the departed helped the Jews, the Jews had hoped God would show them mercy.

Nevertheless.......Traditions do not change. DOCTRINES do not change. IF that were true, again, no one in 2006 would have the truth. Reading and interpretting is not having truth or else anyone could choose what it means and claim the Spirit told them.

And so many ppl do this.....it makes NO sense the Spirit tells individuals many different things.

HE was promised to the Apostolic Church and He remains with the Apostolic Church whether men agree with Him or not.

 

[Dragons87]

HE was promised to the Apostolic Church and He remains with the Apostolic Church whether men agree with Him or not.

Of course...how can Christ not be with His Church? The thing is...not sure whether the Apostolic Church hierarchy and structure can claim exclusivity to Christ, or is Christ banned by your Church to be with other non-Apostolic Churches?