Carson,
2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
[ January 29, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]
Well, I should have included the likelihood that the people compiling your work, would be educated on your writings (as the people who compiled the NT). Say, you had writings of somebody else mixed in with yours. They would be able to weed out the writings which were not yours.You're presuming, first of all, that "your work" is "yours" when you use the adjective "your". How do you know that these Gospels were authentic and that Paul's epistles are authentic?
Says you, and that's beside the point. You still did not answer my question.I've got news for you, Lisa: it was the Magisterium that compiled the Biblical texts.
Maybe you should expand your source material. Does F.F. Bruce count for you. I know he's not RC. But, here's a quote from him:Which is why I doubt that you've read a major work on the formulation of the New Testament canon, because your opinion contradicts what I've read from scholars as a graduate student studying theology.
Other circumstances which demanded clear definition of those books which possessed divine authority were the necessity of deciding which books should be read in church services (though certain books might be suitable for this purpose which could not be used to settle doctrinal questions), and the necessity of knowing which books might and might not be handed over on demand to the imperial police in times of persecution without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.
There are many theological questions arising out of the history of the canon which we cannot go into here; but for a practical demonstration that the Church made the right choice one need only compare the books of our New Testament with the various early documents collected by M. R. James in his Apocryphal New Testament (1924), or even with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, to realise the superiority of our New Testament books to these others.'
Thus, Apostolic Tradition is no longer oral, it's written and found in the Bible.Of course - what else could it be?
What does that have to do with anything? Paul wasn't even converted until after Jesus' crucifixion and ascension? He was still taught directly by the Holy Spirit.You are correct. Some of what Paul taught may have been put in writing, but we don't have that today considering the fact that the earliest writing of Paul that we do have comes from nearly 20 years after Christ ascended into heaven.
Well, it was only impossible due to the likelihood that all was yet to be placed in writing.My point is that the Early Christians did not look to Scripture alone for their Christian doctrine; in fact and in practice, it was impossible.
You are missing the point. Paul did not trust his teachings to be spread by word-of-mouth unless he was speaking himself. Barring his presence, he chose to teach through the written word.Again, I don't deny that Paul wrote. Why would I even make such a denial? That would be ludicrous for me to do so.
Of course not. The Apostles were still living and teaching among them.The majority of the New Testament is composed of various letters composed by him or dictated by him to a scribe. What I affirm, and what I will continue to affirm, is that the New Testament Church did not adhere to Sola Scriptura, as it was de facto impossible for them to do so.
Where does Scripture say that?So, to require that I believe only what is written in the Bible is to make a requirement that is anti-Scriptural.
But, how do you know this?Because they are the word of God animated by the power of the holy Spirit and guarded by the Magisterium, which is guided and protected by that same Spirit - the Spirit who inspired Scripture.
Why do you think that the Traditions were not put in writing? Don't you think given the significance of what is being taught, that there was somebody somewhere taking notes?You have to ask the same question of the first Christians:
"How, Christians, how do you determine that these Traditions are of God and equal to Scirpture?" They would answer: because they were taught to us by our bishop Matthaeus, who was given authority to preach in the name of Christ by the apostle Thomas who was commissioned by the Son of God, who was sent with all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father.
Thought not.Of course I'm not admitting that.
That would be because they were not Scriptural/Biblical.Nowhere in scripture can we find these actions.
Yes, traditions can be passed on. But, you can not guarantee nor place anytype of God inspired authority.Yes, we'll find a reference to them, but you won't find the actual people. You won't find the actual bread. You won't find the life of the community. Yes, you'll find written accounts about these people. But the Scripture itself is not the People themselves. There is still a living, breathing Church that is living and practicing and believing the Apostolic Christian faith - one to which the Scriptures witness.
Who says? Where does Scripture ever mention Apostolic Tradition? What began orally, became Scripture.No, you are creating a false dichotomy. We've had Apostolic Tradition from the get-go, and Scripture is Apostolic Tradition (the word of God) written down in the words of men.
Yes, but there has always been debate as to the interpretation. Not all early fathers agreed with and taught the "Real Presence."This is part of Apostolic Tradition. The Tradition continues up until this very day. We're still celebrating and worshipping the Eucharist, and we've never stopped.
Thank you.Of course the Spirit had everything to do with it.
We are all instruments of the Holy Spirit.Now the question of instrumentality comes in. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity used the instrument of 12 men to begin His Church, guided as they were by the Holy Spirit. Men, Apostolic Men, are the instrument of the Spirit.
That's why the Holy Spirit had one group of men write the inspired texts, and the other group merely compiled the writings and teachings that already existed and were in use. I refer to back to the quote from F.F. Bruce above.Where you find the Magisterium, you find the teaching body protected and guided by the Spirit, irregardless of their human weaknesses (like Peter, for instance).
Now, since those guys put their teachings in writing, we have the Bible as our guide.As I've shown, all that existed for the first twenty years of Christianity was Apostolic Tradition outside of Scripture that bore the authority of God.
Yet. But, clearly his teachings became Scripture pretty early because we have Peter saying:What Paul was teaching was not in Scripture.
2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
So?Yes, the Old Testament Scriptures pointed to what Paul was teaching in the sense that they prefigured what he was preaching, but they did not contain the revelation of Jesus Christ in his person, deeds, and words.
I didn't say that, but maybe I haven't been clear enough. There may be things not contained. But do you think God would leave out something completely crucial to our salvation? I repeat: Now, look at the Bible. You have four (4) Gospels, 3 of which are so similar that they are referred to as "The Synoptic Gospels" and the forth is slightly different as to the parables and happenings, but the actual message is the same--isn't it? Then you have the rest of the NT. What do the authors of the remaining texts say/teach? They clarify or expound upon the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, no new content. So, why would God in His infinte wisdom, have left out anything He felt we should know, when so much of Scripture is seemingly redundant? BTW, would the people who compile your work into one text have authority over your work?We agree on this point. Where we disagree is when you make the bold statement that Scripture encapsulates every last drop of Apostolic Tradition, which I find to be presumptuous.
But, that is not the return He spoke of as His second coming. Even if that was the return, or believed to be His return, Paul died between 64 and 68 A.D. So, he was still waiting for the imminent return.Yes, and the Lord did come in 70 A.D. when he destroyed Jerusalem.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]