Kurieuo wrote:@DB, Scripture itself forms "tradition". You just cannot separate Scripture from Christian tradition, or vice-versa.
I profoundly disagree with that assertion... and so does Geisler.
A Defense of Sola Scriptura
http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense- ... scriptura/
BTW... I like Geisler too.
Please read my old paper on sources of theology to understand more deeply I'm getting at, reading through to my concluding statements.
I had to get up to do some work in the middle of the night so I looked at your paper.
To summarize my position
I agree with the following from your article:
"In defining Christian tradition, Bradley Hanson writes that it “generally refers to Christian teachings and practices outside of the Bible that are handed down from generation to generation.”
"Vincent is saying that tradition should be accepted as a valid theological source, but not as authoritative as Scripture."
I profoundly disagree with the following:
"So if Scripture originated from tradition (that is, from the development and passing on of early Christian beliefs), it would seem to be a logical conclusion that Scripture is authoritatively beneath tradition."
"So rather than Scripture being something separate from tradition, it appears to be a deposit from early Christian tradition."
I do not believe that Scripture is a function or deposit of tradition.
I believe Scripture is a function of:
- The inspiration of the Holy Spirit
- The Authority of Jesus
- The Authority of the Apostles.
The early Church did not make Scripture Authoritative.
I believe the early Church recognized the Authority already inherent in Scripture.
This is why I agree with Heiser regarding the difference in the authority of Scripture itself, and the authority of "tradition".