Warner/Jackson Debate on Tradition as Religious Authority

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Both Scripture and Oral Tradition are equally authoritative for the Church in matters of doctrine.
 
 Affirm:  Matt Warner
 Deny: George A. Jackson
 
 Thank you again, George for your responses.  First, you seem to have a problem with me using 
 historical evidence from the early Christians that's shows that they held oral Tradition to be 
 authoritative in matters of doctrine.  
 You write, 
 "To prove your proposition you need to show how, 
 from generation to generation, the church of the Lord received commands, teachings etc. by word 
 of mouth only,..."
 
 First why do I need to prove that oral Tradition remained in the oral form from generation to 
 generation?  That is not what my proposition says, and that is not what happened in reality.  In my 
 first affirmation I defined what I meant by oral Tradition.  I wrote:
 
 "Oral Tradition: the teachings of the Apostles which were not recorded or explicitly recorded in 
 the books of the New Testament."
 
 There is no mention in my definition of these teachings being passed from generation to 
 generation by only word of mouth.  Why?  Because that is not what happened.  Historical 
 evidence shows that the early Christians put down in writing these oral teachings of the Apostles.  
 In other words, when I say "oral Tradition", I am referring to the oral teachings of the Apostles, 
 and not to your erroneous idea that these teachings remained oral through all generations.
 
 The fact of the matter is that I have sufficiently proven that the early Christians, during and after 
 the apostolic age, followed both the written and oral teachings of the Apostles, and they 
 considered both to be authoritative in matters of doctrine.  There is no mention at all of the idea 
 that Scripture alone is authoritative in matters of doctrine.  This idea is foreign to the early Church, 
 and thus is not apostolic in origin.  It is a man-made doctrine that originated many centuries after 
 Christ and the Apostles.
 
 George, you also seemed to have a problem with my terms "faith" and "reason" in showing the 
 reliability of Scripture and oral Tradition.  So let me explain more clearly what I mean by these 
 terms.
 
 Faith:  our trust in and reliance upon God.
 
 In my affirmation I was using the term "faith" to show that part of the reason that we believe the 
 Scriptures to be true and reliable is because we have faith and trust that God has protected His 
 written Word from corruption.  Now, of course I am assuming that for most Christians faith has a 
 part in their belief that the Scriptures are reliable.  If that is not the case with you, then I'm sorry 
 for making that assumption.
 
 Reason:  the ability for us to use our intellect to come to logical conclusions based upon evidence.
 
 In your rebuttal you wrote,
  "With thousands of 'written' witnesses to the original writings of the inspired writers of the Bible, 
 we can have full confidence that the Bible is the word of God, ..." 
 
 Well, that is what I was referring to when I was using the term "reason".  It is looking at the 
 evidence, and coming to an intellectual and logical conclusion based upon that evidence.  So it 
 looks like we both were referring to the same thing, but I was just using a term that you didn't 
 understand.  Sorry for the confusion.  I hope this clears the issue up for you. 
 
 (But as a sidenote, I think it is interesting that you will accept the historical evidence that proves 
 that the Scriptures are reliable, but when that same evidence shows that Tradition is reliable, you 
 reject it.  Very interesting.) 
 
 Concerning my point that every church in every place adhered to the exact same doctrine, George, 
 you wrote, 
 "Matt, have you read Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth? Have you read Jesus`s letters to 
 the seven church of Asia in Revelation chapters 1-3? And you can tell us even when under the 
 direction and guidance of Holy Spirit dwelled men there were no inconsistencies?" 
 
  These passages talk about individuals and individual groups within churches that strayed away 
 from the Apostolic teachings.  There have always been those in the Church that have rejected and 
 strayed away from the truth.  But those who were faithful to the Apostolic teachings always 
 corrected these individuals and groups, and if these straying members didn't repent of their errors, 
 they were excluded from the Church.  So my point that every church in every place adhered to the 
 exact same doctrine stands, and it verified by historical evidence.
 
 Now, since this is my last affirmation, let me recap the points that I have been trying to share:
 
 1. First, according to the Scriptures, the first Christians followed both the written and oral 
 teachings of the Apostles, and considered both to be authoritative.  (This point was affirmed by 
 George in his first rebuttal.)  This is important, for if we are to be faithful to the Scriptures and the 
 practice of the first Christians, we must also follow both the written and oral teachings of the 
 Apostles as they did.
 
 2. Second, according to historical evidence from the early Christians, the Church, after the death 
 of the Apostles, continued to follow both the written and oral teachings of the Apostles, and 
 considered both to be authoritative.  In fact, there is no evidence at all that the Church believed 
 that Scripture alone is authoritative.  (This point was basically ignored by George.)   This point is 
 important, for it shows that the "Scripture only" belief is not Apostolic in origin.  For if it was, we 
 would see some evidence of it in the writings of the early Christians, and we would see evidence 
 of condemnations against those who followed both Scripture and Tradition.  But the fact is that we 
 do not see either of these things.
 
 3.  And finally, we can know the reliability of the oral Tradition in the same way that we can know 
 the reliability of the written Scriptures.  We can have confidence that oral Tradition is reliable on 
 the basis of our faith in God's ability to protect it, and on the basis of the evidences of history.  The 
 historical evidence shows that the Apostolic Tradition is the same in every church in every 
 location, and that it was consistently and faithfully passed down from generation to generation.
 
 I would like to thank George for his responses in this first half of the debate, and I am looking 
 forward to corresponding with him in the last half.
 
 With His Love,
 Matt Warner