Warner/Jackson Debate on Tradition as Religious Authority

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Scripture alone is authoritative for the Church in matters of doctrine
 
 Affirm:  George A Jackson
 Deny: Matt Warner
 
 
 First a reply to Matt's first rebuttal: Matt agreed with the Scriptures I listed. But:
 
 Matt: 
 But the one thing that I do disagree with is the conclusion that these verses show that Scripture 
 alone is authoritative. Let me respond to your points in the way that you have them numbered:" 
 
 1. But where does this verse (which is John 16:13) say that this "all truth" would in recorded in 
 the written form only? It doesn't even mention the way that this truth would be handed on to the 
 Church. Thus, this verse does not prove that the Bible is our only authority in any way.
 
 George:
 Where does Jesus say in this verse that any others than the apostles to whom He was speaking 
 would be guided into "all truth"? Where else would "all truth" be "recorded" except in the 
 "recorded" word: the New Testament? "all truth" means "all truth" So tell us where else "all truth" 
 would be "recorded" Or did not the Holy Spirit give us all the truth in the Bible? Are you telling us 
 that God left some truth out of the Bible that man needs to know to be saved? Why would Jesus 
 even have to say to the Apostles "do not record all the truth in the Bible, save some to be spoken 
 from man to man down through the ages? Enough said!     
 
 Matt;
 2. Once again, George, I am in full agreement with this. The teachings of the faith were "once 
 delivered unto the saints." There is nothing else that can be added to the deposit of Faith. But once 
 again, where does this verse (which is Jude 3) say that this Faith was recorded in written form 
 only?
 
 George: 
 Matt: You keep repeating "But once again, where does this verse (which is Jude 3) say that this 
 Faith was recorded in written form only?" Do you not realize that I could make the same statement 
 but add the word "not' to it, and it would sound like this: "where does this verse (which is Jude 3) 
 say that this Faith was not recorded in written form only?" What do you hope to prove by these 
 statement? Again, they prove nothing! I have given you what the Scriptures themselves say. You 
 say they are not all the truth. Then give us the proof that God had the apostles past on to others, 
 truth, that is not recorded in the Holy Bible.  
 
 Matt:
 3. You wrote, "This Scripture plainly teaches that no man has the authority to add or take away 
 from the book. Why would God prohibit adding to His written word, but allow man to add to His 
 word by `tradition´?"  Even though these verses (which are Rev. 22:18-19) are only referring 
 specifically to the book of Revelation,
 
 George: This is yet to be proven: Verse 18 may speak of the book of Revelation only, Verse 19 may extend it to the entire Bible.  
 
 Matt:
 I do agree that we are not to add or take away from what has been written under the inspiration of 
 the Holy Spirit. But the oral teachings of the Apostles are not adding or taking away from what 
 has been written.
 
 George: 
 unbelievable statement Matt! "oral teachings of the Apostles are not adding or taking away from 
 what has been written." One takes away by not orally speaking all the truth in written form and 
 adds by orally speaking more than the truth in written from. If one could not add or take away 
 from the written word then Revelation 22: 18,19, would make no sense. 
 
 Matt;
 In fact, the oral teachings of the Apostles came before they were ever written down, so how could 
 they be adding or taking away from the written?
 
 George: 
 My head is spending! It is the "written" word that John is writing of! John knows all the other 
 apostles are dead. It is the year 96 A.D. He is writing the last book of the Bible when he writes not 
 to add or take away. Matt, what you seem too not understand is that anything "oral" ceases to be 
 "oral" once it is written. The whole Bible was "oral" before it was written. Every word was 
 "spoken" by God the Holy Spirit to the writer: "God breathed." Give us just `one` example of 
 some "oral Tradition" not found in the Bible, that came from an apostle of the Lord!   
 
 From here on Matt repeated the same statement to all the Scripture I listed agreeing with them, but 
 with the same qualifier: "where does this verse____ say that this_____ was recorded in written 
 form only?" And once again my reply: Do you not realize that I could make the same statement, 
 but add the word "not' to it, and it would sound like this: "where does this verse____ say that this 
 ____ was not recorded in written form only?" What do you hope to prove by these statement? 
 Again, they prove nothing! I have given you what the Scriptures themselves say. You say they are 
 not all the truth. Then give us the proof that God had the apostles past on to others, truth, that is 
 not recorded in the Holy Bible.
 
 So back to my affirmative:   
 
 The main problem Matt has is he believes the Bible is not an all-sufficient book. That the Bible is 
 not complete in and of itself. So let us try this way to prove it is: By "all sufficient," we merely 
 mean that the Bible is equal to the end proposed by God for it. It is all that we need to lead us from 
 earth to heaven. The fact that the Bible is the product of an omnipotent God should be sufficient 
 proof to demonstrate to us that it is sufficient to accomplish God's purpose for it. The Bible 
 affirms its own inspiration of God ( 2 Pet. 1 :20, 21; I Cor. 2:13; Gal. 1:12). The Bible also refers 
 to God as an infinite God who is perfect in all His ways (Ps. 18:30; Isa.. 55 :8, 9; 1 Cor. 1:21-25). 
 Therefore when God gave us the Bible, being an Almighty God (Rev. 4:8), He made the book 
 adequate to the ends He proposed for it. The Bible Claims To Be an All-sufficient Book. Not only 
 does the Bible claim for itself inspiration, it also declares that it is all-sufficient. Observe what the 
 Bible claims for itself in the following passages.
 
 "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, 
 through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us 
 exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, 
 having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Pet.1:3,4)
 
 The Bible! Not tradition has given (past tense) all the above. We have "through the knowledge of 
 him" "all things that pertain unto life and godliness," Matt, tell us what more can "oral Tradition" 
 add to that?   
 
 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth 
 the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the 
 eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it 
 shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." 
 ("Isa.55:10,11). 
 
 The Bible may not accomplish everything Matt may think it should accomplish, or not accomplish 
 but God declares it will accomplish everything He wants it to accomplish. That is precisely what 
 we mean when we say the Bible is an all-sufficient book. We mean it is capable of performing the 
 things that God intended that it perform. Man is not able to find his own way to heaven (Jer. 
 10:23), If he could, there would have been no need for the Bible. But since men flounder in the 
 quagmires of sin, God gave them a revelation to "open their eyes, that they may turn from 
 darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26:18). The gospel is God's power 
 to save (Rom. 1:16), not Tradition, and it is perfectly sufficient, being "able to save your souls" 
 (Jas.1:21).
 
 Matt says the Scriptures alone cannot be an all-sufficient guide and rule of faith. We must have 
 Tradition. The Bible says that you can understand the Scriptures (Jno. 17:7; Eph. 3:3-5). The Matt 
 says you need to understand "tradition too. The Bible says the Word of God is "able to save your 
 souls" (Jas. 1:21). Matt says the Bible does not contain all the truths necessary for salvation. You 
 must have Tradition too. It (The Bible) contains only part of God's revelation. All that is contained 
 in the Bible has been revealed by God, but further information is given in Tradition"
 
 So you can plainly see that Matt does not hedge in denying the all-sufficiency of the Bible. He is 
 not the least bit reluctant to add to God's revelation. He simply says, the Scriptures alone cannot be 
 sufficient. He says we need something more than the all-sufficient revelation. 
 
 Anything less than the revelation of God is too little, and anything more than God's revelation is 
 too much. Either position insults both the revelation of God, and the God who provided it for us. 
 As Christians, we believe that all the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient. Any position that 
 requires more than the Bible or less than the Bible denies the all-sufficiency of the Bible, 
 regardless of how loud the affirmations of one's faith in the all-sufficiency of the Bible may be. 
 Matt makes no pretensions to believe in the all-sufficiency of the Bible, but we must add "Oral 
 Tradition."
 
 Conclusion: 
 The Bible alone is authoritative and is the sole and all-sufficient inspired writings of the Old and 
 New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They are exclusively, standing by 
 themselves, being true and dependable for Christians in all affairs or situation under consideration 
 in the church. 
 
 George A. Jackson