Replies

"Scripture also mandates the use of tradition."

No, it does not. If it did, you would have showed the clear, authoritative and unequivocal scripture right up front.

"Luke 1:1-4 ... Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

No. Luke wrote what he did, that was to verify "everything", and what he did verify, he wrote down. It says nothing about "tradition" itself being truth. Luke 1:3-4, "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

"John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith."

No. That is not what Scripture says. The whole cut from scipture is this: John 20:30-31, Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. It says nothing whatsoever about anything else. It only says that what was written, is sufficient for belief.

It says nothing about tradition. It says some things were written down and others not. Then there is the period, followed by, "The end".

"Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures.

No. Acts 8:30-31 says, "the man did". It does not apply to everyone.

Hebrews 5:12 applies to slow learners. Hebrews 5:11-12, We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!

" We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own.

If this were true, then no one could.

" We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

No. The ability to read, and logic applies.

"Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures."

Peter is not tradition. Also, there is no doctrinal question here. Peter is a primary source. He is a direct witness. His testimony is not hearsay. Note also that God made no distinction between the Apostles and anyone. Peter in fact said, Acts 15:8-9, "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith."

"Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God."

Which means I can use many various sources to learn about God. As long as I use His word contained in the Gospels as a foundation and reference.

"1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone."

So? The passage does not mandate tradition. Neither does it negate the primacy of god's words contained in the Gospels as the fundamental reference to which all else is to be refered to.

"1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone."

"1 Cor 11:2, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you." Paul's teaching. He is not tradition and he gives no command to obey tradition.

"Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone."

same as above. Also, note this is the NT he's talking about, not tradition.

"Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God."

See above, under "other sources". Other sourses are not primary references. The word of God Himself contained in the Gospels is. That's logic. The use of any other sources as a primary reference is illogical. The other source must be referred to God's word.

"1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation)."

The writers of the NT Gospels wrote down what they knew and had Matthew, John, Peter and the other Apostles for reference. Now we have what they wrote for reference.

"1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write,"

Sometimes I prefer root beer, instead of Coke.

"2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible."

2 Tim 2, "2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." Paul is talking about what he told them, not tradition.

"2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible."

2 Tim 3:14, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it," See John 20:30-31. What is written is sufficient for belief.

"James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")"

There's no reference to "scripture" outside the OT.

"2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations."

2 Peter 1:20, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

It Says, that scriture comes from God, nothing more.

"2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. "

What is in the Canon is enough.

"Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church."

Ignorant refers to being ignorant. It presupposes nothing.

"1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious."

Logic applies, and God's word in the Gospels is to be used as a foundational reference.

I don't see that your claim, "Scripture also mandates the use of tradition.", has any support at all in that great big list presented.