If sola scriptura Protestants (hereinafter called Scripturistas ) object to Sacred Tradition because they think our lived understanding of the Deposit of Faith includes the possibility of error, I need answers to two questions:
First, when the Four Evangelists were writing the Gospels (years later), did God (a) grant them perfect knowledge of everything that happened, or did He (b) grant them perfect memory of all that they saw and heard?
Second, if (b), given that Jesus wrote no books in His own hand, isn’t all New Testament Scripture dealing with Jesus and His teachings secondhand (although eyewitness) testimony? (Not saying invalid, just not from a first-person viewpoint.)
If the answer to the second question is yes, then I think that one cannot refute the idea that without Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture loses vital perspective, and that the Scripturista’s efforts to interpret Scripture by themselves must of necessity be doomed to introduce division and heresy.
It seems that Tradition and Scripture are not complementary; they are integral to each other. Separate them and you’re lost.
Am I making sense? I’m new to the study of Apologetics, but I’m getting really interested in helping lead lapsed Catholics and curious non-Catholics into the Church.
Slava Isusu Christu!