The Problem with Oral Traditions

I never said the faith was not delivered by the apostles to the congregations.

Put your glasses back on and reread by last post. I only denied that the scriptures promise any perpetuity of Apostolic teaching by oral tradition.

 

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like you have bitten of the poisonous tree of the evolutionist.

 

How does what I wrote have anything to do with evolution? It has everything to do with history. I asked a simple that it seems you have avoided. I asked you to compare the time when man was created and writing came into being. There is a difference of several thousand years.

 

You said:

Most of the world believes in evolution. To them man was "created" millions of years ago. To them, that is common sense.
To a second group, (theistic evolutionists), they also believe in the same time period--millions of years ago--common sense.

I can't read your mind. I am not an Old Age Creationist. That is not common sense, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Six thousand to 10,000 years ago is common sense.

Secondly, when Adam was created, he was created perfect, and created as a man, not an infant. In the same day that he was created all the animals passed before him and he gave names to each one of them. He was not, as the evolutionists would have us to believe, a "caveman," or of that mentality. No doubt if he had the intelligence to name all the animals God gave him the ability to speak a language, as we see him speaking with God, and the ability to write it down. I don't see any evidence that one should believe in evolutionary theories that writing took thousands of years since the creation of man to come into existence.
In fact, it is a widely accepted view, that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he had collected a number of documents that had been passed down from Adam through Seth, and the line of Seth to Noah, right up until Moses. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only had to edit what was before him. These were not illiterate people.

 

DNK, you wrote the following: "In fact, it is a widely accepted view, that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he had collected a number of documents that had been passed down from Adam through Seth, and the line of Seth to Noah, right up until Moses. Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only had to edit what was before him. These were not illiterate people."
__________________
Where is your proof that it was written material and not by Oral Teaching back then? Tell me , was it in a written language much like that of the ancient Babylonians or perhaps in the wedge-shaped cuneiform . Surely that written language would have made it on further down to us, if indeed such a language ever existed in the first place.

 

Really? According to who.... Look, I can just as easily turn this around by stating that the only historical evidence or Bibical interpretations a devout [insert name here] will accept is what [insert name here] approves. Do you see just how rediculous this tactic is?

You misunderstood my point and thus answered a question not asked. My meaning was that you left the RCC's use of scripture out of your critical list of things that the RCC uses.

Hmmm... Since "No amount of evidence would be credible to a devout Roman Catholic..." you've decided that a defense of your arguments against them isn't worthy of proof. Then why are you even here? You do know that by employing such tactics you make yourself appear rather milquetoast.

Few books? Apprently you are unaware of how many books didn't make it into the canon, yet were used in worship (some extensively). Here's a list for your edification.

Community Rule
The 'Zadokite' Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy's Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES' CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA's to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP

It took three councils to agree on the NT canon we use today.

• 382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
• 393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
• 397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils

Ultmiately, it didn't matter what canon Tertullian had; nor did it matter what canon Marcion had. The decisions of those three councils codified the canon which was then ratified by the Pope and there's where its authority comes from. Either you must accept the authority of the Church to codify the NT canon, or you must reject the canon of the NT.

Believe whatever fairytales you wish. Historically, however, you are simply incorrect.

Where is the phrase "Wednesday night prayer meeting" found in the Bible? Where is the phrase "Alter Call" used in the bible? Where is the word "Trinity" used in the bible? Where is the phrase "Sola Scriptura used in the bible?

Hey - it's your test not mine.

I find it amazing how some people always fall back upon the intellectually vapid "...you can know them by their fruits..." argument as a convenient means to attack the entire Catholic Church.

I think that I have your position correct, Biblicist. Here's how your logic procedes:

a) The Catholic Church has some sinners in it - even priests and teachers (pedophiles, alcoholics, adulterers, etc.)
b) Since you will know "them" by "their" fruits and some of "their" fruits are the result of being sinners then
c) The Catholic Church has false teachers in it and is thus apostate.

Unfortunately, that's true of ALL churches. However, you conveniently leave out the other kinds of fruits that you can know "them" by - like:

SCHOOLS
The Church is the largest operator of private schools in the U.S., with over 2.6 million students enrolled in its 6,900 elementary schools and some 1,200 high schools, costing roughly $10 billion a year. Most of the elementary schools are attached to local parishes, while high schools are often run by a Catholic religious order, such as the Jesuits or Christian Brothers. Although tuition has been rising sharply, schools still receive large subsidies from the Church.

HEALTH CARE
The nonprofit health-care system includes 637 hospitals, accounting for 17% of all U.S. hospital admissions. The Church also runs 122 home health-care agencies and nearly 700 other service providers, including assisted living, adult day care, and senior housing. The hospitals alone have annual expenses of $65 billion and account for 5% of U.S. health-care spending.

CHARITIES
Catholic Charities USA consists of 1,400 agencies that run soup kitchens, temporary shelters, childcare, and refugee resettlement. In 1999, Catholic Charities had collective revenues of $2.34 billion. Most of that comes from state and local governments and from program fees. The Church accounts for only about 12% of income.

Data Sources:
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University; National Catholic Educational Assn.; Catholic Health Assn.; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Catholic Charities USA

You see, the Catholic Church is the Biggest Christian Church on the planet; consequently, it is the world’s largest charitable organization and that's only a drop in the bucket when you look at it on a worldwide basis.

How 'bout those fruits there, Biblicist? Compare those fruits to some of the Protestant evangelicals that show up on TBN and the like. :thumbsup:

Ok. Biblicist! Congratulations - you managed to avoid answering any direct questions yet again. Therefore, I cannot take you seriously.

WM

 

I seem to recall that the early people of those times believed that the heavens were supported by giant pillars and the like. Hmmm...

WM

 

Please provide evidence.
What early people? Adam? Noah? Jesus? Paul?

 

Cosmology:
The cosmology of the ancient Semites can be determined from a number of sources, most notably by comparison with the Babylonian and Sumerian myths (see the Sumerian Mythology FAQ). In addition, Ugaritic literature throws much light on the mythology of the old Canaanites.

Among the Semitic ancients, the notion of a geocentric universe was common. Coupled with this was the idea of a the world as a house or dwelling. The earth was the floor - sometimes thought to be square, but mostly considered to be circular. Heaven was the roof of the world, and viewed either as a tent stretched out over the earth, or as a ceiling supported by pillars or mountains. The earth was considered to have a fixed, immovable foundation, and was usually viewed as being supported in the sea, again usually on pillars. Below the earth was the abode of the dead, a concept that later developed into the Hell of the New Testament. Above the sky was the Heaven - the abode of the gods. Some ancient myths also held that there was a storehouse of water just above the sky. This water was occasionally let through the sky by windows or doors, thus causing rain on the earth.

Of course, this notion was not shared by all ancient peoples. Erastosthenes of Alexandria, for example, argued that the earth was spherical as early as 300 BC, and was even able to make a surprisingly accurate estimate of its diameter. Just fifty years later, Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric theory of astronomy.

Unfortunately, these ideas were not widely disseminated outside of the Mediterranean, and they soon fell into disuse, being replaced by the Ptolemaic geocentric theory. Certainly, the ancient Semites had no use for such theories, and consequently the Bible reflects a geocentric universe and a flat earth.

There are several Biblical references to a flat earth, both in the Old and the New Testament. There are, obviously, no explicit statements to that effect, quite simply because it was the prevailing paradigm, and was simply assumed by the various writers.

The Corners of the Earth:
The most common reference is to the 'four corners' of the earth. For example, Isaiah 11:12 reads:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Whether one assumes that the author meant literal corners, or the four cardinal directions, this statement still appears to presuppose a flat earth. Of course, it is possible that the phrase is employed in a symbolic sense, as we, for example, refer to the sun 'setting' and 'rising', even when we know better. However, it must be borne in might that this allegory did not arise ex nihilo - it is, in fact, a reflection of an earlier, prescientific point of view, during which our language developed.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/science.shtml

There are many other sources.

WM

 

It is no tactic. It is just the way it is and I have seen it over and over again verified.

Luke 10:16; 2 Thes. 2;15, etc.

Here is the problem. If a certain Biblical interpretation is provided that opposes the RC positoin and contextual evidence is provided to solidify that interpretation, then the RC response is to shift from the Biblical context to the historical context of interpretation provided in the ECF in order to get out of the Biblical problem. I have gone through this circular route over and over.

For example, 2 Peter 1:15-19; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; etc. By immediate context it can be clearly proven that scripture alone is all sufficient for faith and practice. I have demonstrated this several times simply from the immediate context of these scriptures along with other related Biblical context and FINAL response (after being shown that one response after another is unsubstantiated by scripture) is to run to EFC and/or other arguments about Papal succession, etc.

No so! First there is no evidence that the above listed books were being regarded as "scripture" in first or early second century apostolic congregations AND only later among what I would consider Apostate congregations gradually forming the basis for the beginning of the Roman Catholic denomination.

Don't mistake of using such materials for DEVOTIONAL reading as recognition to be "scripture." PROVE THEY WERE REGARDED AS SCRIPTURE prior to 150 A.D.!!!!

It does matter what Tertullian said was the "WHOLE VOLUME" because he didn't just say it could not be subtracted from but it could not be ADDED unto.

All you are doing is the common jump and shift routine. Your previous argument was shown to be baseless so you just jump and shift to another equally baseless argument. I personally do not know any articles of faith among Baptists that define "Wednesday night prayer meeting" as an article of faith or "Altar call." Hence, you are mixing apples with oranges.

The doctrine for both is clearly taught throughout the scriptures - permeating the scriptures but not so with the Roman Catholic "vicar of Christ" dogma. Indeed it is condemned by Peter himself and the whole imagined foundation upon which it is based in Matthew 16:18-19 is condemned by both Christ and Peter.

Hey - it's your test not mine.

Certainly, since it is the REPEATED selection by the church of its most important leadership in its highest offices.

I think it is amazing you respond by a numbers and size response. Especially since the prediction by Christ that apostasy is the growing factor in the kingdom after the apostolic age (Mt. 13). Satan has a huge religius empire that even makes the RC little in size but definitly inclusive in his kingdom.

Nobody asked you to! I don't recall sending out requests?

 

Its circular for you because those whom you are debating don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Why would someone who doesn't believe that scripture is the only authority play by rules that require that belief. That's your problem not mine.

No need for any such gymnastics.

Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:

1.Scripture is inspired by God Amen! The CC agrees with this.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen!

Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does that verse state (or any other verse for that matter) that scripture is the ONLY authority. Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture - I mean since scripture is inspired and all. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

Hmmm...

Yes so! And here's the operative phrase... what YOU consider. I think history bears out my point.

PROVE THAT THEY WERE ONLY BEING USED AS DEVOTIONAL MATERIAL prior to 150 A.D.!!! Back attcha' there doc - er, I mean - The Biblicist!

See - I can shout in bold dark red text too!

Oh I see. So when the RC's, as you charged above "...run to EFC", you complain. Yet, when you need extra-biblical sources, you do that very thing.

Hmmm...I think most readers can recognize this for what it is.

I simply applied your own tactic back onto your own flavor of Protestantism. Stinks doesn't it?

Copy cat!

What is truely amazing is your refusal to admit the proof of good fruit from the RCC even when presented with the statistics.

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a Catholic would care how you view the RCC.

Well, unfortunately for you, my declaration doesn't require your approval.

WM

 

That is a confession that when Biblical context will not support RC interpretation of scriptures, then EFC is used to support RC interpretations not by harmonization with Biblical context but by PITTING EFC interpretations against Biblical context.

Nice try but insufficient for several reasons. This text must be taken into consideration with the immediate scriptures preceding and following;

1. Verses 14-15 demonstrate that as a child "scriptures" were used for his training without mention of ORAL TRADITIONS!. No oral tradition used by Paul in training Timothy but rather inspired prophetic oral teaching directly by Paul. No ORAL TRADITIONS but rather DIRECT inspired prophetic teaching.

2. The scriptues alone are sufficient WITHOUT ORAL TRADITIONS

a. Only scripture is provided as "profitable" for doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof - NO INCLUSION OF ORAL TRADITION.

b. Four terms WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER IN SUCH A CONTEXT demand it is completely sufficient

- "inspired"
- "perfect"
- "throughly furnished"
- "all good works"

Since when? What doctrine do I embrace that I need "extra-biblical sources"??????

Good from whose perspective?

 

The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Both OT and NT communities [ Jewish & Christian converts ] held to two aspects of one revelation: Scripture and tradition. Neither had the truncated concept of your Protestant" sola Scriptura ".
Both Israel and the Church had a recognized teaching authority; both believed God's people were governed by a hierarchy.
Both had a hierarchy before they had a "book" , and both "books "[ Old and New Testaments ] were recognized and collacted into authoitative canons through the hands of the respective hierarchies.
Both viewed the authorative teaching office as being one of succession, in other words , the offices would always be filled, never left vacant.
"Moses' seat" continued with successors through two thousand years, acknomledged by the Lord Jesus himself, and now the "chair of Peter" is approaching its two thousandth year, and the office has been filled by 264 Popes.

 

Simply asserting it does not make something false to be true. Scriptures ALONE are declard by the scriptures to be the sufficient and final authority for faith and practice - Isa. 8:20 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Apostolic oral teaching is directly addressed by Scriptures and by none other than Peter and declared to be LESS STABLE than scriptures - 2 Pet. 1:15-19.

 

Biblicist again you twist it, no where does the Bible lay claim to be the sole rule of faith. Paul wrote, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

These oral teachings and traditions have been handed down and entrusted to the Church, and they remain as much a part of the full Christian faith as the Bible. To ignore them is no less a tragedy than to ignore the Bible, Read the correct explanation of the following;before and after 2nd Peter 1:15-19


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 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

 

Yes it most certainly does - Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Scripture is given by inspiration for doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof and is COMPLETE SUFFICENT WITHOUT ORAL TRADITIONS:

1. "perfect" - COMPLETE/FULL not almost complete
2. "throughly furnished" - NOT PARTIALLY FURNISHED
3. "all good works" - SUFFICIENT FOR "ALL" not merely some

Nothing in these verses that teach divine preservation of oral apostolic teaching from generation to generation or that such would be divinely preserved through their disciples.

You and Rome have no clue what 2 Peter 1:20 means! Peter is referring to the writers of scriptures NOT THE READERS of scripture. Read the next verse! He is simply saying that the scriptures do not represent the PRIVATE VIEWS of the writers but rather the scriptures represent GOD'S VIEW and God worked in the writers so they present God's view not their own personal opinions.

We don't have all the writings of the prophets but we have ALL that God inspired as "scriptures." The term "ignornant" implies no such thing. The book of Hebrews is what Peter most likely is referrring to and it is WRITTEN scripture.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction.[/QUOTE]

Your interpetation of 2 Pet. 1:20 proves that beyond doubt and with all of Roman Catholic oral traditions to help you.