The Problem with Oral Traditions

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand your point! However, you do not understand my point. I was not saying I depend upon an ORAL TRADITION of doctrine and practice as an interpretative guide to scriptures. I was simply saying that since Rome persecuted and destroyed their writings and drove them from country to country, they perserved orally from generation the simple fact of when and where they had originated as would a family orally preserve from generation to generation their country of origin or ancestry. They claimed to have originated with apostolic Christianity before the state union between Constantine and apostate Christianity.

Here is your problem with the "traditions" refering to Waldensians.

the post-Reformation doctrines of modern Waldensians differ greatly from the doctrines and practices of Waldensians of the 12th and 13th Centuries

Such as?

1. Transubstantiation (p.41)

The Waldensians still held the doctrine of transubstan tiation but those from beyond the mountains were of the opinion that the virtue of the sacramental words was sufficient without regard to the character of the minister or the believer 1 but our Italian friends while holding that the power of transubstantiation emanated from the Redeemer through his word did not grant its realization where there was not true faith in the officiating priest as well as in the communicants And here they supported

2. Acceptance of the Apochrypha (p.54)

otherwise proved by facts that after the manner of they sought for the supreme authority in matters of faith in the Gospel and all the Sacred Books of the Old New Testament not even excepting the Apocrypha they found there first a rule of conduct that according to the teachings of Christ 2 hence name Poor 3 It is evident that we have here

3. Salvation by faith and works (p.56)

leads to perdition 1 enter the narrow path that leads life by means of prayer vigils alms and fasts do and other works meet for repentance if you wish to salvation But how shall we please God if not by through which we become his sons capable of works 3 Therefore let us first seek faith to be

4. Prayed mostly repeating the Lord’s Prayer (p.60)

isolated they met together and prayed mostly repeating the Lord's Prayer 2 they meditated upon the promises of

5. Admitted the seven sacraments (p.61)

it will not be said that they betrayed their faith yet undefined which although free from any idolatry 1 did not exclude certain practices for instance that of the confessional 2 it admitted the seven sacraments 3 and as we have already seen transubstantiation 4

6. Did not exclude the confessional (p.61) ibid

7. Veneration of the Mother of Jesus (p.61)

1 There is hardly any mention of the Saints in their more genujne writings but there is no want of indications of peculiar veneration for the Mother of Jesus In the Aob Leyczon she is called sancta vergena gloriosa nostra dona v 30 214 216 elsewhere even re gina del cel as in the Serm de Herode &c She is beata first worthy of honor after God according to the Glosa Pater Therefore

And this is from a Waldasean pastor himself Emilio Comba. That is your tradition for you.

As for Tertullian. I read his against Marcion and he does not refer to one volume save the volume of Moses which is the Pentatuch. You must show me your referrence because I doubt your validity in his quote.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is your problem with the "traditions" refering to Waldensians. Such as?

And this is from a Waldasean pastor himself Emilio Comba. That is your tradition for you.

As for Tertullian. I read his against Marcion and he does not refer to one volume save the volume of Moses which is the Pentatuch. You must show me your referrence because I doubt your validity in his quote.

You are quoting a man after the conversion of the people still holding to the name Waldenses came over to Presbyterianism.

I referred to original documents as found in Samuel Morelands collection and those documents dated prevous to the reformation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are quoting a man after the conversion of the people still holding to the name Waldenses came over to Presbyterianism.

I referred to original documents as found in Samuel Morelands collection and those documents dated prevous to the reformation.

You mean Samuel Morland of whom it is said

The documents in question, however, show the Bible divided into chapters, and such divisions did not appear before about 1250 or later. - Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses (FD), 132.
The confession of faith produced by Morland makes it appear that the Waldenses held to a strongly Protestant-evangelical theology centuries before Luther. It is now known that this document originated in the 16th century. It contains teachings of Martin Bucer, reformer of Strasbourg, copied almost verbatim. - Walter F. Adeney, "Waldenses," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, XII, 665.

 

[The Biblicist]

You mean Samuel Morland of whom it is said

No, I mean both! However, Moreland actually provides copies of their early articles of faith and some early articles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, I mean both! However, Moreland actually provides copies of their early articles of faith and some early articles.

They turned out to be frauds. Or fake.

 

[The Biblicist]

They turned out to be frauds. Or fake.

Where is the evidence for that?

 

[gb93433]

Oral traditions were superseded by the Old Testament Scriptures and superseded by the New Testament scriptures. Oral traditions were always temporary and scriptures were always "MORE SURE" (2 Pet. 1:19) than prophetic or apostolic traditions.

You sound like the dispenationalists of the day who followed Scofield and Chafer by stating in effect that the OT was done away with.

However Jesus taught differently in The Sermon On The Mount in Mt. 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

I am still waiting for an answer to post 244.

 

[The Biblicist]

You sound like the dispenationalists of the day who followed Scofield and Chafer by stating in effect that the OT was done away with.

However Jesus taught differently in The Sermon On The Mount in Mt. 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

This text has NOTHING to do with our argument! Of course all prophecy shall be fulfilled or else it is false prophecy from a false prophet. However, what has fulfillment of prophecy have to do with the chosen permenant mode of the record of that prophecy????

 

[The Biblicist]

I am still waiting for an answer to post 244.

Did you read posts#252 and 260???

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where is the evidence for that?

re-read the quotes I gave you. I quoted the issues found with his documents.

 

[gb93433]

The preceding context is the administrative use of the keys of the kingdom in the discipling process of a church member.

The historical background of Mt. 18:20 has absolutely nothing to do with discipline.

This does not refer to the Jewish custom of Rabbins convening a court of opinion but to the congregation of Christ. So if that is your eisgetical opinion it is wrong as Jesus already identified the final court of opinion "tell it to THE CHURCH."[/quote] You are right.

Hence, the Scripture interprets scripture.

You again failed to give the historical background of Mt. 18:20. You just gave an opinion that has nothing to do with the historical background of Mt. 18:20. What Jesus taught in the SOM has as its background what the disciples knew from Judaism. So again I ask you the same question. Scripture must be correctly interpreted in light of its historical background which you failed to give anything of that.

If you believe "Hence, the Scripture interprets scripture" then give us the correct interpretation in light of its historical background on 1 Cor. 15:29.

 

[The Biblicist]

The historical background of Mt. 18:20 has absolutely nothing to do with discipline.

The USE of Matthew 18:20 by Christ has nothing to do with your extrabiblical understanding and application! The context makes it very clear HOW Jesus USED it. The contextual "again" in verse 19 demonstrates he is carrying on the same discussion and reaffirming that He stands behind the proper administration of the keys whether it is in the act of discipline or the other proper adminstrative uses of the Keys regardless of how small the congregation may be.

You have NO AUTHORITY to force your extrabiblical interpretation on this CONTEXT.

The Bible uses aspects of a particular cultural applicaton while discarding completely other aspects and only the USE and APPLICATION found in the scriptures is final in determing which is which.

 

[gb93433]

The USE of Matthew 18:20 by Christ has nothing to do with your extrabiblical understanding and application! The context makes it very clear HOW Jesus USED it.

Where did I state my understanding of the historical context of Mt. 18:20. I asked you in an effort for you to think about where you are going with what you wrote. Words had a particular meaning as they were used in a particular historical context of that particular time. The historical context is not the church.

I have asked you several questions and none of them were answered in a way that you suggest.

The contextual "again" in verse 19 demonstrates he is carrying on the same discussion and reaffirming that He stands behind the proper administration of the keys whether it is in the act of discipline or the other proper adminstrative uses of the Keys regardless of how small the congregation may be.

The historical context of Mt. 18:20 has absolutely nothing to do with discipline in a church. His disciples did not come from FBC, FPC, RCC or any other church of a particular town.

You have NO AUTHORITY to force your extrabiblical interpretation on this CONTEXT.

It is not a matter of forcing anyone. Learning the historical context requires study. Matthew 18:20 has a specific historical context. It is not some opinionated guru or opinion who determines that.

The Bible uses aspects of a particular cultural applicaton while discarding completely other aspects and only the USE and APPLICATION found in the scriptures is final in determing which is which.

The application was for that specific group of people. You are not included in that. So are you saying that none of scripture is applicable to you?

Everything Jesus taught was within a particular historical context. If you had studied the SOM you would know that the church did not exist.

Again I asked you how you determine the historical context of that Mt. 18:20? I asked for accurate proven principles of interpretation.

I could give a list of resources for the study of the SOM but I doubt they would help someone who cares to remiain as they are.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where did I state my understanding of the historical context of Mt. 18:20. I asked you in an effort for you to think about where you are going with what you wrote. Words had a particular meaning as they were used in a particular historical context of that particular time. The historical context is not the church.

The Holy Spirit does not use words contrary to the immediate context in which he places them in scripture! The contextual factors for

1. "two or three" is already shown in verse 16 - core of witnesses

2. Core of witnesses is the overall Biblical use for that expression

3. "two or three" is also the minimum number for a congregation to be a congregation as in the immediate context - v. 17

4. "in my name" is used consistently throughout scripture to mean according my authority or instructions (Acts 4:7) or in keeping with my character and authority is the immediate context (bind...loose).

5. The term "again" in verse 19 demonstrates that Christ is continuing the subject of verses 17-18 in verses 19-20.

The historical context of Mt. 18:20 has absolutely nothing to do with discipline in a church. His disciples did not come from FBC, FPC, RCC or any other church of a particular town.

You are wrong! The grammatical connection demands he is reinforcing verses 17-18 or administrative use of church authority. The specific application is discipline but there are many other applications of church authority. In any regard, the assembly must be at least "two or three" in order to be an assembly and there must be "two or three" minimum to administer any kind of disciplinary action as that is the Biblical core minimum for witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Furthermore, what they administer must be in keeping with "my name" or the proper authorized use of the keys.

The special group of people this is directly applied to in context is not the Apostles or an ordained group but "the church."

 

[gb93433]

The Holy Spirit does not use words contrary to the immediate context in which he places them in scripture!

The Holy Spirit does not use your ignorance either. Again I ask you to tell us how you would accurately interpret a text without an understanding of its historical background?

The contextual factors for

1. "two or three" is already shown in verse 16 - core of witnesses

2. Core of witnesses is the overall Biblical use for that expression

3. "two or three" is also the minimum number for a congregation to be a congregation as in the immediate context - v. 17

4. "in my name" is used consistently throughout scripture to mean according my authority or instructions (Acts 4:7) or in keeping with my character and authority is the immediate context (bind...loose).

5. The term "again" in verse 19 demonstrates that Christ is continuing the subject of verses 17-18 in verses 19-20.

Again I have asked you the same question multiple times. What is the historical background behind Mt. 18:20? I am waiting for an answer other than opinion.

You are wrong! The grammatical connection demands he is reinforcing verses 17-18 or administrative use of church authority.

What is the name of the church Jesus addressed? When was the first church started?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Holy Spirit does not use your ignorance either. Again I ask you to tell us how you would accurately interpret a text without an understanding of its historical background?

The Jewish background for this statement had to do with the rabbins who believed that whenever two or three rabbi's joined together in unity the shiknah glory was present. That is the JEWISH background. I don't know what mumbo jumbo gnostic idea you have in mind.

However, this is not the Lord's use or the Holy Spirit's design. The context define's Christ's application and I have given that to you.

What is the name of the church Jesus addressed? When was the first church started?

Jesus is speaking of the church generically as an institution. The same church he claimed to build in Matthew 16:18. The nature of the keys define the nature of the church as a visible local congregation of baptized believers gathered together in one place to conduct the Lord's kingdom affairs.

 

[gb93433]

The Jewish background for this statement had to do with the rabbins who believed that whenever two or three rabbi's joined together in unity the shiknah glory was present. That is the JEWISH background. I don't know what mumbo jumbo gnostic idea you have in mind.

If what you wrote is true then how did you come to that conclusion from scripture alone (apart from any historical documentation outside of scripture)? My understanding of the historical background of Mt. 18:20 stems from Judaism not Gnosticism.

 

[DHK]

If what you wrote is true then how did you come to that conclusion from scripture alone (apart from any historical documentation outside of scripture)? My understanding of the historical background of Mt. 18:20 stems from Judaism not Gnosticism.

Jesus was speaking of his teaching to his disciples and not expounding on Judaism. You are completely wrong on this and are ignoring the context entirely. Why not look at it?

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (Matthew 18:15)
--This is church discipline. If your brother has trespassed against you go to him. Try to reconcile things.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (Matthew 18:16)
--It is a serious matter. Take one or two others next time, if he would not listen, that every word may be established. Perhaps the sin was one of immorality, or some kind of similar offense.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:17)
--The third step is to take the matter to the church. If he fails to listen to the church then the steps of excommunication are taken. Heathens and publicans were shunned. They were not to have fellowship with them, or eat and drink with them.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18)
--The decision that the church has made, God has agreed with. This is the meaning of this verse. The local church is God's ordained institution in this day and age. God agrees with the decision of the local church. It is as good as if it were written in heaven.

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)
--Such matters are usually dealt in a business meeting of a church, and sometimes only a few are present. If only two constitute a quorum, and they shall agree that this individual should be disfellowshipped, then "My Father in heaven has agreed with them. The local church has the power here. God agrees with their decision.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20)
--This has directly to do with the above verses. If there were only two or three at that business meeting that made decision, then God was with them that made it. God was in the midst of them. It has directly to do with church discipline.
This is not the definition of a church.

 

[gb93433]

Jesus was speaking of his teaching to his disciples and not expounding on Judaism. You are completely wrong on this and are ignoring the context entirely. Why not look at it?

I did not address the immediate context but my discussion was about the historical background which you did not address.

 

[The Biblicist]

If what you wrote is true then how did you come to that conclusion from scripture alone (apart from any historical documentation outside of scripture)? My understanding of the historical background of Mt. 18:20 stems from Judaism not Gnosticism.

I did not have to know a thing about the customary application among the Jews in order to rightly understand HOW Jesus uses it IN THIS CONTEXT because THE IMMEDIATE context clearly spells out how he used it!

The Scripture itself provides it own intended design and use and thus scripture interprets scripture!