Oral Tradition

[lanman87]

As I posted in my new member introduction yesterday, one of the reasons I'm here is that my son is considering becoming a catholic due to his (soon to be) fiance being catholic. As a result I've read a couple of books written by Catholics. One is Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs By Alan Schreck and the other is Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn, who is a former Presbyterian Pastor who converted to Catholicism.

One thing I've learned from those books and elsewhere, is that Catholics believe that the Bible doesn't contain all the teachings of the Apostles. They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn't included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

The proof text they offer are:

1 Cor 11: 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thess 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

I put this on the Baptist Only Board because I'm not interested in Catholics posting about it, I know their position. In my study I've come to several conclusions about the concept of Oral Tradition and its role, or lack of a role, in doctrine and practice of the church. I'm interested to get the opinions of others, who may have had formal Theological training or who may be interested in a subject like this.

I have three questions for the board:

1. How do you interpret the scriptures listed?

2. What do you think the role of oral tradition was in the early church?

3. Do you think all the teachings of the apostles are included in the new testament writings? Why?

BTW-if you've never done a study on the pre-nicene church then I would recommend it. It is very interesting to see the struggles and issues during first three centuries of Christianity.

 

[JonShaff]

Good questions, good post. I Actually had a young man ask me about the same exact scriptures on Sunday. I'm interested in peoples' responses.

 

[TCassidy]

2 Thess 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The word παραδοσεις, which is translated "tradition" in the KJV means "transmission." Paul is saying that the truth transmitted from God, through the Apostles, to the people, should be held tightly.

Paul makes the meaning clear when he says, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Paul is talking about what was revealed orally from God through the Prophet, or from God through the inspired writings of Paul and others.

In fact God's word condemns the traditions of men.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I may present an unpopular viewpoint, but I'll take a shot:

1. How do you interpret the scriptures listed?

I think they simply point to the existence of a faith community that existed (as one would expect) at the time. They certainly open the door to the idea that tradition carries some authority as to how we interpret scripture and the polity of the churches of Jesus, but I don't think they establish a catholic institutional body with an authoritarian vicar of Christ at the head to devise doctrine.

I have great respect for those who have gone before and the great wisdom that is found in their lives and writings, but they stand separate from scripture.

2. What do you think the role of oral tradition was in the early church?

For a number of years, oral testimony was just about everything they had. As eyewitnesses to the Jesus and the apostles began to die of age or martyrdom, people began to think about writing things down. That how we ended up with Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts. As the church grew and leaders ministered to far flung congregations, certain letters that bore certain authority began to be collected. That's how we ended up with the epistles (letters) of the New Testament, including Paul's writings. Then John, as the last surviving member of The Twelve, wrote his gospel and the Apocalypse of Jesus the Christ.

So written works gradually took on authority that oral tradition could not have because it was more objective and relatively unchangeable since the letters were broadly copied and distributed, so texts could be compared to determine if anyone was playing games with the writings.

3. Do you think all the teachings of the apostles are included in the new testament writings?

No. Just like all of the teachings of Jesus were not recorded (John 20:30 and 21:25), certainly there were things that were not written down. But what we need to know about Jesus and how to enter into a teaching arrangement (discipling relationship) with Jesus HAS been preserved for us (John 20:31).

The written record that we need has been preserved for us by the early church in the scriptures. Traditions are nice and often helpful, but when they contradict what has been written, they need to be discarded.

A number of years ago I ended up spending a lot of time talking with two Mormon missionaries that God put in my path. They pushed the argument that there were many "plain and precious" things that had been omitted by evil men a few hundred years after the church began. Fortunately, they had new revelation that filled in the gaps that my incomplete revelation (my Bible) had. I pointed out to them over and over that EVEN IF my Bible were missing "plain and precious" truth, it still refutes their claims.

When discussing these issues with Roman Catholic friends or other curious minds, I hold what is revealed in scripture as the standard. If the tradition does not contradict scripture and it seems prudent and helpful for spiritual growth and faithful living, I don't have objections. But traditions that violate scripture (the Roman Catholic priesthood, for instance), must be abolished.

In my opinion, arguing against tradition is not very helpful. You may be right, but you won't be persuasive or cast much light on the real issue. Arguing for a clear-headed and careful exposition of scripture will take you where you need to go.

 

[rlvaughn]

As I posted in my new member introduction yesterday, one of the reasons I'm here is that my son is considering becoming a catholic due to his (soon to be) fiance being catholic. As a result I've read a couple of books written by Catholics. One is Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs By Alan Schreck and the other is Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn, who is a former Presbyterian Pastor who converted to Catholicism.

We had a similar experience and sympathize with what you are dealing with.

1. How do you interpret the scriptures listed?

There is a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) difference in what these texts say and what Catholics mean when they talk about tradition. The "traditions" were what Paul delivered to teach, taught them in person, taught them by letter -- in other words, simply put, the traditions they received and were to stand firm in and maintain were the things the apostle taught them. The "traditions" of the Catholics are a hodge-podge of things passed down by various intermediaries. Some of it agrees with what the apostles taught, but most of it does not. They cannot claim to stand in the tradition of the apostles while overtly advocating faith and practice that diverges wildly from what the apostles taught.

2. What do you think the role of oral tradition was in the early church?

In the New Testament times tradition was very unlike what Catholics do and teach. The upshot of New Testament teaching and tradition is that the apostolic practice was normative. A cursory reading of the New Testament makes it obvious that apostolic practice is not normative in the Roman Catholic Church. But some of the "early church" (post-apostolic) and some of the church fathers began to diverge fairly quickly from what the apostles taught. In fact, the epistles show that this started even while the apostles were living.

3. Do you think all the teachings of the apostles are included in the new testament writings? Why?

No, but we are given all we need for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness -- completely furnishing us for faith and practice, as says 1 Timothy 3:16-17.

 

[HankD]

Big problem with oral tradition : One can come up with outrageous "traditions".

e.g. Mary the Mediatrix of all graces and the co-Redemptrix with Christ...

Fifth Marian Dogma | Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

HankD

 

[AresMan]

One thing I've learned from those books and elsewhere, is that Catholics believe that the Bible doesn't contain all the teachings of the Apostles.

Agree. The Apostles did not say only the words recorded in Scripture. They may have even taught people how to fish or build houses. The question is did they teach essential doctrine for which there is no trace in their letters. I would contend not.

They believe that the New Testament contains

some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament.

That is one thing. To teach dogmatically that the Apostles taught the bodily assumption of Mary, purgatory and indulgences, the treasury of merit, prayers to the saints, and papal infallibility is an unprovable stretch that has no evidence. It is no more provable an epistemology than that Joseph Smith received his first vision or that Gabriel revealed a portion of the Qur'an to Mohammed on the "night of power."

That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers.

The ante-Nicene church fathers did not teach the above doctrines by any stretch of the imagination. That is why Cardinal Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, had to come up with the so-called "development hypothesis." Roman Catholic dogma such as the Marian dogmas, the papacy, and purgatory and indulgences, are embellishments and anachronism plain and simple.

They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn't included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture

and Tradition being equally authoritative.

So do the Eastern Orthodox. So do the Coptic Orthodox. Which group is right in their epistemology of "traditions"? We need to examine the history of where these traditions come from. Some Marian dogmas such as the perpetual virginity of Mary clearly have roots in early gnostic teaching such as the Protevangelium of James. The Roman Catholic priesthood is diametrically opposed to New Testament teaching of Jesus being the one mediator and being priest forever after the order of Melchizedek and the onr sacrifice perfecting the saints forever and to the uttermost.

The proof text they offer are:

1 Cor 11: 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thess 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

These verses prove that the "traditions" are the same, whether they received them orally (I.e. by preaching) or by the epistles. The "traditions" cannot be dogmas about Mary, a papacy, and a treasury of merit that are absent from thoughtfully written epistles.

About Roman Catholicism and the early church fathers, there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until, at the earliest, the mid-to-late second century.
Athanasius, the champion of the Nicene Creed, was excommunicated five times, one of which was by Liberius, the bishop of Rome, who was supporting the Arians at the time. Athanasius argued that our authority for doctrinal disputes was by the Scriptures. Honorius, bishop of Rome post-Chalcedon, supported the monothelites. He was condemned as a heretic and his letters were burned.

 

[Darrell C]

As I posted in my new member introduction yesterday, one of the reasons I'm here is that my son is considering becoming a catholic due to his (soon to be) fiance being catholic. As a result I've read a couple of books written by Catholics. One is Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs By Alan Schreck and the other is Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn, who is a former Presbyterian Pastor who converted to Catholicism.

I would just caution of the danger of indoctrination into and sympathy for anything that stands outside of the Word of God.

One thing I've learned from those books and elsewhere, is that Catholics believe that the Bible doesn't contain all the teachings of the Apostles. They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn't included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

Not a good argument at all, seeing that God did use men to write Scripture, and we can trust that He preserved that which He meant for us to receive. We call the New Testament into question if we speculate that somehow God did not tell us everything we needed to know.

The proof text they offer are:

1 Cor 11: 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Well, the one point I would make is that this (1) refers to what Paul has given them, and (2) they are to be kept as given by Him.

Just not a lot of room to work in "We can suppose there were other teachings of Paul which he didn't deliver to them."

2 Thess 2: 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The truth in view contrasts that which is not true, and has a specific first application to the very reason he has just written what he wrote, from v.1 of the first chapter unto this point. In other words, in view is the truth concerning the teachings he just presented, which he had already spoken to them about before...




2 Thessalonians 2
King James Version (KJV)

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?


This is the "oral" teaching in view, not a myriad of unrecorded teachings that somehow the Catholic Church has preserved.

The general application is that we do hold to these truths as they were taught. While we may not know exactly all that Paul may have taught the Thessalonians, what we can say for sure is that what we needed to know God has preserved both in the original statements as we as in the Transmission of Scripture itself.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Same issue here. The first statement states "Remain in the teachings we have given," and this states "Avoid those who do not."

I put this on the Baptist Only Board because I'm not interested in Catholics posting about it, I know their position. In my study I've come to several conclusions about the concept of Oral Tradition and its role, or lack of a role, in doctrine and practice of the church.

This is probably the worst teaching of the Catholic Church, as it opens the door for the rest of their error, in my view.

While no Church group is free from traditions in the general sense, what we can say is that when a tradition is contrary to what is written in the Word f God it steps into the category of the traditions of men, which, as one member at least has already shown is something the Lord rebuked.

The tradition of meeting on Sunday is acceptable (though if one chose to meet on the Sabbath we could not rebuke them), the tradition of Oral Tradition is not.

I'm interested to get the opinions of others, who may have had formal Theological training or who may be interested in a subject like this.

I have three questions for the board:

1. How do you interpret the scriptures listed?

Done, at least in part.

2. What do you think the role of oral tradition was in the early church?

I don't see a role of oral tradition in the Early Church, because it was not the Scriptural wasteland some would present it as. For one thing...they still had the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. For another, while it would be some time before the New Testament was collectively distributed, there were Epistles being circulated among the churches. Lastly (though we could probably present other reasons), there were in fact Spirit-filled Apostles and teachers in the Body from Day One.

3. Do you think all the teachings of the apostles are included in the new testament writings?

Everything the Lord felt we needed to have, yes. And perhaps some that a few might think was not necessary to be put in there (such as the account of Paul rebuking Peter and other Apostles for their hypocrisy, lol)

Why?

Because that is simply how God has always done it.

The Old Testament was an accepted collection, referenced by Christ as "The Law, Prophets, and Psalms." There was never any internal dispute about that, that arises usually by those hostile to the Sufficiency of Scripture.

As far as the Apocrypha goes, probably most Baptists deny them as inspired, but, what we can say is that they still fall under the heading of what is written, and stand outside of that which is "Oral."

BTW-if you've never done a study on the pre-nicene church then I would recommend it. It is very interesting to see the struggles and issues during first three centuries of Christianity.

I prefer to devote my time to that which is Inspired, and rely on Scripture to interpret Scripture. For those issues that relate to Historical accounts, they are never going to be issues that we can be dogmatic about. However, the Doctrine taught by the Word of God is something we can be dogmatic about.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

lanman87 said: ↑
The proof text they offer are:

1 Cor 11: 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Well, the one point I would make is that this (1) refers to what Paul has given them, and (2) they are to be kept as given by Him.

Just not a lot of room to work in "We can suppose there were other teachings of Paul which he didn't deliver to them."

Actually wanted to add a third point to the one point I would like to make, which is Paul commends them for maintaining the traditions as he delivered them to them, right? Is it not safe to say, that just as the following teaching makes clear, that what was new is given to them in his Epistles to them?


God bless.

 

[AresMan]

To put it briefly, the "traditions" are not additional necessary information. "By word or by letter from us" doesn't mean that you learn x by spoken word and y by letter. It means that you learn x, and you either receive it by spoken word or by letter.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As Sam Goldwyn might have said, oral tradition is not worth the paper it's written on.