Rome and Finished Revelation

[Dr. Walter]

66.....Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian truth gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own positions of teaching authority.' Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, whch is expressed in a special way in the inspired books was to be preserved in a continuous line of sucession until the end of time."

78 "This living transmission, accomplished in THE HOLY SPIRIT, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, through closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that SHE HERSELF IS, all that she believes. "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to THE LIFE-GIVING PRESENCE OF THIS TRADITION, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.

79 "The Father's SELF-COMMUNICATION made through His Word in the Holy Spirit, REMAINS PRESENT and ACTIVE in the Church.......

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate ONE WITH THE OTHER. For both of them FLOWING OUT OF THE SAME DIVINE WELL-SPRING, come together and move towards the same goal.......

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under teh breath of the Holy Spirit.

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits IN ITS ENTIRETY THE WORD OF GOD......

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred Deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), CONTAINED IN SACRED SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, to the whole of the Church. - Catholic Catechism

Thus the final authority for faith and practice for Rome is the combination of sacred scripture and apostolic oral exposition of scripture recognized as "the Deposit of faith."

Rome denies this apostolic oral tradition IS what is made permenant in the New Testament Scriptures. Instead, Rome imagines that a SEPARATE oral tradition from inspired apostolic writings that form the New Testament is transmitted in a line of succession to the end of the age through bishops. This line of transmision they define as "The Tradition."

What they fail to see is that most of the Old Testament scriptures were first orally communicated before they were put into writing. Moses gathered much of the materials for Genesis through oral traditions passed down through the fathers. Between Adam and Abraham there were three generations (Adam, Methuselah and Seth as Seth died during the days of Jacob). Yet the written scriptures REPLACED the oral traditions as final authority.

I have posted a theme on Isaiah 8:14-20 to prove that the Apostles clearly understood that they were to lay a "foundation" (Eph. 2:20) of canonical authority through their ministries by taking the oral traditions passed down to them by Christ Himself (Mt. 28:20) and thus the "doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42) by being delivered once for all to them (Jude 3) who in turn delivered to the churches of Christ ultimately in written form (2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:15-17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17) and by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in their lives concluding in the last written revelation by the Apostle John (Rev. 1:3 with Isa. 8:16,20).

However, Rome places this IMAGINARY ORAL DEPOSIT between the completed written deposit of Scriptues and our present day through THE TRADITIONS of the Fathers as contained in the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene records utlimately refined and defined by the Magisterium of the Church.

The problem with this theory are the following things:

1. The oral apostolic traditions also were written down as the New Testament and this is the deposit of faith along with the Old Testament deposit of faith - both sacred scripture and inspired and completed by the apostles (Isa. 8:14-20).

2. The ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, and church counsels, popes, magisterium UNLIKE the sacred inspired deposit of faith (Old and New Testaments) are UNINSPIRED and full of errors, contradictions, and disputes.

3. They have made the UNINSPIRED tradition inseparable and co-joint with the inspired sacred scriptures and ultimately the UNINSPIRED becomes the infallible authority in righty intepreting the INSPIRED men of God rather than allowing INSPIRED MEN to rightly interpret INSPIRED MEN through the Holy Spirit - thus comparing scriptuers with scriptues as the final authority for faith and practice.

4. Out of one side of their mouth they say revelation has ceased but out of the other side of their mouth they maintain that God continues to reveal Himself through tradition in an unfolding manner that needs correcting, editing and debating by the magisterium.

 

[glfredrick]

Hence the need for the Reformation... We would not likely be having these sort of conversations if not for the men God called out to reveal again to the world the truth of the Scriptures.

Yet, I am bothered by those who would newly codify a new set of rules for God's church in much the same fashion as the Magestieium did so many centuries ago. Seems to be a tendency of sinful human leaders...

What works once becomes rule and the only way we can do things ever after. Translations, service types, hymns and songs, dress codes, revival meetings, walking the aisle, baptisms indoors or outdoors in still or moving waters, etc., etc., etc.

Then God does another reformation and a whole host of new people raise up faithful to the simple (but not simplistic) Word of God, and they get busy doing what it is that Jesus asked, Love God, love people, share the gospel, make disciples, teach, minister, pray... And do it all over again tomorrow. raying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

When anything is substituted for "this word" whether it is a great man, a church, a magesterium, a counsel, tradition, personal opinion (2 Pet. 1:20-21) then repentance with reformation is in order.

The Scriptues are inspired, but tradition is not. The scriptues are inspired but the magesterium is not. The scriptures are inspired but churches are not. Thus a wise man would conclude "if they speak not according to THIS WORD, it is because there is NO LIGHT IN THEM."

Common sense should tell you that the words of INSPIRED MEN should be final authority for faith and practice over the words of UNINSPIRED MEN, uninspired counsels, uninspired traditions, uninspired magesterium.

However, Rome does a mental gynastic with words and makes tradition equally as sacred as scripture and then transfers final authority from inspired men to uninspired magesterium thus subjecting the Scripture to personal opinions instead of allowing scripture to intepret scripture and thus inspired men to interpret inspired men as the final authority for faith and practice with INDIVIDUAL liberty of conscience under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Hence the need for the Reformation... We would not likely be having these sort of conversations if not for the men God called out to reveal again to the world the truth of the Scriptures.

Yet, I am bothered by those who would newly codify a new set of rules for God's church in much the same fashion as the Magestieium did so many centuries ago. Seems to be a tendency of sinful human leaders...

What works once becomes rule and the only way we can do things ever after. Translations, service types, hymns and songs, dress codes, revival meetings, walking the aisle, baptisms indoors or outdoors in still or moving waters, etc., etc., etc.

Then God does another reformation and a whole host of new people raise up faithful to the simple (but not simplistic) Word of God, and they get busy doing what it is that Jesus asked, Love God, love people, share the gospel, make disciples, teach, minister, pray... And do it all over again tomorrow. raying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Scriptures teach that all scripture is given by inspiration but it does not teach tradition is given by inspiration.

It certainly teaches that Bishops SHOULD convey the truth to others (2 Tim. 2:1) but it does not guarantee they will and if they do, it does not guarantee they will do it without error. That is why the same book that teaches the Bishop to convey the truth to the next man also provides inspired backup to insure what is being conveyed is right (2 Tim. 3:16-17) as it is to be compared and verified by Scriptures.

Anyone can read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and immediately see that tradition is neither inspired or trust worthy but can be completely corrupted. In the first volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers notice they go back to scriptures to debate and defeat heretics rather than to oral traditions. Why? Because oral traditions can be completely corrupted with errors and the further you read the Ante-Nicene Fathers the clearer such corruption becomes obvious.

It is from this corrupted source the magesterium picks and chooses which magesterium is full of corrupted and uninspired men. Why go to corrupted pool to drink when God has preserved His inspired Word into all generations???? Why take the word of uninspired and corrupted men when you have direct access to the inspired word of God????

Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, let's break down and analyse your OP:

1. The oral apostolic traditions also were written down as the New Testament and this is the deposit of faith along with the Old Testament deposit of faith - both sacred scripture and inspired and completed by the apostles (Isa. 8:14-20).

The only problem is that this is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence; indeed the Scriptural evidence alone goes against you:
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Isaiah 8:14-20 is neither here nor there on this issue; you have given your own interpretation of it; others differ.

2. The ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, and church counsels, popes, magisterium UNLIKE the sacred inspired deposit of faith (Old and New Testaments) are UNINSPIRED and full of errors, contradictions, and disputes.

Who says they are uninspired? Did the Holy Spirit go to sleep once St John the Divine stopped dictating in his cave in Patmos?

3. They have made the UNINSPIRED tradition inseparable and co-joint with the inspired sacred scriptures and ultimately the UNINSPIRED becomes the infallible authority in righty intepreting the INSPIRED men of God rather than allowing INSPIRED MEN to rightly interpret INSPIRED MEN through the Holy Spirit - thus comparing scriptuers with scriptues as the final authority for faith and practice.

I'm not sure what point you're making here: are you saying that Scripture shouldn't be interpreted?

4. Out of one side of their mouth they say revelation has ceased but out of the other side of their mouth they maintain that God continues to reveal Himself through tradition in an unfolding manner that needs correcting, editing and debating by the magisterium.

I think you're positing a false dichotomy here: there is a need to explain revelation in the light of changing circumstances. Christians do this all the time, eg: fundamentalists who say that cinema is evil, even though that isn't mentioned in the Bible

 

[RAdam]

Who says they are uninspired? The church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, let's break down and analyse your OP: The only problem is that this is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence; indeed the Scriptural evidence alone goes against you:

What you fail to see is the overall evidence. Much of the Old Testament Scriptures where first orally given before they were written and when they took written form the written ALWAYS superseded the oral traditions.

Jesus condemned the oral traditions (Mt. 5:20-48; 15:1-12) and NEVER ONCE referred to ORAL TRADITION as his final authority but always referred to scriptures as His final authority "Thus saith...."

Thirdly, you fail to recognize the same natural process in the New Testament period. What began as oral tradtion (Mt. 28:20; Acts 2:42) proceeded to take written form an the written form was recognized and acknowledged by the apostles themselves to be scripture and by that very attribute superseded oral traditions just as it did by the prophets:

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Jn. 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jn. 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Fourth, The term "tradition" simply means things handed down and would include the process from oral to written.

Fifth, you cannot deal with my exposition of Isaiah 8:14-20 and that is precisely why you avoid it. I challenge you to deal with it in a scholarly and expository manner.

1. You cannot possibly deny it is Messanic prophecy as this passage is directly applied to the Messiah in the New Testament.

2. You cannot possibly deny it applies directly to the apostles as well as Isaiah 8:18 is specifically applied to the apostles in the New Testament (Heb. 2:3-4,13) and therefore verse 16 "among my disciples" has prophetic reference to the apostles as well.

3. Thus you cannot possibly deny the Messanic application of "the law and the testimony" to be bound up "AMONG MY DISCIPLES" demands that "the testimony" is a FUTURE fulfillment in regard to the work of the Apostles.

You may not like this prophecy and its obvious implications but you cannot overturn it by honest scholarship. Isaiah 8:14-20 deals a complete death blow to your whole position as it proves the final work of the apostles was to finalize the Biblical canon as the final authority over oral traditions and personal opinions (Isa. 8:20).


Finally, Peter provides an eye witness account of his personal experience with Christ on the mount of Transfiguration and yet says that the scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral witness:

19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is this same epistle that he regarded ALL OF PAUL'S EPISTLES as scripture and in verse 19 above the plural pronoun "we" has reference to the apostles and their WRITTEN revelation that takes precedence over their own PERSONAL verbal witness.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm quite happy to do a brief exposition on Isaiah 8: the prophet here is taking about those who prophecy outside of the Mosaic Law (it's a moot point as to what 'testimony' means); it's nothing to do with the NT. That's my take on it.

Who says they are uninspired? The church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Which church would that be? And what authority does that church have? And where does it say that? And is that statement by this church itself inspired?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm quite happy to do a brief exposition on Isaiah 8: the prophet here is taking about those who prophecy outside of the Mosaic Law (it's a moot point as to what 'testimony' means); it's nothing to do with the NT. That's my take on it. Which church would that be? And what authority does that church have? And where does it say that? And is that statement by this church itself inspired?

You simply ASSERT a position and think we should open our mouths and swallow it without ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back it up but your own personal opinion??????

I have given you Biblical evidence. I have shown you where it is explicitly quoted and applied to Christ and the apostles in the New Testament. As I said, you cannot possibly overthrow the three statements I have made concerning its prophetic application to the New Testament period and you proved you could not.

The words "the testimony" in Messanic context has to do with the explicit reason the apostlic office was instituted so that they could be special "witnesses unto me" (Acts 1:8; 21-22). And the final binding up and sealing the Old ("the law") and New Testaments ("the testimony") as one finished book of Scripture is explicit in the choice of terms used by the last living apostle finishing the last written scripture (Rev. 1:3 "The Testimony") and sealing it and binding it with explicit language (Rev. 22:17-18).

I challenge anyone on this forum by the use of sound scholarship to overthrow the following three facts:

1. You cannot possibly deny it is Messanic prophecy as this passage is directly applied to the Messiah in the New Testament.

2. You cannot possibly deny it applies directly to the apostles as well as Isaiah 8:18 is specifically applied to the apostles in the New Testament (Heb. 2:3-4,13) and therefore verse 16 "among my disciples" has prophetic reference to the apostles as well.

3. Thus you cannot possibly deny the Messanic application of "the law and the testimony" to be bound up "AMONG MY DISCIPLES" demands that "the testimony" is a FUTURE fulfillment in regard to the work of the Apostles.

Your personal opinion is worthless unless you have Biblical evidence to back it up. Where's the evidence???

 

[Matt Black]

And all you've asserted is your personal interpretation. There's no mention for example of the Messiah in this passage at all and yet you have the audacity to eisegese it in there. In it's context, Isaiah 8 is talking about judgement for God's people for consulting outside of the Law and the testimony, giving the example of going to mediums etc, that judgement being meted out by the neighbouring nations. It's a stretch to place a Messianic gloss on it.

So we've both stated our personal opinion. Big deal.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And all you've asserted is your personal interpretation. There's no mention for example of the Messiah in this passage at all and yet you have the audacity to eisegese it in there. In it's context, Isaiah 8 is talking about judgement for God's people for consulting outside of the Law and the testimony, giving the example of going to mediums etc, that judgement being meted out by the neighbouring nations. It's a stretch to place a Messianic gloss on it.

So we've both stated our personal opinion. Big deal.

Tell that to the writer of Hebrews who quotes Isaiah 8:18 and directly applies it to the Lord's apostles in Hebrews 2:13:

Isa. 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Heb. 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.


Tell that to Peter as in 1 Peter 2:8 Peter directly applies Isaiah 8:14-15 to Jesus Christ:


Isa. 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

1 Pet. 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I have two inspired men who agree with me that this is a Messanic application and I think I will go with them rather than the personal opinion of an uninspired man.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, supposing you are correct, then, it still doesn't mean that v 20 is 'anti-Tradition'; again, that is an unwarranted eisegesis on your part.

 

[glfredrick]

Is there a stirring stick smiley around here? :flower:

What if we agree that some amount of tradition is part and parcel of the Jewish and later the Christian practice, for to say otherwise is to almost destroy the veracity of the Text.

But, how much? And, is it "Sacred Tradition" that can trump the text whenever it needs to?

The Berean passage seems to indicate that any tradition that is brought forward match up to the Text in any number of ways. Implied is that God is not a liar. When He speaks, whether in written revelation or in the actions of the Holy Spirit, He speaks the same way with the same material.

What I (and a goodly number of others now and down through the ages) have found concerning "Sacred Tradition" (ST) is that it is akin to the problem of nailing Jello to a wall. It is too slippery, to un-defined, and too constantly moving a target to be God's Sacred Tradition, which of course makes it man's...

Case in point is a debate I recently had on a couple of Roman Catholic (RC) issues, starting with their revisionist history concerning the first pope. When I pointed out that the Scriptures, while showing Peter in a position of pre-eminence for one scene, also grant the identical promises to the other 11 just a few verses later. The response of the RC individual was that Sacred Tradition does not see it that way. ST wins the debate because there is no way to argue against it, for if the Word is subject to the interpretation of the ST that "gave the world the Word..." then the Word ends up meaningless except where it is used to say, "See, the Word agrees with me (or ST).

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, supposing you are correct, then, it still doesn't mean that v 20 is 'anti-Tradition'; again, that is an unwarranted eisegesis on your part.

Didn't say it was! What this text does clearly and explicity teach is that completed scripture bound and sealed by the apostles (vv. 16-18) is the final authority to judge traditions, personal opinions and any other purported revelation (v. 19) by and not vica versa.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Isaiah 8:20 demands that sacred scripture can trump tradition, personal opinions, church counsels, popes, magisterium blunders at all times, any in every place. This text not only predicts the completion of sacred scripture but its absolute authority over all other professed revelations (v. 19).

The Ante-Nicene literature alone demonstrate the absolute contradictions, errors, and confusion of so-called tradition. The logic of Rome is that UNINSPIRED men (counsels, magisterium, popes, etc.) can be infallible authorities in interpreting INSPIRED men and determining what tradition is "sacred" and what is not. This is backwards and is directly contradicted by Isaiah 8:20.

Is there a stirring stick smiley around here? :flower:

What if we agree that some amount of tradition is part and parcel of the Jewish and later the Christian practice, for to say otherwise is to almost destroy the veracity of the Text.

But, how much? And, is it "Sacred Tradition" that can trump the text whenever it needs to?

The Berean passage seems to indicate that any tradition that is brought forward match up to the Text in any number of ways. Implied is that God is not a liar. When He speaks, whether in written revelation or in the actions of the Holy Spirit, He speaks the same way with the same material.

What I (and a goodly number of others now and down through the ages) have found concerning "Sacred Tradition" (ST) is that it is akin to the problem of nailing Jello to a wall. It is too slippery, to un-defined, and too constantly moving a target to be God's Sacred Tradition, which of course makes it man's...

Case in point is a debate I recently had on a couple of Roman Catholic (RC) issues, starting with their revisionist history concerning the first pope. When I pointed out that the Scriptures, while showing Peter in a position of pre-eminence for one scene, also grant the identical promises to the other 11 just a few verses later. The response of the RC individual was that Sacred Tradition does not see it that way. ST wins the debate because there is no way to argue against it, for if the Word is subject to the interpretation of the ST that "gave the world the Word..." then the Word ends up meaningless except where it is used to say, "See, the Word agrees with me (or ST).

 

[Dr. Walter]

OK, supposing you are correct, then, it still doesn't mean that v 20 is 'anti-Tradition'; again, that is an unwarranted eisegesis on your part.

Interestingly, if you look at the online Jewish encyclopedia under "traditions of the elders" the Jews used the exact same logic as Rome to enforce their traditions. They claimed that many originated orally with Moses and the prophets and thus were as sacred as scripture - YET CHRIST REJECTED THEM and REPUDIATED THEM and NEVER ONCE referred to them as His authority for truth or for interpretations of scriptures. Isaiah 8:20 repudiates Rome's claim of Sacred Tradition on the level of Sacred scriptures but places all other forms of revelation subordinate to the scriptures.

 

[Matt Black]

You've raised two objections to the idea of Sacred Tradition on this thread, one in the last post. These are both good arguments and therefore deserve ventilation here:-

• “What if the consensus patri ie: the doctrinal and liturgical consensus of the ECFs to which Vincent alludes in his Commonitory above, quite simply got it wrong? After all, these were just men, they were fallible like you or me, and they could have made mistakes – in no way should their opinions and practices be elevated to the same status as Scripture.” First of all, as I have already said, I am neither claiming infallibility for the early Church, nor am I seeking to raise her doctrines and practices to the level of Scripture. The main trouble with this objection, though, is that it makes a mockery of Jesus’ promise to build His Church and the gates of Hades not prevailing in Matt 16:18-19, it makes Him out to be a liar when He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth in John 16:13 and teach them all things in John 14:26, and it negates Paul’s statement in I Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Furthermore, many of the Early Church Fathers whose writings we have were discipled by, and in some cases appointed by, the Apostles: for example, Ignatius (who wrote several letters which we have) was a disciple of John and appointed by him Bishop of Antioch; his writings date from within a decade of the Apostle’s death. Clement of Rome was the third successor to that Bishopric after the Apostle Peter and wrote c.85AD, John was still alive and before the NT was fully completed. As such, they were far, far better-qualified to interpret the portions of the NT penned by those Apostles than we are today.
• “Does not Apostolic Tradition amount to the same as ‘the traditions of men’ which Jesus was so quick to condemn in Mark 7?” That would indeed be a valid objection if the two were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

 

[Matt Black]

You've also got the problem that the concept of Sacred (as opposed to man-made) Tradition is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)

Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is no problem as oral teaching ALWAYS precedes written scripture and the New Testament had not been bound up and sealed among the apostles when Paul wrote this to the Thessalonica. However, when the scriptures were completed they superseded all oral traditions for several good reasons.

1. Only memory alone could pass on oral teachings by the Apostles after their death and memory is not inspired or infallible.

2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers demonstrate how fallible memory serves.

3. Oral traditions are no more dependable after the death of the apostles as the persons who transmit them. Paul predicted many would depart from the faith (Acts 20:29-31) and many did while the apostle Paul was yet alive. Hence, oral traditions are not dependable.

4. Peter predicted something "MORE SURE" than apostolic unwritten testimony and that is scriptures - 2 Pet. 1:19-21.

You've also got the problem that the concept of Sacred (as opposed to man-made) Tradition is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)

Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, so where's the 'oral teaching' given to Timothy by Paul contained in the NT?