The Problem with Oral Traditions

How do you know what happened to the Christians during the time of Nero? How do you know the background of what Jesus taught in the Sermon On The Mount?

 

I guess this is moot now, but...
So that means that these "traditions" were commentary on the meaning of scripture? (which is what the Jews argue regarding the "Mosaic" traditions; hence, the Talmud/Mishnah, etc. (which deny Christ).

Jesus did not hold up a door or vine, however he was there int he flesh, when he spoke of the bread being His flesh. Did He then have two fleshes?

Just because men misunderstood doesn't mean that was the right interpretation. And that's the basis of your argument. Uninspired men's interpretations are being elevated as some "apostolic tradition", but the "traditions" were simply the same teachings that were written down; not commentary or interpretations of what was written.

 

The clear and explicit teachings of inspired scripture do not need the support of uninspired, thus limited to human bias, thus often erroneous human records of men to establish or determine Roman Catholic doctrine and practice is apostate.

Why should we believe the records of apostate Christianity especially when their own records provide sufficient data to demonstrate they were guilty of killing their opponents over matters of faith and especially when their own records provide limited information that their enemies were godly people who complained of being maligned and falsely accused in order to be brought under church controlled secular governments to be killed??????

 

Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context. So then how would you suggest to accurately interpret scripture if you refuse to use historical documents?

 

The Horrifying fact for Biblicist is this if the RCC got rid of all baptist writings and evidence of their existance since the begining of the Church and if they persecuted the "infant many baptist churches" of the ages for 1600 years. Why does he trust them to have not modified the bible to fit their purposes? And destroy all other scriptures that would disagree with them? Entire books could have been left out of the NT.

This is the issue when you don't regard history.

 

The truth is that the Waldenses and others carried on their own traditions of their apostolic origin without any Roman Catholic records. However, their traditions are disputed because what they assert contradicts Roman Catholic traditions. They have their own traditions as early as 1100 AD. They claim to be the apostolic church that stood against the state church union.

 

The Waldenses Traditions are Apostolic? The founder of this group was born in 1216 Peter Waldo many years after the Apostles with no succession line. The Waldenses didn't even claim to have a line of Apostolic succession. In fact they held to certain sacraments that the church has maintained. And modern day baptist would be apalled at those teachings oft he RCC they actually kept.

 

First, you have misunderstood what I said. Their tradition of their own PERPETUITY from the apostles was preserved without Roman records.

According to whose records? Not according to the Waldenses records! Indeed they say they were the Valdenses not Waldenses as that term was imputed them by Rome to tie them to one person. Their records claim an entirely different account of their origin.

Like Baptists they rejected the doctrine of "apostolic succession." However, they believed and asserted they had continued from the fouth century before the union of state and church by Rome under constantine.

The modern Waldenses merged with the Presbyterians in the early 1600's. The differences between the early Waldenses prior to this merger with Presbyterians is far different than the post-Presbyterian articles of faith. Both kinds are found collected together in the same volume by Samuel Moreland.

The older articles of Faith and writings view Rome as the Anti-christ and her sacraments and infant baptism as unbibical.

 

I was hoping that The Biblicist would have answered how he does hermeneutics without proof-texting. [FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

There is nothing wrong in proof texting just as long as the proof text is interpreted in keeping with its own context.

 

I was hoping that you would answer the questions I asked in post #244.

 

I believe that every doctrine of scripture is sufficiently discernable by comparing scripture with scripture.

 

Aha! And here inlies the problem for you. The only real records we have of the Waldensians are what certian catholics kept and observed. So your argument is that the catholics lied about this group and took care of the records to match their accusations but it was different save you have no real evidence for this appart from Catholic Documents. And if the Catholics could so skew history this way against the Waldensians then who is to say they did not do the same to the very bible you now hold? After all How could they have faithfully transmitted the scriptures when they were on a campaign against it? It would be very easy to adjust verses and passages and according to you there powere so complete their destruction of evidence so total that there would be no evidence to the contrary. And you are still stuck.

 

The Waldenses did not depend upon Roman records as their account of their history was preserved among themselves. They preserved an oral record of their origin they passed down from generation to generation. It is the Roman Catholicis who imputed a false history to them.

The Bible used by the Waldenses came from the pre-Jerome Old Latin Bible. Remember my position is that "the WHOLE VOLUME" existed prior to 140 AD which Tertullian said could not be ADDED or subtracted from.

 

Where are these records?

Jerome was a Catholic. And tertullian didn't say what whole volume and as it is who said Jerome coming after Tertullian didn't modify the scriptures? After all he is catholic. You are still stuck with the same delemma.

 

The oral tradition is preserved in their written records. Samuel Moreland collected their records in one volume. Their pre-reformation records are found in that volume as well as their post-reformation presbyterian records. However, before their transition to Presbyterianism there are records of former Waldenses who joined in with those called Anabaptists who continued to stand agains pedobaptism. There are other Waldense historians that preserved their written records and their oral tradition as to their origin.

The only delmma here is one of your own making - a straw man delemma! Tertullian did say "the whole volume" was available to judge Marcion's stripped down and perverted canon. He did say that false teachers could be judged by that "whole volume" because if they ADDED or SUBTRACTED it would expose them.

Who said they received the Old Latin from Jerome? I didn't? I simply said it was a PRE-Jerome Latin translation they perpetuated among them.

 

So in order to show baptist solidarity (though the actual differences are staggering) you are relying on Oral Tradition of people who came later attempting to establish there own authority? If you don't see the humor in that then I don't think you have a sense of humor!

Which leaves you with the same delemma.

 

If you believe that then correctly interpret Matthew 18:20 in light of its historical background using only the Bible. You might also add John 15:16. To add a little to the pile, you might also take a look at 1 Sam 16 and tell us about the origin of evil. Tell us about the origin or the color red too.

 

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.

Well, perhaps in your mind but certainly not from my perspective. Tertullian's writings were preserved by Rome. I certainly do not place any stock in them in regard to determining doctrine or practice but his statement is a good source to use against Rome since it is part of their own preserved records. I would believe the scriptures were all written and among the congregations before John died regardless if Tertullian spoke of a "whole volume" originating from the apostolic era which could not be added or subtracted by later people.

 

17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

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

The word "Again" in verse 19 shows that Jesus is continuing the same subject of the use of proper administrative authority exercised by the congregation. The very term "ekklesia" demands the minimum of "two" or more to be a congregation as one person cannot be a congregation. Hence, when a congregation of two or more can agree in regard to administrative exerise of the keys of the Kingdom God will honor their united agreement just as long as that agreement conincides "in my name." The prepositional phrase "in my name" in this context addresses the proper authorized exercise of the keys or exercising them in keeping with His revealed will, according to his authority.

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."

Hence, the Scripture interprets scripture.