Kay Cee,
I hope you are continuing to feel better, sorry for taking so long to reply, it’s been a hectic day.
Feeling much better, thank you. Looks like I might finally be over all three of those illnesses.
Neither is an authoritative teacher, unless that individual is going to provide a “feedback check” to ensure that each an every individual under their authority has properly understood their teaching. Even then, there is no absolute certainty that the teacher has understood the student’s reply to their question-both the Bible and teacher examples can only deal with probabilities of understanding. In the end it still requires an illumination of the intellect by God’s Spirit if there is going to be a certainty of understanding revealed truth.
I would argue that having a living, breathing teacher beats having just the textbook every time. I can ask a teacher questions. I can have a dialogue with a teacher. If having just the book were enough, why not just teach kids to read, give them a bunch of textbooks, and have them educate themselves? Why have churches and ministers to help Christians understand God’s word?
Actually if you look at Deuteronomy 18 again you’ll see that it doesn’t refer to other gods, but one claiming to speak in the name of Yahweh. Peter thought these verses also had application to the church as we see in his Epistle (2 Peter 2:1)
You cited me chapters 13 and 18.
“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer who promises you a sign or wonder,
urging you to follow other gods . . .” (Deuteronomy 13:2-3) Sure sounds to me like it’s referring to other gods.
“But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of
other gods, he shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20) That sounds like a reference too.
As for verification, it says to check if the oracle is not fulfilled or verified. Well, history would show it to be unfulfilled. The text doesn’t say what other means one uses to see if it’s unverified.
And his solution to this: a human teacher? no a written Epistle (2 Peter 3:1) that refers his readers to other written epistles (2 Peter 3:15 and 16, with a cautionary note in verse 16)
Peter says that he’s writing these things as a reminder, that is, as a supplement to what he’s already taught. He also recomments Paul’s letters. But I don’t see anywhere where he says to pay attention only to what is written.
All the epistles were written *by human teachers *under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If Peter had communicated orally, wouldn’t what he said still be the truth? Why this emphasis on having it written down? I’ve never understood that. Does a message have more validity just because it’s written instead of oral?
So, in a similar fashion to the passage in Deuteronomy, Peter tells his readers to judge the teachings that come according to the Epistles they possess and reject those that are false. So the people are interpreted by the writings and not vice versa.
So what are you saying? *
We *are to be the arbitrators of what’s true and what’s false? If that’s God’s plan, why do earnest Christians come to opposing conclusions about what’s true and what’s false?
Agreed. We also see that the Apostles recognized that a day was coming where they would no longer be able to answer questions personally and they made two provisions: first they set down those key traditions that they believed to be essential in writing (2 Thessalonians 2:15 NAB) and they appointed successors, who had been taught the traditions, but who the believers could evaluate by the content of the Epistles if they should turn from the faith and teach falsely.
Whoa! Hold on there a minute!
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess. 2:15)
Right here we’re told to hold fast to traditions taught orally. Nowhere does this passage say they “set down those key traditions that they believed to be essential in writing.”
I’ve never seen a passage in scripture that claims oral tradition will someday be crystallized in writing. Perhaps you can cite one for me?
And, further, how do you know these oral traditions were eventually written down, since Paul doesn’t specify what they are?
To quote Mark Shea in
By What Authority?:
I had before me an open box called “paradosis (tradition) handed on by letter” and a sealed box called “paradosis handed on by word of mouth.” Paul did not spell out in 2 Thessalonians what was in the sealed box and so I did not know in the slightest what it may contain. Yet if I did not know, how did we Evangelicals know (and know with such certainty) that the contents of Box 1 (the complete Bible) and Box 2 (the pre-Biblical tradition) were absolutely identical? The answer was, “We don’t.” (p. 82)
I know and I know better than to ask you to break that promise
There’s nothing that says I can’t invite you to take a look at the
thread where these things were discussed and see if looking at the differences in understanding on the church helps explain our different viewpoints.
That’s fine, but I’ll have to see if I have time.
I understand better how we can differ on how the church is considered united and holy as well as the role God plays in the church, both of which could easily explain how we’ve come to different conclusions on how He is leading and guiding the church into final unity and truth.
It seems to me that if God intends unity (and we both seem to agree he does), then wouldn’t you further agree that church splintering is not his plan?
