Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Non_Serviam]

The Bible isn’t laid out like a syllabus, though. Nor is it laid out like a Catechism, with the most basic information to start with, and then increasing in complexity until the end.

True, but portions of it do contain propositional truth, and the historical sections confirm what Christ and the Apostles taught about certain topics.

(material snipped as it refers to Catholicism and this is outside the scope set by the OP)

The Didache, in contrast to the Bible (and written during the same period of time as the New Testament, is laid out like a Catechism (following the order of the Apostles’ Creed at least somewhat, although it tends to digress a lot), and yet the Early Church made a conscious decision not to include the Didache in the Bible, in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the Didache that is contrary to the Faith.

Perhaps the reason they didn’t include it was because they didn’t want the Bible to be mistaken for a Catechism?

While this thread isn’t on the Didache, it is a most interesting and informative document on how at least some members of the early church sought to summarize and put into practice the tradition captured by the Apostles in Scripture (Setting aside the question of the origin of “The Two Ways”). Yet it also must be verified by Scripture.

It seems rather obvious that the reason it wasn’t included in Scripture was its mention of specific interpretations of the Apostle’s teaching by some early church members, that while useful, weren’t binding on all believers as the tradition captured in Scripture was.

(more material snipped as out of the scope of the OP)

First problem; this is a mistranslation. The passage doesn’t say “either”; it says “whether.” There is no dichotomy indicated; it’s not an “either/or” statement. The reader can (and probably should) infer that he should be both listening and reading; not choosing between the two.

If it’s a mistranslation, take it up with the USCCB-I’ve been using the NAB here in my discussion in an attempt to avoid such a charge.

To address your point about “whether” let’s pop it into my two examples and the passage and see if it changes the meaning.

1. I’m glad you all came to my house, whether by car or by bus.

no change-same destination, two means of transport-no suggestion the hearers should uses both car and bus to travel)

1. I’m glad that you all took the accounting class, whether in a classroom at the college or by correspondence.

(no change-same content, two different means of delivery-no suggestion the hearers should take the course both in class and by correspondence)

So looking again at what Paul wrote:

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess. 2:15 modified NAB)

(still one set of traditions, two means of transmission-no suggestion the hearers needed to taught the traditions both orally and in writing to learn them)

So whether we use “whether” in the passage or “either” the meaning is the same.

If Paul had meant what you were suggesting he would have used a “both…and” construction in the verse.

Let’s await Kay Cee’s (name removed by moderator)ut on this, given her life experience as a teacher of English.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Glad to hear it.

Thanks. Unfortunately, the nausea is back this morning.

I agree that churches and ministers are important, and that teaching is a normative way to educate believers. Having had more time to think, I disagree that the Bible should be equated to a textbook. It’s rather a curriculum standard.

When I taught, the college had a curriculum standard for each course that documented the learning outcomes for the class. Each student had a copy of these outcomes and was able to verify that the instructor’s lessons covered the promised material. It was a matter of quality assurance.

Likewise the Scriptural record is that “curriculum standard” of what teachers in the church are supposed to teach. Thus we can identify false teaching as Peter intended.

If true, how is it applied? Because I don’t see this happening. I don’t see this resolving differences in doctrine between Protestant denominations.

Yes, Peter’s oral communication was valid, likewise with Paul’s. Both realize that time is limited due to age and persecution and the difficulties of travel. They are aware that other teachers are communicating orally to their churches and communicating false teaching to those churches. These Scriptures show that they addressed this problem by putting their teachings into writing, that teachers and prophets are to be judged according to their fidelity to the Epistles (I Corinthians 14:37), not vice versa.

“If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.”

This deals only with the fact that a spiritual person should recognize Paul’s writing as a commandment. It say nothing about Paul desiring to place all his teachings in writing or that all such teachings would be at some future date.

I don’t know. Why did He select a follower who would betray him? Why did He allow elders to be selected for churches who later opposed the Apostles? (3 John, Philippians 1) It is one of many questions that I don’t believe Jesus will give a complete answer to before His return.

So there is no way to determine true doctrine from false doctrine?

I’m glad that you used to teach English, since the grammar of this passage will clear up the questions that you’ve posed here. I’ve snipped Shea’s quote as it puts me over the character limit and your response is more than clear without it.

You said

But that isn’t what the passage says.

The traditions or “paradosis” as Shea correctly labels them are the same whether taught orally or by letter. To give two more examples of the same construction:

1. I’m glad you all came to my house, either by car or by bus.

(same destination, two means of transport)

1. I’m glad that you all took the accounting class, either in a classroom at the college or by correspondence.

(same content, two different means of delivery)

If it’s the same content, with two different means of delivery, then I must conclude oral Tradition is equally valid to written Tradition. But is it the same content? You seem to conclude it is, but how do you know?

So looking again at what Paul wrote:

(one set of traditions, two means of transmission)

As an English teacher, do you agree with my explanation of the “either…or” construction in this sentence?

You seem to be saying that since there are two means of delivery, the method doesn’t matter. But it sure matters if my car can’t get me there. Then I would have to take the bus. So, if written Tradition doesn’t cover the subject, I should turn to oral Tradition.

I’m a bit confused as to how you think this means written Tradition swallows up oral Tradition.

(As to the grammar of it, “either/or” is a correlative conjunction. Two words, separated, but one part of speech. Same for “whether/or.” It doesn’t imply the choice of one over the other. For that, you would need to use the conjunction “not/but.” For example, “*either *this or that” implies equal choice. However, “not this but that” implies one over the other.)

Hopefully you will. It’s not meant to be polemical, it’s short and I’m not asking you to post or debate, just to see that the concepts we have are objectively different.

I realize that, but I’m not seeing your point. If 2 Thess. 2:15 doesn’t promote oral Tradition, why does Paul mention it? Why does he say to hold fast to the paradosis, regardless of method of delivery (oral or written)? Why doesn’t he say to pay attention only to what is written, it that’s his point?

To get the kind of juxtaposition you want, Paul would have to say to hold fast to the traditions *not *by word of mouth *but *by letter.

The example of Paul, Barnabas, Mark and Silas (Acts 15:39-41) that seems to show that divisions can happen, and God can use them to further His plan, even if he doesn’t directly will them. Paul’s later reference to Mark (2 Timothy 4:11) shows that the hope of restored unity in the future isn’t in vain.

Yes, divisions can and do happen, and God can bring good out of anything. But are they something God desires? I have to say, given Christ’s prayer for unity, no. So then wouldn’t God have provided a way for unity at all points in time, not just some unspecified future?

 

[Kay_Cee]

I realized after posting that some confusion might arise concerning what is meant by “content” in oral and written tradition.

I agree that both have the same content in that both contain the word of God. However, they can cover different specifics.

We see this in written Tradition as well. For example, both the gospel of Matthew and the letter to the Romans are the word of God. As such, they in a way have the same general content, that is, the content of both is the word of God. However, they cover different specifics.

Hope I made this clear. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[1234]

Like so many others his plot to destroy the CC failed. that is because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He is not a saint and you have no statue of him but you follow his teachings. that is bad enough.

I *think *(I’m not a Lutheran, I’m an atheist) that Luther tried to purge the RC of its errors regarding the sale of indulgences. I don’t think that he meant to reform the church, at least not initially.

But he succeeded, at least in part.

His movement caused the Counter-Reformation.