Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[lanman87]

I was wondering how long do you believe it should have taken for doctrine to develop? What would be your time frame and why

If they were taught by the Apostles wouldn’t they have been believed from the beginning.

As others have pointed out the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries before it was fully understood.

The doctrine of the Trinity was defended by the writings of the New Testament. While the word Trinity wasn’t used the writings make it clears that “In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God”. . And that “lying to the Holy Spirit was lying to God”. So while the term wasn’t used in the scriptures we can see the teaching by the Apostles through the Scriptures. It was defended well by the early church and became the accepted concept of how God can be Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet be One.

It is one thing to show, through the scriptures, that the Apostles believed something and further explain what they believed. It is another to come up with a new teaching and proclaim in part of what the apostles taught. Basically when we non-Catholics ask “how do you know the apostles taught that”? the answer we get is “because we say so”.

 

[MT1926]

I apologize, I totally screwed up. I didn’t mean to ask those questions yet. Sometimes I start typing and I tend to ask to much at one time.

As I stated in my first post before we can’t really discuss the ideas in my second post we have to first dealt with the issues in my first post. My bad. I apologize.

Could you give some thoughts on my first post and then we can come back to the second.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

If not what do you mean when you say I’m fine with saying the Apostles taught orally and in writing? and what do you believe they taught Orally?

I believe what they taught orally was consistent with what they wrote. I also believe that if something was taught orally that we needed to believe as part of the Gospel, that God would have insured that it was written so that there would be know doubt about its authenticity. I don’t believe the Writings contain everything that was taught but I do believe they contain all that was necessary and needed for believers and the church. In other words, not every word they taught was recorded but every concept was recorded.

For instance, I believe that if the Apostles taught that Mary was the new Eve and it is necessary for us to believe that Mary is the new Eve, was sinless, and the mediatrix of all graces then God would have seen fit to explicitly include it in what would become the New Testament.

 

[MT1926]

I’m not going to even address Mary, because these forums always go back and forth on the advanced stuff but tend to ignore the basics. For instance…

God would have seen fit to explicitly include it in what would become the New Testament.

It seems you are saying that we should believe only what is explicitly taught in scripture.

Could you point out where this is explicitly taught in scripture?

I believe what they taught orally was consistent with what they wrote.

Could you point to the explicit teaching in scripture that is the basis for this statement?

In other words, not every word they taught was recorded but every concept was recorded.

This brings me back to my basic question that keeps getting ignored. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to explicitly interpret there writings?

As I mentioned to TgG St. Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell us that St. Paul’s letters are hard to understand. Which brings me right back to my original question…

Are you fine with agreeing there would have to be an Oral tradition, concerning Biblical Interpretation, that would have needed to be handed on, by faithful men (2 Timothy 2), for us to be able to understand 2000 years later what the Apostles meant by what they wrote?

If not why do you believe the Holy Spirit didn’t think the interpretation was necessary, especial since the Spirit inspired St. Peter to tell us we might screw up?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

I’m not going to even address Mary, because these forums always go back and forth on the advanced stuff but tend to ignore the basics. For instance…

I was just Mary as an example.

It seems you are saying that we should believe only what is explicitly taught in scripture.

We should believe the Gospel. The only source of the Gospel to our generation are the scriptures.

It seems you are saying that we should believe only what is explicitly taught in scripture.

Could you point out where this is explicitly taught in scripture?

Sola Scriptura isn’t explicitly taught in scripture. However, the principal of relying on the scriptures as the final authority is certainly found in scripture. I also believe that the ECF didn’t separate scripture from tradition. As I’ve read the ECF’s I’ve found that when they say “Tradition is X” they then quote scriptures to back up the tradition. The reasons something was tradition is because it was found in scripture. Even the very earliest writings quote the Gospels and Paul’s writings as authoritative.

History tells us that just before the Reformation the Greek manuscripts were made available to the Western Church. Learning both Greek and Hebrew became the norm for serious scholars. When these scholars started reading the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they discovered that much of what was translated in the Vulgate was incorrect. For instance, where the Vulgate said “Do penance” the Greek actually said “repent”. It was this new understanding of Greek and Hebrew which lead many to understand that much of what the church taught was not in the scriptures and some of what it taught was based on an incorrect understanding due to the Latin translation.

The revival in Greek and Hebrew and Greek and Hebrew manuscripts being made available was one of several things that had to come together for the reformation to happen. It is also the root of Sola Scriptura. They (the reformers) saw the scriptures in a new light and they read the Greek fathers and discovered that the ECF’s relied on scripture to validate tradition. They discovered that the fathers deferred to scripture when disagreements arose. Anyone can say “This is part of tradition”. The scriptures is how you prove it. Which is basically the doctrine of sola scripture. For Tradition to be actual “tradition” and not someones opinion, then it had to bow to scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

The Holy Spirit outright tells us we might not understand what St. Paul wrote. Taking this fact, direct from the Holy Spirit, why didn’t the Holy Spirit lead St. Paul to write an interpretation of what he meant.

Frankly, I think you’ve read too much into it. Peter did not say that his readers did not understand or that he himself didn’t understand Paul’s message. He said, "ignorant and unstable (people) twist it to their own destruction as they do other scriptures.

why didn’t the Holy Spirit lead St. Paul to write an interpretation of what he meant.

This wasn’t a hermeneutics issue here. This wasn’t a problem with skills of interpretation. This was a heart problem. These twisted people wanted Paul dead because of his message. They went around undermining him any way they could.

 

[tgGodsway]

you keep giving interpretations of scripture from men who spoke 1500 years after the Apostles and claim, without any proof, that their interpretations line up with those of the Apostolic circle

Honestly, I am unaware of all that the reformers have written on the many topics of theology. I have only scratched the surface on that. I don’t care to some degree. That’s not to say that I take their opinions lightly. I respect them on many levels, but they alone are not the measuring stick to truth.

I simply use a face-value method of interpretation. Many of these so-called “problem passages” are really not that much of a problem at all. A few good rules of common sense interpretation yields a satisfying answer for me.

For example: If we read in the N.T. Jesus healed the women. We shouldn’t need a debate over the statement.

The context will supply all that is needed. Perhaps it wasn’t a physical healing but a healing of the heart. How can we know? … we just need to read the passage at face-value.

Now we see through a glass dimly but then, face to face … What could Paul ever mean here? … was he talking about physical sight? … the context will supply the rules. Literal and physical sight was probably not what he was going for.

Paul said, I die daily… … Did he mean that each day he literally dies and then comes back to life?.. of course not. Well how do we decide? The immediate context.

You throw a difficult passage at me and let’s see what I come up with MT.

 

[tgGodsway]

if all of these things are part of what was taught orally by the Apostles why did it take decades or even centuries for them to even be mentioned in passing by the church fathers and/or be recorded as accepted practices of the church (as opposed to practices of individuals)?

When you say, “all of these things are part of what was taught…” I would need specifics. I can understand the concept of oral tradition and have said it must only be a carbon copy of what the holy Spirit was saying through the founders of the Church in each letter. It was the word of God before the ink dried.

The burden is on the CC to show the consistency between the scriptures and tradition on each topic. Oral Tradition says Peter became the first pope in 42 ad. The burden is on them to show the continuity of thought and action by the founders over this oral tradition. Was there any acknowledgement at all? no… Did any of them acknowledge a priesthood in this fashion? no…

To say that tradition should NOT be questioned because it is infallible, is to say that the tradition is not the carbon copy but the actual source that came from God’s mouth. But we both know that the chain of command presented in scripture is presented differently: From the Father’s mouth to the next in command, His only Son, and then from Him to the next in command, ( His apostles) and from them to the next in command, their close disciples. and so on…

The authority of the Apostles would be undermined if oral tradition got the last word over the gospel. This is why Paul wrote what he did in Gal. 1. But I’m preaching to the choir here with you Ianman87.

Blessings,

 

[tgGodsway]

This brings me back to my basic question that keeps getting ignored. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to explicitly interpret there writings?

MT this question seems unfair. How can we know why the Spirit would do that?.. We can only assume that the first century people who conversed in their common language and practiced life in their common culture were reached by a common word.

When the Apostle’s letters began to circulate, I doubt there was some kind of communication break-down because Paul’s speech for instance was too complex. I agree, some of what was said needed explanation and real preaching to drive home the points. But most of the Jews were already well verses in O.T. themes. Jesus, on many occasions never gave a fair explanation, He just said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. …

We are the one’s far removed by culture, custom, time, and tradition. Getting a bible translator to translate words from one culture to today’s culture 2000 years later, is a difficult skill.

The translators do not want to rob the meaning of the passage by using words that do not do justice to their Greek counterparts. Add in Jewish customs and various genre’s of tradition, and any given passage can be misrepresented. So translators search for the transcending truth in each theme if possible. What did God want everyone to know in every generation? We tend to get bogged down on specifics of 1st. Century time, such as how women were commanded to wear a head-covering, or something like that.

I think I’ve said too much here. bye.

 

[tgGodsway]

This is an excellent response Ianman87. Awesome and true.

 

[tgGodsway]

Benadam,… thank you for your comments here. allow me to take each point in sequence.

On the basis that that was for hundreds of years the only expression of Word of God.

No… the gospel letters and epistles were circulated in the 1st. century and was already the word of God before the ink dried. We did not need the 4th. century Church to rehash it. But they did.

The original 12 Apostles themselves were the “living epistles” to the truth and they alone,(at that time) had the authority to preach it. Why? Because they were the eye witnesses to the resurrection. Any oral tradition produced from the Apostle’s lips (and practiced by others outside of the apostolic circle) could only be no more than a carbon copy of all that they learned. Why? Because the hearer of the Word were subject to those preaching the word. If the hearer of the word formulated traditions around the word they heard, those tradition are also subject to those who preached it. In this case it was the Apostles.

Again, the original 12 themselves were the original source because of their special place as eye-witnesses to the resurrection. Once they died off, their own letters, which were already in circulation, were understood to be the “written word of God” all to preserver over time.

Oral tradition is inspired Word. If you agree that it is in the beginning inspired then it is a gift from God that is not temporal but eternal. If you claim it ended, when did it and who expressed it’s final Word?

Oral tradition involves, in many cases, unnamed people who became the receptors to the Apostle’s teachings in various places of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. To say that these traditions were divinely composed as a direct result of the Apostle’s teaching and therefore became infallible words, is important enough to examine in light of the scripture itself. Does the inspired and infallible scripture teach this concept? If so, please reference it.

Paul made no mention of oral tradition being divinely inspired and infallible. Peter made no such mention either. James, John, and all other gospel writers made no such claim.
Then who is it that DID make this claim! how oral tradition is infallible? Were they among the 12 apostles? Were they among the secondary apostles, such as Paul?

Who decided this and when? Since it is the CC who makes this claim, then the CC must produce the eye-witness to such a doctrine.

 

[MT1926]

I simply use a face-value method of interpretation. Many of these so-called “problem passages” are really not that much of a problem at all. A few good rules of common sense interpretation yields a satisfying answer for me.

Exactly the point I’m trying to make. You simply form your opinion based on what you interprete to be the face value. This is what I’m trying to get you to see. You freely admit it is you doing the interpreting, you are the one who interpreted the context of the passage using your common sense. I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong. What I am saying is you are wrong when you claim that your interpretation is what the Apostolic circle intended the interpretation to be. You have no extra biblical evidence to support your authoritative claim.

You throw a difficult passage at me and let’s see what I come up with MT.

Sure we never finished discussing…

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Questions I would like answered…

Who are these faithful men?

Were these faithful men suppose to teach other men?

Where did these faithful me go?

Is it possible these faithful men wrote extra biblical writings explaining the meaning of scripture?

Was Timothy the only faithful man given these instructions or did the other 12 Apostles give these very same instructions to the faithful men that followed them?

Why did Timothy and the other followers of the Apostles disobey Christ by not teaching other faithful men to teach others until the present day?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

MT this question seems unfair. How can we know why the Spirit would do that?

Why is a question you don’t have an answer for an unfair question? I don’t mean to sound rude but you obviously agree that scripture needs an interpretation. However, you also disagree that the handed down oral traditions is what guides us in the true meaning of scripture handed down from the Apostles. Well to me Loving Jesus means finding the truth. I find it hard to believe Jesus would make it difficult for me to find the truth. So to me it’s pretty obvious that the easiest way to learn is to be taught, which would me Jesus would love me enough to leave me teachers to guide me.

I agree, some of what was said needed explanation and real preaching to drive home the points.

What’s changed that has made this preaching obsolete?

But most of the Jews were already well verses in O.T. themes.

But what about the gentiles.

Jesus, on many occasions never gave a fair explanation, He just said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. …

Yep and then He took his Apostles aside and interpreted for them what He meant.

We are the one’s far removed by culture, custom, time, and tradition. Getting a bible translator to translate words from one culture to today’s culture 2000 years later, is a difficult skill.

Kind of makes me think some should have been left in charge to oversee the translators and have the final say. Wouldn’t you agree. After all the Jehovah Witnesses think their translation is accurate.

What did God want everyone to know in every generation? We tend to get bogged down on specifics of 1st. Century time, such as how women were commanded to wear a head-covering, or something like that.

Are you serious? So you think the Apostles interpreted their writings in a way that would apply to every generation?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

We should believe the Gospel. The only source of the Gospel to our generation are the scriptures.

And this is explicitly taught where?

Sola Scriptura isn’t explicitly taught in scripture.

Totally agree

You seem to point to the Church fathers a lot. They also pointed to scriptures in regards to the real presence, the Pope and even Mary. Do you agree with them in what they taught or do you just agree with them when it lines up with what you believe?

Same goes with the reformers. Most of them believed in the teachings on Mary and Baptism, which most evangelicals seem to deny now. Did these reformers get these wrong when they read the Greek?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[Benadam]

No… the gospel letters and epistles were circulated in the 1st. century and was already the word of God before the ink dried. We did not need the 4th. century Church to rehash it. But they did.

I wonder if they saw their letters like you see their letters… And it was the word of God before the ink dried because it came out of their mouths that way… C’mon I think we did need the 4 th century fathers to rehash it…wait, you put all your eggs in that 4th century canon basket, well, except you took out the books that would keep you from following anti-christ, and then say you don’t need those guys who canonized the Scriptures? I don’t think you’re connecting with Joe Christian of the first century. He’s much happier lettin’ the Church do the teaching , he don’t care about that apostolic letter in the back room desk drawer…

The original 12 Apostles themselves were the “living epistles” to the truth and they alone,(at that time) had the authority to preach it. Why? Because they were the eye witnesses to the resurrection. Any oral tradition produced from the Apostle’s lips (and practiced by others outside of the apostolic circle) could only be no more than a carbon copy of all that they learned. Why? Because the hearer of the Word were subject to those preaching the word. If the hearer of the word formulated traditions around the word they heard, those tradition are also subject to those who preached it. In this case it was the Apostles.

Oh man, the Public Witness how awesome it must have been. Well I get the feeling as elevated as it was a descent into the dark side too…Why would the Oral tradition stop? You don’t trust the fellers to pick the right stuff? You trusted them up to what point? The guys the Apostles picked? The guys who were picked by the Apostles couldn’t pick anymore? How many picks does it take to run out of inspiration? You know the Apostles expected the Holy Spirit to inspire teachers of the Word until Jesus came back… If they spoke the Word can’t they decide to have a succession of teachers"? I mean that’s how Moses did it. I know one thing for sure. If the Church dropped the Apostolic succession and the Authority to interpret and teach. and just let everyone decide for themselves what scriptures mean, you would be right about that Apostacy. Funny, Faith is through hearing and you don’t trust a hearer of the Word. Even if the hearer is a specially chosen teacher of a teaching body that includes the Apostles.who transmitted the Holy Spirit to everyone Chosen.You’ll put your trust in readers of the Word though. The Spirit breathed out is heard. . The Spirit breathed in is read. It takes a special grace to breath in the Spirit

continued

 

[Benadam]

Again, the original 12 themselves were the original source because of their special place as eye-witnesses to the resurrection. Once they died off, their own letters, which were already in circulation, were understood to be the “written word of God” all to preserver over time.

The expression of the Word changes as the times and conditions change. It has a characteristic during the Public Witness that is unique to that time. It had a different character when passed down to those who would teach what the Apostles laid down. The Church Father’s were inspired in a unique way fit for their times too.That gives me confidence because the Holy Spirit knows just what and how to inspire for each generation

Oral tradition involves, in many cases, unnamed people who became the receptors to the Apostle’s teachings in various places of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. To say that these traditions were divinely composed as a direct result of the Apostle’s teaching and therefore became infallible words, is important enough to examine in light of the scripture itself. Does the inspired and infallible scripture teach this concept? If so, please reference

They were Sacred Traditions because those who received the Holy Spirit were chosen by those who are inspired by the Holy Spirit. They will be guided by the Holy Spirit to pick a new guy and bestow on Him the Holy Spirit…Who by the Grace of the Holy Spirit will pick…divinely composed stuff isn’t Sacred because of the Apostles teaching. Catholics don’t really think like that. It’s Sacred because of the Holy Spirit who has a special mission from Christ to the Apostles successors.

continued

 

[Benadam]

Paul made no mention of oral tradition being divinely inspired and infallible. Peter made no such mention either. James, John, and all other gospel writers made no such claim.
Then who is it that DID make this claim! how oral tradition is infallible? Were they among the 12 apostles? Were they among the secondary apostles, such as Paul?

I think the authority of the Oral tradition was a given. It really is how the Word of God is preached. Faith is through hearing is a testimony to the expectation the the Oral tradition is inspired.Jesus said, those who hear you hear me. Oral tradition. I don’t think anyone for a thousand years ever considered there would be a time when the Church’s authoriity to teach would be questioned. The way you think of scriptures is foreign to Christians up until recently. .

Who decided this and when? Since it is the CC who makes this claim, then the CC must produce the eye-witness to such a doctrine.

You’ll have to take that up with the Apostles for not telling their successors that people can enterpret the Scriptures on their own. tgGodsway, the Church has been doing it this way since forever. It’s like a tradition in a family that has been making sandwiches with mayo like they were told by their ancient wise ancestor and someone comes along 1500 years later and say’s …Hey! who told you to do that like that? That’s just wrong.

tgGodsway, thanks for being frank and honest about this stuff. I am praying that you understand the peace it gives Catholics to have an authority to interpret Scripture. In the end without an authority to teach the meaning of Scripture we have to trust ourselves or be looking for one. Even then we have to like them.

 

[lanman87]

You seem to point to the Church fathers a lot. They also pointed to scriptures in regards to the real presence, the Pope and even Mary. Do you agree with them in what they taught or do you just agree with them when it lines up with what you believe?

Same goes with the reformers. Most of them believed in the teachings on Mary and Baptism, which most evangelicals seem to deny now. Did these reformers get these wrong when they read the Greek?

The ECF, mid-evil Catholic Theologians, Reformers, and modern Evangelicals are all fallible men. All these groups were influenced by other theologians, culture, government, religious traditions, personal prejudices, life experiences and so forth. There were all also, to one degree or another, sinful men who had to fight back pride and selfishness plus who knows what other sins. So all of them should be taken with a grain of salt. Not only because of their fallibility but also because of mine. I’m in the same boat they were.

We should examine them all and examine their teachings and arguments. We should examine the historical settings of what issues they were addressing and understand why particular views prevailed. But in the end we have to understand that all of those things are opinions about the Gospel and not the Gospel itself.

This fallibility in all men is why there never has been and never will be 100% agreement on all doctrine and practices of faith by all who profess Christ (at least not on this earth). The good news is that we are not united by doctrine. We are united by Grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit which makes us all adopted sons and daughters of God. We are family. Sometimes we fuss and fight, sometimes we rally to support each other, sometimes we are estranged from each other but in the end we are united by blood. Not our blood but the blood of Christ.

 

[MT1926]

But in the end we have to understand that all of those things are opinions about the Gospel and not the Gospel itself.

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this statement. Wouldn’t our own interpretation of the Gospel also be an opinion? Therefore, if every single person, with the exception of the 13 Apostles, can only form opinions of what they believed the Gospel message is, how can we ever know with 100% certainty what is Jesus’ truth?

Why wouldn’t Jesus want us to know the 100% true (infallible) gospel message?

If we are going to take the ECF, many being the successors of the Apostles, basically the “faithful men” of 2 Timothy 2, with a grain of salt, wouldn’t it make sense to not even give any modern Evangelical of the last 500 years even a moment of our time? In my mind if I am to read the ECF, basically the smartest men of the first 300 years after Christ, with skepticism, why would I ever believe anyone that is even further removed from Christ?

And even more importantly why would Jesus come, teach for three years, die for us and then want to hide the truth, of what His teachings meant, from us?

This fallibility in all men is why there never has been and never will be 100% agreement on all doctrine and practices of faith by all who profess Christ (at least not on this earth).

Do you think 100% agreement was important to Jesus?

John 17:20-23
20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,[a] so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

In verse 20 Jesus isn’t just praying for the Apostles He is praying for all of us Christians in every age to come that we may be “ONE”. If you keep reading to verse 23 Jesus doubles down that we may become “COMPLETELY ONE”. Not just one in believing that He is the Christ, but completely one in all that we believe, that our unified belief will be a visible unity so that the whole world will know. That sound like Jesus wants a lot more for us than to just agree on one or two things about him.

The good news is that we are not united by doctrine.

Where is this explicitly taught in scripture?

We are united by Grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit which makes us all adopted sons and daughters of God.

This I do agree with, however without doctrine and a visible authority to guide us, we can never be ONE, in the way that Jesus prayed for us to be One.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

If we are going to take the ECF, many being the successors of the Apostles, basically the “faithful men” of 2 Timothy 2, with a grain of salt, wouldn’t it make sense to not even give any modern Evangelical of the last 500 years even a moment of our time?

Do you think the writings of the ECF are infallible?