Oral Tradition, is it infallible?

[lanman87]

So are you claiming that Catholics, especially before the reformation, didn’t change their lives and the world around them because of their trust in Christ?

So the Catholic Church hasn’t shown the world LOVE throughout it’s history?

Some did, some didn’t. Some had great faith, some were more interested in temporal power and wealth. Which is also true of those who attend Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian… churches.

Those in the Catholic church who are true follower of Christ showed great love to people. Those in the Catholic church who’s hearts were deceived and didn’t practice “true religion” did not. Which is also true of those in Evangelical and Protestant churches.

So Christ misspoke when He prayed that Christians would be completely ONE, in John 17:23?

No we will be completely one at the end of the age when all His children are called home and are set free from the flesh. That is when this prayer will be answered. Until that point we are still united by grace and sonship.

Any your proof is? Not saying there aren’t just saying you are usurping the power of God (Matthew 23:9) by claiming you know there are millions of people

While I do not personally know millions of people I do know that millions of people confess that Jesus is the Son of God, that millions of people worship, that millions of people serve, that millions of people give, that millions of people preach and teach, that millions of people pray, that millions of people proclaim their Love for Christ and their love for others…

 

[lanman87]

The only thing the reformation showed you is that you no longer have to listen to the Apostles or the faithful men they handed on the authority to teach (2 Timothy 2) and interpret the Bible.

But what if they weren’t faithful men and yet still claimed to have the authority to teach? Does the authority comes from being faithful or from holding an office?

 

[MT1926]

I didn’t claim they no longer sinned or struggled with sin…

I’m not the one that claims something has to be explicitly taught in the Bible. All I was pointing out is you are making a claim about St. Peter and St. Paul that is not in the Bible and applying it to others. Aren’t you breaking your own rules?

There weren’t in positions of leadership because they were sinless…

Amen. No objection. All I’m pointing out is they were still sinners.

I thought the reformers believed all sin was sin in the eyes of God and deny the Catholic teaching that there is a major difference between venial and mortal sin?

Which would mean what is the difference in what sin the minister was committing? By your standards any sin would disqualify someone from a place of authority.

I think the other thing we don’t know is, only God knows if these Bad Popes repented at the end of their lives. If they did repent then God would have already known this man would be reconciled to him in the end correct?

Do you think they would have… would they have fell in disgrace?

Here’s the thing though, these are the Apples and Oranges you are talking about.

I’m sure we could consider Judas to be a liar, a thief and since he is the one who gave up our Lord he could also be said to be guilty of murder. Does this automatically make all of the other Apostles fall in disgrace?

Don’t you see this is what you are doing.

You are picking on a few (like what 8) bad Popes out of 266 Popes, over the course of 2000 years, and saying see if a few bad ones can get in there then it all falls apart and none of the teachings can be true.

The thing is not a single one of these Bad Popes changed any teaching on faith and morals therefore how does their moral life affect the validity of what was already being taught in the Catholic Church?

If your pastor commits adulterer on Saturday and preaches on John 3:16 on Sunday, and everyone finds out on Monday, does that now prove that belief in Jesus doesn’t really give us eternal life?

So once you become a bishop you don’t have to maintain a good standing?

I never said that, I simple said that verse is speaking of qualification on becoming a Bishop.

You can become a lying, murderous thief and still be a bishop… and we are still obligated to follow lying, murderous, thieves?

Once again back to what I said up there How does the persons moral life prove what he is preaching is not truth?

Matthew 23:3
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

An immoral person can still preach the truth, no matter how many mortal sins they commit God’s word can not be changed.

The truth will always be the truth, even if no one believes it and a lie will always be a lie even if everyone believes it.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Some did, some didn’t. Some had great faith, some were more interested in temporal power and wealth. Which is also true of those who attend Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian… churches.

Those in the Catholic church who are true follower of Christ showed great love to people. Those in the Catholic church who’s hearts were deceived and didn’t practice “true religion” did not. Which is also true of those in Evangelical and Protestant churches.

OK???

So the reformation didn’t really teach the world anything new then as you claimed it did?

No we will be completely one at the end of the age when all His children are called home and are set free from the flesh. That is when this prayer will be answered. Until that point we are still united by grace and sonship.

Could you please explain how you are coming up with this interpretation?

What’s the meaning of “so that the world may know”? The world will no longer exist at the end of time? The only ones given eternal life at the end of the age will be the united believers who already know all this. So why would He pray for a visible sign of unity that no one needs to see?

While I do not personally know millions of people I do know that millions of people confess that Jesus is the Son of God, that millions of people worship, that millions of people serve, that millions of people give, that millions of people preach and teach, that millions of people pray, that millions of people proclaim their Love for Christ and their love for others…

I agree, but all I am asking is how is this proof that these millions abide in God and God in them?

Jesus told us that outwards signs are not evidence of an inward change of your heart.

Matthew 15:7-9
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Just want to point out that I believe the precepts of men is the variety of personal interpretations of the scriptural text.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

We have no way of knowing what this thorn was, St. Paul never tells us. However, he does tell us that this thorn continually comes from Satan, so we can be pretty sure it is not a literal thorn piercing his skin. The fact that it comes from Satan tells me it is most likely some kind of sinful thought or maybe he was unable to believe he was fully forgiven for all of the persecutions he performed. We don’t know.

I always thought this was the guilt he felt (as Saul) for stoning Stephen to death, the first deacon of the Church.

Just a guess

 

[lanman87]

Once again back to what I said up there How does the persons moral life prove what he is preaching is not truth?

All I was pointing out is you are making a claim about St. Peter and St. Paul that is not in the Bible and applying it to others.

The Bible records Peter and Paul as chosen men of faith. It also records them as struggling with sin. Think of Pauls famous I do what I don’t want to do and don’t do what I want to do. That is the situation we are all in because we are all at war with the flesh.

Not all sins disqualify someone to be an elder or deacon. But the Bible does give us sins that do disqualify. I mentioned these earlier.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

We believe the Must be clause is not only to become an Elder but you must be “those things” to stay and elder. So I an elder does something that loses the respect of the congregation he can be removed from leadership and so on.

That does not mean he will always be barred from leadership. If he repents it is possible for him to be restored.

If your pastor commits adulterer on Saturday and preaches on John 3:16 on Sunday, and everyone finds out on Monday, does that now prove that belief in Jesus doesn’t really give us eternal life?

Once again back to what I said up there How does the persons moral life prove what he is preaching is not truth?

An immoral person can still preach the truth, no matter how many mortal sins they commit God’s word can not be changed.

There is a difference is a rotten sinner reading John 3:16, which is an established truth, or saying repent, which is an established truth and determining what is “truth”.

 

[MT1926]

But what if they weren’t faithful men and yet still claimed to have the authority to teach?

Personally for me it’s all about faith. If it’s not possible to believe the Holy Spirit would guide these faithful men in these teachings and guide them to hand it on the interpretations to other faithful men, then everything falls apart. The oldest fragment of the Bible is a tiny piece of one verse of John’s Gospel dated to like the year 150. We don’t have the original manuscripts. The original writings were also painstakingly hand copied by faithful men throughout this exact same time.

It makes no logical sense to claim the faithful men might have been unfaithful in their oral teaching and not also believe it is possible these same men might have been unfaithful in their transcription.

It can only be both/and.

Does the authority comes from being faithful or from holding an office?

Neither. Authority can only be given never taken. One can be faithful but if never given the authority to teach then they are merely giving their opinions. One could also claim to hold an office and pretend to be authoritative but technically have none. I mean no offense by this but these would be the preachers who break off from other churches, because they don’t agree with something, and start their own church. It happens every time a nondenominational church opens down the block.

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

What’s the meaning of “so that the world may know” ? The world will no longer exist at the end of time? The only ones given eternal life at the end of the age will be the united believers who already know all this. So why would He pray for a visible sign of unity that no one needs to see?

You got me there. So why had Christianity never been unified? Even in the Catholic church there is a great variety of beliefs (which I’ve seen Catholics debate on this site). As a matter of fact it seems there the only things that are universally agree upon is Transubstantiation, the Pope, the authority of the Church, and that the Catholic Church is the “One Church”. I’ve even seen folks on this site arguing on what the CCC means in certain places.

Jesus told us that outwards signs are not evidence of an inward change of your heart.

And yet we can know who are Children of God and Children of the devil. 1 John is full of ways to tell if someone is Child of God or not. Notice it is not just looking at ourselves but also looking at how others live their lives.

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

 

[lanman87]

So the reformation didn’t really teach the world anything new then as you claimed it did?

It taught us that being In Christ and being in the Catholic church are two different things.

 

[MT1926]

I always thought this was the guilt he felt (as Saul) for stoning Stephen to death, the first deacon of the Church.

Just a guess

We will never know, but I am in agreement with you. Being “blinded” by the truth I can’t imagine anything else that would have instilled more guilt on St. Paul’s conscience than the memory of wrongly persecuting Christians.

What really makes me stop and think though is reading this verse in light of …

Luke 12:48 Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

Can you even imagine Jesus knocking you off a horse and speaking directly to you? Performing a miracle on you and then having the Holy Spirit show you the truth. We are talking something like a mental download of everything here. Talk about a theological overload.

Now imagine having all of this knowledge and the Truth about Jesus and the depth of His forgiveness and still you have this “thorn” (guilt or whatever it might be) in your side. Jesus just entrusted St. Paul with everything can you even fathom the depths of what would be demanded of him?

I am not here to judge St. Paul, (nor do I judge the Bad Popes) or how grave of a sin any of them committed in their lifetime. But in my mind I can’t imagine what would be required of someone after seeing what St. Paul saw and having the actual experience of our Lord. As compared to the Bad Popes, whom we don’'t know what their experience was of of Lord.

Basically, I think Jesus is showing us here that St. Paul’s strength comes from God’s grace which is multiplied in his weakness. St. Paul’s strength or moral life has nothing to do with the power that is given him from the grace of God.

Anyway I’m rambling. On a final note just wanted to point out to those struggling with the bad Popes. Isn’t it possible that many of the Bishops under the bad Popes might have been praying to God that he take this thorn (the bad Pope’s weakness) out of their sides. And God responded to the Bishops…

My Grace is Enough.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

We believe the Must be clause is not only to become an Elder but you must be “those things” to stay and elder. So I an elder does something that loses the respect of the congregation he can be removed from leadership and so on.

That does not mean he will always be barred from leadership. If he repents it is possible for him to be restored.

I have no objections here.

I think the point we aren’t connecting on is authority. If you the Elder does something am I the nobody in the congregation able to remove you myself or does someone in authority in you church need to remove you?

It comes down to authority. In the Catholic Church if a priest or Bishop would do these then someone in authority above him could remove him. The difference is the Catholic Church is more structured in a line of authority and we believe that Jesus (Our King) is the head of the Church and the Pope is his Vicar. Only the King (Jesus) can remove his Vicar (Pope).

You might not agree, but this Biblical teaching comes from…

Isaiah 22:15-25
15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: … 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, …, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father (which is were the word Papa or Pope comes from) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (these are the same keys of Matthew 16) 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”

We have enough faith in our Lord that if the Pope isn’t doing exactly what the Lord needs at that time in history that he will strike him down and remove him from office. We also believe and have faith that sometimes God allows bad things to happen (EVEN FROM A POPE) in order to bring a greater good.

There is a difference is a rotten sinner reading John 3:16, which is an established truth, or saying repent, which is an established truth and determining what is “truth”.

I’m not sure what you mean with this response? I was just asking if an immoral person can still teach the truth that was handed down from the beginning of the Church?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

Now imagine having all of this knowledge and the Truth about Jesus and the depth of His forgiveness and still you have this “thorn” (guilt or whatever it might be) in your side. Jesus just entrusted St. Paul with everything can you even fathom the depths of what would be demanded of him?

To his credit he said yes to Jesus.

It appears, just looking at 2 times "few" is used with regards “saved” , the human race isn’t fairing well

OT
Few, as in 8 were saved

NT
Jesus says Few will be saved

hopefully it’s way more than 8

 

[MT1926]

You got me there. So why had Christianity never been unified? Even in the Catholic church there is a great variety of beliefs (which I’ve seen Catholics debate on this site). As a matter of fact it seems there the only things that are universally agree upon is Transubstantiation, the Pope, the authority of the Church, and that the Catholic Church is the “One Church”. I’ve even seen folks on this site arguing on what the CCC means in certain places.

I am speaking of unity of teachings not unity of beliefs. A Church unified on it’s beliefs is not the same as a group of people under the same roof who believe different things.

The Catholic Church is one in it’s teachings. That’s why we print a Catechism, so every Catholic and non-Catholic can pick it up and know what you are required to believe to be a Catholic. As a Catholic I am bound to believe what has been dogmatically defined. If I personally refuse to believe the teaching that is not proof that the Catholic Church is not one in what it teaches. All you have proven here is that these disagreeing Catholic’s are not fully united to the One Church Founded By Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am sure we would agree that not every Catholic who is a member of the Catholic Church is going to be saved. In my opinion it will most likely be because that particular Catholics has refused to be One with the Church?

Would you agree?

And yet we can know who are Children of God and Children of the devil. 1 John is full of ways to tell if someone is Child of God or not. Notice it is not just looking at ourselves but also looking at how others live their lives.

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Could someone outwardly practice righteousness and outwardly love their brother and not be a child of God?

29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

Is it possible to practice righteousness and still break the commandments when no one is watching?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church is one in it’s teachings. That’s why we print a Catechism, so every Catholic and non-Catholic can pick it up and know what you are required to believe to be a Catholic. As a Catholic I am bound to believe what has been dogmatically defined. If I personally refuse to believe the teaching that is not proof that the Catholic Church is not one in what it teaches. All you have proven here is that these disagreeing Catholic’s are not fully united to the One Church Founded By Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well said

If the disagreement is serious enough, then maybe the following is triggered

 

[guanophore]

On what basis was it concluded that oral tradition was inspired in light of human frailty to miscommunicate.

Sacred Tradition (the Word of God infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit) was inspired when Jesus breathed upon the Apostles. They planted that word into the Churches they founded.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

No amount of human corruption can change the immutable Word of God. He is not dependent upon man to preserve it.

Isaiah 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Who among the apostolic circle taught us that oral tradition was inspired and therefore infallible?

If you cannot accept the Scriptures that state quite clearly that the Apsotolic preaching is the Word of God, I don’t think there is any help for you.

Lastly, it light of Paul’s claim that he did not receive his revelation from MAN, but God alone, (Gal.1) and in light of the fact that the written letters, gospels, epistles did not become inspired 4 centuries later, but when the ink dried the word of God was commissioned, how can we still place such trust in oral tradition?

This logic does not make any sense. The Word of God was inspired when it was preached and written. The Apostles commanded the believers to preserve them both.

 

[lanman87]

Could someone outwardly practice righteousness and outwardly love their brother and not be a child of God?

All we can do is go by what people say and what people do. By that evidence it is clear that there are millions of people with a genuine faith in Christ, who are filled with the Holy Spirit and are “in Christ and Christ is in them” in evangelical churches every Sunday. Are all of them “in Christ”, No I don’t think so. Some are faking it for various reason. For appearance, cultural reasons, to make Mom happy, whatever. But some, probably most, have a living faith and part of the body of Christ.

So to answer your question, yes, someone can outwardly appear to live righteously and love their brother and not be a child of God. But many who outwardly appear to live righteously and love their brother are a Child of God. Only God know the status of our heart. But how we live gives a picture, although imperfect, of what is in our heart.

 

[steve-b]

MT1926:

Which reformer?

All of them. This will sound crazy to a non-Catholic. But I think God used the reformation to teach the world a profound truth. That truth is that His people are those that trust in Christ to the point that their lives are changed.

God used the reformation to teach us that God’s people are a people with a changed heart, with a strong faith in Christ, and a heart full of love. Today we can see that God’s people are not just Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. Our intellectual understandings and how God’s grace works, about the role of the sacraments, about the role of Works in justification… none of those things make you one of “God’s People”. Those things may make you Catholic or Baptist or Methodist or Assembly of God or whatever. But what makes you a Child of God is having a heart changed from stone to flesh, being born of God by the indwelling Holy Spirit and trusting in Christ with all our heart and living in the faith of our hearts.

The truth of 1 John 4:13-16 is made known by the Reformation and all the craziness that followed.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him

The Reformation showed us that God gives His Spirit and abides in His Children based on His Grace and their Faith. We abide in Christ by a spiritual adoption and living faith. If we abide in Christ and He is us then we are part of His body, the church.

There are millions of Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Lutherans, Anglicans, non-denominational and so on that God has given His Spirit and that Abide in God and God in them. That is the what God taught us through the reformation and the rise of denominations.

Ianman,

The father of the deformation / revolt, was Luther. And from him came all the other deformers, heresies, and divisions they caused… What’s so interesting, the scriptures the deformers got from the Catholic Church, and touted as being their sole source of truth, actually condemned them who divided, and their activities and all those who do such things. As Paul said in Romans, to the Church of Rome, those who divide and cause division, don’t serve Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. What they do is evil, it’s from Satan, therefore he wants no one to be guilty of that. He said that here

The Greek word used for Division / dissension in that passage from Romans is διχοστασίαι

And it’s condemned as are those who do it

 

[lanman87]

I think the point we aren’t connecting on is authority. If you the Elder does something am I the nobody in the congregation able to remove you myself or does someone in authority in you church need to remove you?

The church itself is the authority. We see “Take it to the church” to mean take it to the assembly/congregation.

You might not agree, but this Biblical teaching comes from…

Your right I don’t agree. From what I’ve read Shebna and Eli’akim were actual people and it is my understanding that the prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah’s time. And while it is true that the Lord is ultimately in control of who becomes rulers and God is unfolding His plan for humanity. I just don’t see the correlation between God replacing someone on Hezekiah’s court with Papal authority. God can replace any ruler anytime He wants by any means He wants.

 

[MT1926]

The church itself is the authority. We see “Take it to the church” to mean take it to the assembly/congregation

That’s an interesting interpretation. So you believe Jesus was saying take it to your individual church, not One Unified Authoritative Church, and since no one person or the Church has any real authority the congregation can get together and take a vote?

And while it is true that the Lord is ultimately in control of who becomes rulers and God is unfolding His plan for humanity.

Interesting. So do you believe Jesus left us rulers? Or Were you just making a statement?

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

However, I am not inclined to believe the apostles taught something, that it wasn’t part of the everyday life of the church for decades or even centuries,

I think you are right. The problem is the disconnection with history, such that moderns do not know what was part of the everyday life of the Church. Many are limited by what remains in the NT record, which is valid, but not complete.

You can see where they start showing up in writings and start becoming part of the life of the church.

One can certainly see how they were documented as part of the life of the Church.

My question is simple, 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)?

It is a valid question. Many things that were practiced were never even mentioned in passing. The fathers wrote about issues of controversy, and since everyone accepted the role of Mary in the Church, there was nothing to write! we don’t see them writing about the Trinity, either, except in response to the heresies. The fact that the term Trinity was not adopted formally by the Church until 325 does not mean it only began to be believed at that time!

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

I think you are assuming they were not because they are not contained in controversies addressed by the early Fathers.

The doctrine of the Trinity was defended by the writings of the New Testament.

Along with Sacred Tradition, yes.

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.

Yes, and it was defended in part by what the Apostles believed and taught, that has been preserved infallibly in the Church. But then, as now, people read the NT and arrive at an understanding from Scripture that is not consistent with Sacred Tradition.