many Reformed folks need to rethink determination and criter

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:4c6abe31bb]but then you say that Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are somehow excluded from that external community. That is flawed reasoning.[/quote:4c6abe31bb]

I think you misunderstood me. They are not Christians because orthodoxy has already been determined during the ecumenical councils (we can build on that too, though, when they are ecumenical). Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians because orthodoxy has already said so: the Trinity has been declared as true doctrine, therefore they are unorthodox.

See what I'm saying now??

Paul
 
Yeah, Paul, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more now. Granted, at the time the ecumenical councils met, the doctrines stated in the creeds were universally agreed upon - people like Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals have simply denied them after the fact. So it seems to me that you're saying that if the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that.

Under that definition, if one considers Rome to have been a false church during the Reformation, the entire external true church (i.e. all Reformed/Protestant Christians, since the two terms were synonymous for a short time during that period) [i:d292d9a14c]would have[/i:d292d9a14c] actually agreed on, say, the doctrines of grace. So therefore, even though they were denied by true churches after that, they should be considered a binding part of orthodoxy.

So I guess you were right in saying that the whole question of our perspective of "orthodoxy" is directly correspondent to our view of whether or not we consider Rome to have been a true church during the Reformation. So maybe we should conclude that this issue has been sufficiently discussed, and move on to a continual discussion of Rome as a true church during the Reformation, in the existing thread for that topic.

In Christ,
 
[quote:b41c00ee26][i:b41c00ee26]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:b41c00ee26]
Yeah, Paul, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more now. Granted, at the time the ecumenical councils met, the doctrines stated in the creeds were universally agreed upon - people like Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals have simply denied them after the fact. So it seems to me that you're saying that if the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that.

Under that definition, if one considers Rome to have been a false church during the Reformation, the entire external true church (i.e. all Reformed/Protestant Christians, since the two terms were synonymous for a short time during that period) [i:b41c00ee26]would have[/i:b41c00ee26] actually agreed on, say, the doctrines of grace. So therefore, even though they were denied by true churches after that, they should be considered a binding part of orthodoxy.

So I guess you were right in saying that the whole question of our perspective of "orthodoxy" is directly correspondent to our view of whether or not we consider Rome to have been a true church during the Reformation. So maybe we should conclude that this issue has been sufficiently discussed, and move on to a continual discussion of Rome as a true church during the Reformation, in the existing thread for that topic.

In Christ, [/quote:b41c00ee26]

:amen:

Some considerations for your second paragraph: the ONLY confession/creed that I can think of that most everybody would agree upon is the 'Augsburg Confession'. So, that would be the only one that is [i:b41c00ee26]solemnly determined as true doctrine[/i:b41c00ee26] by the church. Representatives from the whole Church do not need to be present, they just need to be agreed upon (as in the case of some ecumenical councils).

I don't think that an [i:b41c00ee26]idea[/i:b41c00ee26] of 'doctrines of grace' would qualify though. There needs to be something tangible (i.e. council or creed).

Remember this is only IF Rome was not a true church during that time. Also, you must be able to prove that the Orthodox were not a true church. I think they both were true: just a divided Kingdom, like we have today (denominationalism).

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt]
 
"If the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that." In conclusion, if one sees that as a sufficient definition of universally binding orthodoxy, they're view of what is and isn't "orthodox" will directly correspond with their view of whether or not Rome was a true church during the Reformation.

Personally, I don't really even like that definition, since it's making the binding standards for truth dependent upon the existence of a time when everyone happens to understand them. But I don't think further debate of it being a beneficial definition will really be productive at this point, as we have been vigorously debating that throughout the whole thread, which has gotten fairly long. So as much as I usually hate the use of this phrase, I think we should probably agree to disagree on just how to [i:d3ac2f8840]define[/i:d3ac2f8840] orthodoxy in the first place (i.e. either as an intrinsic, unchangeable issue, solely dependent on Scripture, [i:d3ac2f8840]or[/i:d3ac2f8840] as a pragmatic, changeable issue, dependent upon history as well as Scripture). It seems like the term means different things to us, which we may just have to abide by. Again, I think that in light of that, and in light of the correspondence between Rome's validity and our view of what doctrines the above definition of orthodoxy would include, we should move on to the existing discussion of the standards for a true church, and Rome's fulfillment of them during the Reformation. This has been a good thread.

In Christ,
 
[quote:7ec7b3c207](i.e. either as an intrinsic, unchangeable issue, solely dependent on Scripture, or as a pragmatic, changeable issue, dependent upon history as well as Scripture)[/quote:7ec7b3c207]

Closing statement: My idea is that we [i:7ec7b3c207]declare[/i:7ec7b3c207] something as orthodoxy. which then gives us the right to say such and such is orthodox. So then I don't think it is changeable, unless if you mean in the sence of adding to our understanding of what already is true.

Okay, enough of this. Lets start a NEW thread on the qualifications of a true church, before we get to Rome specifically. All of our discussions on this subject have been on threads of other topics.

Paul
 
Latecomer

I hope you'll forgive me for coming on after the closing statements --I only really started reading this thread this evening. I think that what I will say will be different to the historical discussion that you are beginning on the state of the Roman church.

Paul, it seems to me that the addition of a couple of adjectives might be helpful in clarifying these discussions. Those who interacted with you persistently thought of orthodoxy in terms of what we could call [i:5657e46342]Biblical orthodoxy[/i:5657e46342], that is, doctrine that is in line with Scripture. You spoke, on the other hand, of what I would call [i:5657e46342]ecclesiastical orthodoxy[/i:5657e46342], that is, what the Church agrees on as the right understanding of Scripture. Thus, Calvinism is orthodox when considered in a Biblical light. It is acceptable within the orthodox ecclesiastical community. But it is not itself a test of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the same way that the Nicene creed would be. Is that pretty much what you were driving at?

Now, I must admit that a problem strikes me in your view of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. It is that you select the 3 creeds as being the ecclesiastical orthodoxy so far established, and deny the status of true Christian to any who disagree with them. But in fact, the Nicene creed was not the faith of the universal church at the time of its original promulgation --witness the frequent exiles of Athanasius after Nicea, the hot debates at the council itself, the widespread support for Arius, the middle-of-the-roaders, etc. Now certainly, the true church held to the truth: by God's grace, that truth was established as ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But my point is, that in these "agreements of the universal church", people who had been in the church up to that point got kicked out --and to deny the validity of their being in the church on grounds of ecclesiastical orthodoxy begs the question. Which forces us back, I think, to the view that ultimately ecclesiastical orthodoxy is of great, but limited utility, and must always be subordinate to Biblical orthodoxy --which, of course, is the position of the WCF, as Brett already posted
 
[quote:9b3b5eeab7]Paul, it seems to me that the addition of a couple of adjectives might be helpful in clarifying these discussions. Those who interacted with you persistently thought of orthodoxy in terms of what we could call Biblical orthodoxy, that is, doctrine that is in line with Scripture. You spoke, on the other hand, of what I would call ecclesiastical orthodoxy , that is, what the Church agrees on as the right understanding of Scripture. Thus, Calvinism is orthodox when considered in a Biblical light. It is acceptable within the orthodox ecclesiastical community. But it is not itself a test of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the same way that the Nicene creed would be. Is that pretty much what you were driving at?[/quote:9b3b5eeab7]

Exactly! I wish I made it that clear.

[quote:9b3b5eeab7]Now, I must admit that a problem strikes me in your view of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. It is that you select the 3 creeds as being the ecclesiastical orthodoxy so far established, and deny the status of true Christian to any who disagree with them. But in fact, the Nicene creed was not the faith of the universal church at the time of its original promulgation --witness the frequent exiles of Athanasius after Nicea, the hot debates at the council itself, the widespread support for Arius, the middle-of-the-roaders, etc. Now certainly, the true church held to the truth: by God's grace, that truth was established as ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But my point is, that in these "agreements of the universal church", people who had been in the church up to that point got kicked out --and to deny the validity of their being in the church on grounds of ecclesiastical orthodoxy begs the question. Which forces us back, I think, to the view that ultimately ecclesiastical orthodoxy is of great, but limited utility, and must always be subordinate to Biblical orthodoxy --which, of course, is the position of the WCF, as Brett already posted[/quote:9b3b5eeab7]

Yes, from a Presbyterian viewpoint it begs the question. Thats why I am beginning to see the need for Apostolic tradition and Episcopalian government. I mean, it seems that its the only way things can work consistently: how else can the Apostolic Church declare something ex cathedra?

I am starting to scare myself that I'm starting to take a Roman view on this. But it is the only way I can see how this all works out. See my thread on "Apostolic succession." Try to detour me before it is too late.

One can say that believing all these things is not necessary. But I believe that without ecclesiastical orthodoxy declared ex cathedra, nothing can be coherent. There must be a unifying principle in our [i:9b3b5eeab7]interpretation[/i:9b3b5eeab7] of the Bible. Or else how could we be unified?

Paul
 
Yes, it's always frightening when your foundations suddenly seem wobbly. I will pray for you about it.


[quote:0bad632227]
Try to detour me before it is too late.
[/quote:0bad632227]

I don't have all the answers, obviously, but two things strike me, in addition to what I posted on the apostolic succession thread.

One, I am not sure that apostolic succession or ex cathedra declarations take you any further forward. Again we have the difficulty of who speaks ex cathedra. If you make humans in any form the unifying principle for interpretation, you have the problem of "which humans?" Who defines apostolic tradition? What about divergent apostolic traditions? Why should some really pretty nebulous tradition take precedence over a well-defined written apostolic tradition? And doesn't the unwritten apostolic tradition also need to be interpreted?

Two, is that the perspicuity of Scripture is vital. Scripture is sufficiently comprehensible to those who have the mind of Christ. Those who have this mind will, therefore, on major issues tend to agree, precisely because Scripture is perspicuous. I have experienced this personally when I have studied Scripture and realized something that was brand-new to me --and then I find that it had been taught before.

On a practical level, it might be helpful to focus on a different issue for a while. Sometimes it's good to turn away from tough debates for a while to study something really uplifting, like the believer's union with Christ (which I just started a thread on), or the character of God. It usually helps me to gain some perspective and balance when I've been disturbed by some particular issue, if I consider something more devotional. And particularly a greater concentration on Scripture itself with a corresponding diminution in men's productions. There is nothing like the word of God itself.
 
[quote:51addf3fd9]One, I am not sure that apostolic succession or ex cathedra declarations take you any further forward. Again we have the difficulty of who speaks ex cathedra. If you make humans in any form the unifying principle for interpretation, you have the problem of "which humans?" Who defines apostolic tradition? What about divergent apostolic traditions? Why should some really pretty nebulous tradition take precedence over a well-defined written apostolic tradition? And doesn't the unwritten apostolic tradition also need to be interpreted?[/quote:51addf3fd9]

Who speaks ex cathedra? Those who can trace apostolic succession. The Early Fathers always used this. Without it, I'm afraid I can't prove anything before AD200; not even the Scriptures themselves. How do you know they haven't been radically changed? All of our manuscripts stop at the 3rd and 4rth centuries (except for pieces).

Paul
 
I read recently an analogy of the church as being an omellette that is made of eggs. It seems like maybe you are focussing too heavily on the omellette right now, and are in danger of ending up with doctrines that deny the eggs. I am not well versed in all these questions, and I'm not pretending that I can say anything profound: but I have lived in Mexico, and I do know what an omellette without eggs looks like. This is a country where Roman Catholicism has had full sway, and looks much more like itself than it does in the states, where it has to make all sorts of concessions to former Protestants, people who live next door to Protestants, etc. It is a woman who believes that God will be appeased for sin by taking money from from the household necessities (like shoes for her children) to pay the priest for masses for a dead child. It is a mass of poor people like we don't have in the states crawling across a courtyard to an ornate building who believe that the Eternal God is going to be satisfied for their sin by their hail marys, their crawling, and their money. It is a whole teeming country who pray to Mary instead of Christ, as if Christ dying for them wasn't proof of His goodwill and approachableness. It is millions of people who are not allowed to have any assurance of salvation for themselves or their dead loved ones, and the only comfort they are offered is the goodwill of a God who accepts their money for their souls. You don't realize the spiritual and material poverty these people are kept in by the church of Rome. I'm saying this because I think you don't understand that your dilemma about different interpretations and unity would not be solved by ex-cathedra declarations: there are just as different interpretations of popes and councils (such as the vast difference in doctrine and practice between Catholicism in the states and in Mexico) as there are different interpretations of Scripture. The staunchest Catholics I know in the states would utterly reject the Catholicism of Mexico. Yet they are naive: they assume that Catholicism is the same everywhere, and even more naively they assume that American Catholicism is the standard. The fact is that over the centuries, the pope has only interpreted a handful of Scriptures ex-cathedra; and they have no more unity when it comes to Scripture than they think we have.

I would also encourage you to focus on other things for a little while-- especially maybe on the eggs instead of the omellette. The unity we have is primarily an individual union with Christ, that unites us all in Him. You say that you feel in danger of being convinced of these doctrines: the Bible does give us a very practical admonition to cease from doctrines that are causing us to err.
 
Paul,

On the historical side of the argument, I will let others who are better equipped respond to you.

Apostolic succession, though, is problematic. What sort of succession is it if we arrive at a place where the apostolic foundation is denied? Why are we compelled to think of succession in what I can only call materialistic terms? Surely the question of faithfulness to apostolic testimony is fundamental in thinking of succession. I may be ordained by someone who was ordained by someone...who was ordained by Paul; but if I am not true to Paul's legacy, I am not truly his successor.

Certainly, the early church appealed to continuity in teaching --but they did that with the OT as well.

How do I know the Scriptures haven't changed? Because God is faithful --something, by the way, we know from the OT.
 
[quote:1c73b5ac34][i:1c73b5ac34]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:1c73b5ac34]
I read recently an analogy of the church as being an omellette that is made of eggs. It seems like maybe you are focussing too heavily on the omellette right now, and are in danger of ending up with doctrines that deny the eggs. I am not well versed in all these questions, and I'm not pretending that I can say anything profound: but I have lived in Mexico, and I do know what an omellette without eggs looks like. This is a country where Roman Catholicism has had full sway, and looks much more like itself than it does in the states, where it has to make all sorts of concessions to former Protestants, people who live next door to Protestants, etc. It is a woman who believes that God will be appeased for sin by taking money from from the household necessities (like shoes for her children) to pay the priest for masses for a dead child. It is a mass of poor people like we don't have in the states crawling across a courtyard to an ornate building who believe that the Eternal God is going to be satisfied for their sin by their hail marys, their crawling, and their money. It is a whole teeming country who pray to Mary instead of Christ, as if Christ dying for them wasn't proof of His goodwill and approachableness. It is millions of people who are not allowed to have any assurance of salvation for themselves or their dead loved ones, and the only comfort they are offered is the goodwill of a God who accepts their money for their souls. You don't realize the spiritual and material poverty these people are kept in by the church of Rome. I'm saying this because I think you don't understand that your dilemma about different interpretations and unity would not be solved by ex-cathedra declarations: there are just as different interpretations of popes and councils (such as the vast difference in doctrine and practice between Catholicism in the states and in Mexico) as there are different interpretations of Scripture. The staunchest Catholics I know in the states would utterly reject the Catholicism of Mexico. Yet they are naive: they assume that Catholicism is the same everywhere, and even more naively they assume that American Catholicism is the standard. The fact is that over the centuries, the pope has only interpreted a handful of Scriptures ex-cathedra; and they have no more unity when it comes to Scripture than they think we have.

I would also encourage you to focus on other things for a little while-- especially maybe on the eggs instead of the omellette. The unity we have is primarily an individual union with Christ, that unites us all in Him. You say that you feel in danger of being convinced of these doctrines: the Bible does give us a very practical admonition to cease from doctrines that are causing us to err. [/quote:1c73b5ac34]

That was well said. Wow.
 
[quote:a5f988d720]
Yes, from a Presbyterian viewpoint it begs the question. Thats why I am beginning to see the need for Apostolic tradition and Episcopalian government. I mean, it seems that its the only way things can work consistently: how else can the Apostolic Church declare something ex cathedra?

I am starting to scare myself that I'm starting to take a Roman view on this. But it is the only way I can see how this all works out. See my thread on "Apostolic succession." Try to detour me before it is too late.

One can say that believing all these things is not necessary. But I believe that without ecclesiastical orthodoxy declared ex cathedra, nothing can be coherent. There must be a unifying principle in our interpretation of the Bible. Or else how could we be unified?

[/quote:a5f988d720]

You are missing something here. The historical creeds and the Reformed confessions were not necessarily pro-active statements but re-active statements primarily against heresies but also to establish what the Church believed Scripture taught. Creeds do not establish orthodoxy per se, only Scripture can do that, but they do attempt to reflect the biblical truths that can guide the Church.

The form of church government can have no impact whatsoever on orthodoxy. The Episcopalian form of government did not stop heresy from overtakeing the Church of England or the Espiscopal Church here in the US (consider the ordination of a homosexual bishop and of course Shelby Spong). The only thing it appears to have done is perpetuate ritualism.

Orthodoxy is only as relevent as the Church is willing to enforce it or people are willing to submit to it. The church can declare doctrines ex cathedra all it wants, but today, just as it has always been, orthodoxy is in the eyes of the beholder as each person says "Has God indeed said.."

You want a unified Church, then I suggest pray as John did "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"
 
[quote:b6c120875a]Creeds do not establish orthodoxy per se, only Scripture can do that, but they do attempt to reflect the biblical truths that can guide the Church.[/quote:b6c120875a]

The Creeds and Councils were to establish what the Church believed was orthodox doctrine. Therefore we can say that they established orthodoxy [in the Church].

[quote:b6c120875a]The form of church government can have no impact whatsoever on orthodoxy. The Episcopalian form of government did not stop heresy from overtakeing the Church of England or the Espiscopal Church here in the US (consider the ordination of a homosexual bishop and of course Shelby Spong). The only thing it appears to have done is perpetuate ritualism.[/quote:b6c120875a]

If you don't think the Church can establish something as orthodox doctrine (i.e. Trinity), then yes. When I mentioned episcopalian government I was talking about the early church must have been episcopalian in order for us to know true doctrine. The verbal word was the relient word. The early Church HAD to trust first hand sources. These sources must have been put in charge and ordained by the Apostles. These people must have successed the Apostles.

[quote:b6c120875a]You want a unified Church, then I suggest pray as John did "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" [/quote:b6c120875a]

True.

Paul

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by rembrandt]
 
Paul,

Why would it be a problem to trust first hand sources? Surely those are the best! And, in God's glorious providence, that is exactly what we have in most of the NT --first hand accounts (with the possible exception of Luke, portions of Acts, Mark, Hebrews & Jude). We have firsthand accounts of Christ's life and teaching. We have firsthand revelation from God. The Bible is the record of revelation --but it is itself revelation. See B.B. Warfield.
After the death of the last apostle the church was in much the same position we are in today. Before the canon was closed they were in a slightly different position, but not badly off at all since they could ask an apostle about something that had not yet been inscripturated.
 
[quote:f0aa5a09a3][i:f0aa5a09a3]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:f0aa5a09a3]
Paul,

Why would it be a problem to trust first hand sources? Surely those are the best! And, in God's glorious providence, that is exactly what we have in most of the NT --first hand accounts (with the possible exception of Luke, portions of Acts, Mark, Hebrews & Jude). We have firsthand accounts of Christ's life and teaching. We have firsthand revelation from God. The Bible is the record of revelation --but it is itself revelation. See B.B. Warfield.
After the death of the last apostle the church was in much the same position we are in today. Before the canon was closed they were in a slightly different position, but not badly off at all since they could ask an apostle about something that had not yet been inscripturated. [/quote:f0aa5a09a3]

Okay, the problem was that they didn't know who were the first hand sources. Did such and such REALLY write this book? How are we to receive this book as true? You see, there was no way to know that these actually were first hand sources except by second hand sources. A reading of "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce will varify that this was precisely the case.

The question then for determining a book of the NT was, "Is this the tradition in which we have received." The only way to varify the true tradition (by tradition here I simply mean "teaching") was to point to the churches that the apostles themselves established. The apostles apointed elders/bishops at these churches therefore they can be looked upon as knowing the true teaching of Christ.

And from there they were able to validate the first hand sources. The "testimony of the Spirit" for determining the truthfullnes of the canon that Calvin talked about, can only be used once Canon is once and for all set in stone. The question in the early church was not about inward feelings, but objective truths. And this could only be verified by the Apostolic Fathers.

Paul
 
[quote:362906da58]
Okay, the problem was that they didn't know who were the first hand sources. Did such and such REALLY write this book? How are we to receive this book as true? You see, there was no way to know that these actually were first hand sources except by second hand sources. A reading of "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce will varify that this was precisely the case.
[/quote:362906da58]

Paul, I think your statement overlooks an interesting finale to one of Paul's epistles. 2 Thessalonians 3:17 "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." There was something to identify the autographs as coming from Paul. Also, it overlooks the anonymous epistle of Hebrews.

[quote:362906da58]
The question then for determining a book of the NT was, "Is this the tradition in which we have received." The only way to varify the true tradition (by tradition here I simply mean "teaching") was to point to the churches that the apostles themselves established. The apostles apointed elders/bishops at these churches therefore they can be looked upon as knowing the true teaching of Christ.
[/quote:362906da58]

Yes, you are correct in stating that they had to measure the putative writings. However, I disagree that the only way was to point to the churches already established, for two reasons. One, is that it ignores the OT. The 2nd, is that the churches the apostles established were often corrupted. Galatia had problems, Corinth had problems, Ephesus, Laodicea, Crete had problems. Paul has to write to the Corinthians, "So we preach and so ye believed", reminding them of what they once held to be true. And there were heretics --even heretics purporting to be validated by the Mother Church. So there is a difficulty: a church founded by an apostle could well be corrupted. And such a corrupt church would be likely to support a corrupt literary production. In other words, historic descent from the apostles is meaningless without actual agreement with the apostles. The fact that someone was appointed to a given charge by an apostle was no guarantee of faithfulness.

The writings were well known and widely spread. Paul seems to quote from Luke. Peter read Paul's writings. I don't think that it was such a difficult problem as it seems to us, when we look back. It seems hard to us because so much documentary evidence from the time has been lost to wear and tear.
 
[quote:7dad0c6bd8]Paul, I think your statement overlooks an interesting finale to one of Paul's epistles. 2 Thessalonians 3:17 "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." There was something to identify the autographs as coming from Paul. Also, it overlooks the anonymous epistle of Hebrews.[/quote:7dad0c6bd8]

A simple study of this topic will prove that there were too many fakes to take it that easily. If I remember correctly, Paul says himself that somebody might be writting a fake epistle in his name. Out of all the fake epistles and gospels in other people's names, there must have been another test than a name itself.

[quote:7dad0c6bd8]In other words, historic descent from the apostles is meaningless without actual agreement with the apostles. The fact that someone was appointed to a given charge by an apostle was no guarantee of faithfulness.[/quote:7dad0c6bd8]

I agree.

Paul
 
Paul,

Yes, there is some suspicion of a fake. I think 2 Thessalonians 3:17 may be getting at a signature --Paul ordinarily used an amanuensis, perhaps due to bad eyesight (he wrote to the Galatians with large letters in his own hand). Of course, those who had heard Paul speak, or read other letters by him, would have had little difficulty recognising his style. You don't have to see the title page to know when you're reading a sermon by Lloyd-Jones --his style is all his own.

I have a couple of question for you. I believe you indicate that we have two sources of apostolic tradition --the Scripture itself, and then the "oral tradition".
1. Do you hold to the sufficiency of Scripture?
2. Do you see any use for oral tradition except as a witness to written tradition?
3. Do you think of oral tradition as inspired?
4. How do we know what the oral tradition was?

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by py3ak]
 
WSW had it right when he said that the creeds are not proactive statements but are reactive against errors.

Creeds do not define our faith as much as they define the limits of unbelief.
 
[quote:7cd012c8f2][i:7cd012c8f2]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:7cd012c8f2]
WSW had it right when he said that the creeds are not proactive statements but are reactive against errors.

Creeds do not define our faith as much as they define the limits of unbelief. [/quote:7cd012c8f2]

True. They put up barriers for unorthodoxy, thus establishing orthodoxy.
 
[quote:da9a8522f5]1. Do you hold to the sufficiency of Scripture?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

Yes.

[quote:da9a8522f5]2. Do you see any use for oral tradition except as a witness to written tradition?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

There are two forms that "tradition" (or "teaching") comes in.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by [b:da9a8522f5]word of mouth[/b:da9a8522f5] or by [b:da9a8522f5]letter[/b:da9a8522f5]."

Now that we have the Word completely given, I don't see use for oral tradition at all. I mean, would there be something in 'oral speach' that is not already written down? Why wouldn't the apostles have written it down? I think that is a Roman myth. Though there is a use for traditions in general, but thats not what Paul is talking about.

[quote:da9a8522f5]3. Do you think of oral tradition as inspired?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

The teaching is already inspired to begin with. For example, if someone read out of an epistle, that would be inspired teaching; but only because the Word was inspired. I believe that everything that [b:da9a8522f5]we[/b:da9a8522f5] [i:da9a8522f5]need[/i:da9a8522f5] and are commanded to follow is written down. But before the Bible was completed, I guess you can say in a sence it was inspired, but only if you want to call reading out of a book inspired: because it is the teaching itself that is inspired.

[quote:da9a8522f5]4. How do we know what the oral tradition was?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

Apostolic era: "Was this what Jesus taught?" "Are these people speaking on behalf of Jesus, or not (and the tests of apostolic validity follow from that)?"
Apostolic Father's era: "Was this what Jesus' followers taught?"

Paul
 
1 & 2 we are agreed on.


[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
The teaching is already inspired to begin with. For example, if someone read out of an epistle, that would be inspired teaching; but only because the Word was inspired. I believe that everything that we need and are commanded to follow is written down. But before the Bible was completed, I guess you can say in a sence it was inspired, but only if you want to call reading out of a book inspired: because it is the teaching itself that is inspired.
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?


[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
Apostolic era: "Was this what Jesus taught?"
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

What would you do then with the new revelations that were given? The things that Jesus did not say to the disciples, because they couldn't bear them, but sent the Holy Spirit to teach them.

[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
Apostolic Father's era: "Was this what Jesus' followers taught?"
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

How did they define Jesus' followers? How did they judge the different claims?
 
[quote:b02db25001]Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?[/quote:b02db25001]

Oral tradition and written tradition are one and the same thing. For example, the words and letters in our translated Bibles are not inspired: they are only symbols (the thought is inspired in so much as it accords with the original). If I were to read a book of the Bible, I could be said to speak "infallible words" at that very point in time. Speech and written words are only symbols containing a message.

The [i:b02db25001]words[/i:b02db25001] in the Bible that I have in front of me are not revelation [in themselves]. They are an acount of revelation from the original manuscripts. In regards to what you said about "scripture" being revelation, I don't think something needs to be written down in order for it to be revelation. However, in the post-apostolic age, I think we can say that it needs to be written, since God tells us that it is his full acount for us.

[quote:b02db25001]What would you do then with the new revelations that were given? The things that Jesus did not say to the disciples, because they couldn't bear them, but sent the Holy Spirit to teach them.[/quote:b02db25001]

The apostles, even though they didn't have to, went back and showed the people how this was the message in the OT and the message that Jesus taught. If the revelation wasn't fully revealed until after Jesus died, they still went back and showed how it fit into the framework of the OT and Jesus' teachings. Even things where Apostle Paul says "this is a mystery now revealed," there is still things in the OT that witness to it.

I think it was abundantly obvious to distinguish false teachings from those that were true. Gnosticism crept it's head in wherever possible. If something wasn't a real message, it was obvious. I think Paul thought the same way when he gave a very broad determination for true prophesy (in Cor. 13): "If they say that Jesus is Lord etc etc...." If the spirit of it exalts Jesus, then we can be sure of its truthfullness, since the antichrist always brings in gnosticism and stuff, such as when Apostle John gave the determination for true prophesy: "If they say that Jesus came in the flesh etc. etc." From studying the formation of the NT Canon, I believe that it is safe to say that NT books were determined as true or false with ease (save the deuterocanonical). Anything that was true (written early enough to be from the apostles), they kept.

[quote:b02db25001]How did they define Jesus' followers? How did they judge the different claims?[/quote:b02db25001]

I'm sure that after the Apostolic Father's era, people were well aquainted with the Biblical message of Jesus. Were there where no writtings at hand, people knew the teachings by memory (I think that in the early church, when writtings had yet to be dispersed, that this can be called 'oral tradition').

Paul
 
[quote:889c522de6]
Oral tradition and written tradition are one and the same thing. For example, the words and letters in our translated Bibles are not inspired: they are only symbols (the thought is inspired in so much as it accords with the original). If I were to read a book of the Bible, I could be said to speak "infallible words" at that very point in time. Speech and written words are only symbols containing a message.
[/quote:889c522de6]

Yes, they are the same thing with regard to content. So far we are agreed. Do you believe in verbal inspiration? One of your sentences made me think I should clarify that.

The distinction I was trying to draw in saying this:
[quote:889c522de6]
Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?
[/quote:889c522de6]
might be better put. Timothy is not inspired when he is telling people what Paul told him. He is repeating revelation --but his repetition is not inspired.

No, something does not have to be written to be revelation. It sounds like we agreed that all special revelation that God has given to us currently is written down. Am I reading you correctly?

You say

[quote:889c522de6]
The apostles, even though they didn't have to, went back and showed the people how this was the message in the OT and the message that Jesus taught.
[/quote:889c522de6]

Why do you say, "[i:889c522de6]even though they didn't have to[/i:889c522de6]"?


[quote:889c522de6]
I'm sure that after the Apostolic Father's era, people were well aquainted with the Biblical message of Jesus. Were there where no writtings at hand, people knew the teachings by memory (I think that in the early church, when writtings had yet to be dispersed, that this can be called 'oral tradition').
[/quote:889c522de6]

My point is that the writings were widely dispersed --at least the homolegomena. For instance, Paul leaves specific instructions for the Colossian epistle to be read in Laodicea. Almost certainly some Colossian would have made a copy for Laodicea. Paul's oponents in Corinth spoke of his "letters" [i:889c522de6]plural[/i:889c522de6] as being weighty and powerful. The writings were circulated very widely. In other words, I agree that it was not difficult to recognise the canon, and that they had ample means for determining false teaching. But I hold that it was not difficult because of the writings themselves, and their wide dissemination, with people like Clement of Rome's memories being secondary sources only. The Apostle's had a promise of the Holy Spirit bringing things to their remembrance. I don't know that anyone else had that guarantee. It is for that reason, as well as the frequent corruptions even in the apostolic church (which were frequently remedied by writing), that I hesitate to ascribe too much to the oral tradition. There is an instance in John 21 of oral tradition --and it was corrupted very quickly.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by py3ak]

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by py3ak]
 
[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Do you believe in verbal inspiration?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

Absolutely. I was going to put that in parenthesis, just so you know that I believe that. Verbal inspiration was an exception. I believe that when the prophets spoke things that were not written down, it didn't [i:ada1cbb7a1]have to[/i:ada1cbb7a1] be verbally inspired. They were infallible and inerrant in everything they said, but there is clear evidence that the prophets taught things to the people long after the fact that it had been revealed. So their speech wasn't ALWAYS verbally inspired. It is the fact of the message it contains. And even when they are reciting old prophesies, I still think God would of upheld their inerrancy when speaking (as he said to Samuel: "I will not let your words fall to the ground.")

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Am I reading you correctly?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

Yes.

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Why do you say, "even though they didn't have to"?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

They were not under obligation to the people because it was enough that they were apostles. However, if you are going to try to throw this over on me... I think that if someone is not an apostle that credentials must be shown.

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]My point is that the writings were widely dispersed --at least the homolegomena. For instance, Paul leaves specific instructions for the Colossian epistle to be read in Laodicea. Almost certainly some Colossian would have made a copy for Laodicea. Paul's oponents in Corinth spoke of his "letters" plural as being weighty and powerful. The writings were circulated very widely. In other words, I agree that it was not difficult to recognise the canon, and that they had ample means for determining false teaching. But I hold that it was not difficult because of the writings themselves, and their wide dissemination, with people like Clement of Rome's memories being secondary sources only. The Apostle's had a promise of the Holy Spirit bringing things to their remembrance. I don't know that anyone else had that guarantee. It is for that reason, as well as the frequent corruptions even in the apostolic church, that I hesitate to ascribe too much to the oral tradition. There is an instance in John 21 of oral tradition --and it was corrupted very quickly.[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

From what I've read, it doesn't seem that circulation of the letters was good enough to do this. First of all, it took the letters along time to get to every church. Yes, certain people (elders/bishops) would have glanced at someone else's writtings when they had the chance. But copies just couldn't be produced that fast, thus they had to memorize. A proof for this was the unwillingness to give up the sacred books (usually one compilation at the most, during the first two centuries) of the church.

Paul
 
[quote:e45a7c5931]
Absolutely. I was going to put that in parenthesis, just so you know that I believe that. Verbal inspiration was an exception. I believe that when the prophets spoke things that were not written down, it didn't have to be verbally inspired. They were infallible and inerrant in everything they said, but there is clear evidence that the prophets taught things to the people long after the fact that it had been revealed. So their speech wasn't ALWAYS verbally inspired. It is the fact of the message it contains. And even when they are reciting old prophesies, I still think God would of upheld their inerrancy when speaking (as he said to Samuel: "I will not let your words fall to the ground.")
[/quote:e45a7c5931]

Good. Yes, the relation between when the revelation was given and when it was written down is not always clear. The great thing is that we have everything vital that the prophets said inscripturated.


[quote:e45a7c5931]
They were not under obligation to the people because it was enough that they were apostles. However, if you are going to try to throw this over on me... I think that if someone is not an apostle that credentials must be shown.
[/quote:e45a7c5931]
I guess I wonder why you feel that the apostles were not under obligation, when they did appeal so much to the prophets. Why do you suppose the Bereans are commended for investigating Paul's preaching?

The evidence within the NT does speak of wide dissemination, though. Just one instance is the close relation between Jude and 2 Peter. Lenski makes the point that the Gospel of John in its method of presentation presupposes the sort of presentation found in the synoptics. In other words, I basically don't see the necessity for your construct.
 
[quote:4dd2d47ed5]I guess I wonder why you feel that the apostles were not under obligation, when they did appeal so much to the prophets. Why do you suppose the Bereans are commended for investigating Paul's preaching?[/quote:4dd2d47ed5]

But I said earlier that they did use the Scriptures to [atleast] show how their message fit in the framework of the OT and Jesus' teachings.

[quote:4dd2d47ed5]I basically don't see the necessity for your construct.[/quote:4dd2d47ed5]

What do you mean?

Paul
 
The question is not whether they did it or not. The question is whether it was necessary for them to do so or not.

I don't see the need for us to have a dependence on oral tradition for the establishment of our written tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top