Tradition - Interpretation - Error

[thessalonian]

Help me think this through. The local radio guy was having a spoof where his sidekick would call in and make agnostic arguments yesterday. It was pretty lame. I have been thinking about one part. Here are a couple of questions from his agnostic actor.


How do you know that your interpretations are correct? Answer: Doesn't everyone think their interpretations are correct? You can't read the Bible without interpreting it. You also have to have the proper context.

Why are there so many denominations? Answer: Because people hold on to their traditions.

Some things seem a bit odd here. First of all in order for him to guarantee that his interpretations are correct he must claim to have no traditions or at least no false ones. How does he know he doesn't? If he has any then he cannot answer the first question with any credibility. Further he seems to demonstrate that the sole blame put on traditions is false since there is no reason in particular that a false interpretation of scripture has to come from a tradition. i.e. what is the guarantee that one is going to interpret correctly if they do not have a tradition on which to base their interpretation. It seems his first answer proves that interpretations without tradition are not infallible so his total blame on tradition is unfounded. What guarantees infallible context? Further, it seems that he is putting blame on tradition when it may well be that a tradition is correct. There is nothing to say that an interpretation passed on as a tradition is false.

Any other thoughts? Is this making sense?

Edited December 6, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Thinking further on this, history and logic prove him wrong. The root of a bad interpretation is not a bad tradition. It's not a chicken or egg question either. A bad tradition starts with a bad interpretation. Therefore it is the interpretation that is at the root of the problem. Martin Luther said there are as many theologies as there are heads. These interpretations did not start with traditions so the interpretive framwork he is proposing is the cause rather than solution. Historically before the reformation a history of tradition guided interpretation did not cause a multiplicity of denominations. This also indicates that his logic that tradition is the problem that causes denominations is quite backwards.

[phatcatholic]

haha, your logical syllogisms always confuse me bro

[N/A Gone]

like i told my teacher, when i reach heaven im gonna smack decartes with my pickle hand

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 7 2005, 02:26 AM']haha, your logical syllogisms always confuse me bro
[right][snapback]814696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Phat,

I'm hurt.
When I wrote this I was hoping for some comment from you. I am more just thinking out loud at the moment, rather than drawing any real conclusions.

The issue at hand is what is the cause of denominations. He blames it on traditions of man. I suppose in some sense that is true but a false tradition must start with a false interprutation it seems to me. Perhaps not on a particular passage but on another related passage. For instance John 3:16 becomes the passage by which all other passages cannot mean that one can be in grace and then fall from it. They apply the logic that one must never have been in grace in the first place. (I prefer the language of in grace/out of grace because of predestination, noone looses salvation who is predestined for heaven). It seems to me that the root of a false tradition is a false interprutation somewhere in scripture. One might say, oh gee, my tire is flat because their is a hole in it. Is the hole the root cause or is the nail through it? One cannot say that the cause of denominations are false traditions.

[phatcatholic]

my bad bro. i sincerely apologize. i was having trouble following that one post. but i shouldn't have generalized that to be a problem i have w/ ALL of your posts. ur a soldier, bro, that's for sure

i'm gonna take a look at your first two posts again and see what comes to mind.....

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 6 2005, 04:39 PM']Here are a couple of questions from his agnostic actor.

How do you know that your interpretations are correct?  Answer: Doesn't everyone think their interpretations are correct?  You can't read the Bible without interpreting it.  You also have to have the proper context.

Why are there so many denominations?  Answer: Because people hold on to their traditions.

Some things seem a bit odd here.  First of all in order for him to guarantee that his interpretations are correct he must claim to have no traditions or at least no false ones.[/quote]
this is where you first lost me. your statement here isn't logical. he doesn't have to be able to show people that he doesn't have any traditions before he can tell them that it is wrong to have traditions. that would be like him saying, "see people, i don't have any traditions. therefore, i am write when i say that the bible is against having traditions." now, it would indeed make him a hypocrite if he believed and taught that the bible was against tradition but then he practiced his own traditions. but, the correctness of his interpretation does not depend on how he lives it. so, essentially, i disagree when you say that he must claim to have no traditions before he can guarantee that is interpretations are correct.

does that make sense?


[quote] How does he know he doesn't?  If he has any then he cannot answer the first question with any credibility.[/quote]
i would agree that he would lose credibility insofar as, when a person does not live what he teaches, he becomes a hypocrite and loses credibility in the eyes of his audience.


[quote]Further he seems to demonstrate that the sole blame put on traditions is false  since there is no reason in particular that a false interpretation of scripture has to come from a tradition.  i.e. what is the guarantee that one is going to interpret correctly if they do not have a tradition on which to base their interpretation.  It seems his first answer proves that interpretations without tradition are not infallible so his total blame on tradition is unfounded.[/quote]
here's where you lose me again. i don't see how his answer to the first question proves that interpretations w/o tradition are fallible. actually, he didn't really even answer the first question. he said that we all interpret scripture and we all think we are correct, but he never said why people think they are correct or how people come to a correct conclusion. he doesn't even attempt to connect correctly interpreting the bible with having tradition. furthermore, he actually never actually says anything negative about tradition. he only said they were the reason for denominations. so i guess i'm having trouble seeing how you think he is unintentionally refuting his own arguments.


[quote] What guarantees infallible context?  Further, it seems that he is putting blame on tradition when it may well be that a tradition is correct.  There is nothing to say that an interpretation passed on as a tradition is false. [/quote]
actually, he said that traditions were to blame for our denominations, not necessarily for the false interpretations that are out there.

i'll respond to your next post with another post of my own.....

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 6 2005, 07:33 PM']Thinking further on this, history and logic prove him wrong. The root of a  bad interpretation is not a bad tradition.[/quote]
he never said that it was (at least, this is what i gather from the two answers of his that you provided). i think the reason i am confused is b/c you heard the entire program but i am only working off of two answers that he gave.


[quote]It's not a chicken or egg question either.  A bad tradition starts with a bad interpretation. [/quote]
not necessarily. it is true that many bad traditions are formed due to a misunderstanding of scripture. but, sometimes people just do wrong things w/o ever looking to see if there is any support in scripture.


[quote]Therefore it is the interpretation that is at the root of the problem.  Martin Luther said there are as many theologies as there are heads.  These interpretations did not start with traditions so the interpretive framwork he is proposing is the cause rather than solution.[/quote]
did he propose a particular interpretive framework? i can't tell from the answers of his that you provided.


[quote]Historically before the reformation a history of tradition-guided interpretation did not cause a multiplicity of denominations.  This also indicates that his logic that tradition is the problem that causes denominations is  quite backwards.[right][snapback]813978[/snapback][/right][/quote]
what's backwards is that he blames traditions for the multiplicity of denominations that we have, but he has no objective authority with which to test these traditions and discover which ones are true and which ones are not. that's his problem. each man is his own authority. that is why he thinks that his own interpretations of scripture are correct. essentially, the link between his first answer and his second answer is authority.

does that help? i hope so. sorry again for my previous over-generalization

pax christi,
phatcatholic