2 Thessalonians 2:15 need to refute Oneness believer

[joclucsylv]

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or letter. For we who are Catholics, we know what this means for our church. However, in conversation with a Oneness believer this is how he interprets it…I will copy and paste what he said…
Might I point out an obvious flaw in your statements concerning 2 Thess 2:15 – Paul was charging the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the things THEY had learned. He was not saying that they had the power to create traditi…ons that contradicted the original traditions that he had taught them.
Apostolic Christianity by nature seeks to appeal to the teachings of the early church as contained in the scripture over the teachings of those who succeeded the Apostolic age. We would contend that the New Testament contains a complete body of teaching in truth. While we believe in the Catholic(Universal) church, we believe that this church is founded upon the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ and not on the traditions of one branch of Christianity throughout history.Further, I might add that we believe that the message contained in the New Testament is communicated in such a way that the common person may understand without the aid of so-called learned scholars to re-explain them. So that we may read and understand what is contained in the scripture just as readily as those who read 200 or 300 years after the death of the New Testament authors.

 

[joclucsylv]

Here is more. He is a pastor in oneness…

I am not sure how you are prepared to make such a statement concerning my knowledge of Roman Catholicism based upon a couple of paragraphs. Even at that, I am not sure how one would develop a graduated system of evaluation to that poi…nt. I do have a better grasp of Roman Catholic history and doctrine than most of those who call themselves Roman Catholic. I make this statement based upon many encounters with close friends and family who are themselves Roman Catholic.

You said: “The church my friend holds true to the scripture and traditions of the Apostiles.” I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I would take your reasoning a step further … any group that does not hold true to the teachings of the Apostles and scripture are then NOT The Church. The litmus test then is simple…any group that calls themselves the church, regardless of their chosen name or historical lineage, must prove by examination that they are in fact true to those sacred teachings recorded in the New Testament – The Apostolic Teaching. Herein lays a subtle but distinct difference in philosophy. Does a false doctrine become a true doctrine if it has lived long enough? Is a doctrine true simply because it is old or widely accepted? Apostolic Christianity asserts that Christian doctrine is truest at its source. Further, that Apostolic succession is in the form of what the Apostles taught, and not in those who led historical churches in their absence. In other words, those who preach the Apostles doctrine are the successors to the Apostles, not those who claim to have a historical lineage (which is a notion, as Bishop Hayes is demonstrating in this series of articles, that is itself suspect.). The Apostle Paul strongly affirms this notion in his opening statement to the church of Galatia, when he insist that if an angel from heaven or even he himself came and preached to them a different gospel than what he had originally delivered that they should be looked on as damnation. So the challenge is to compare our present teachings to the New Testament, and not rather to prove that we have been teaching them a long time.

 

[joclucsylv]

and lastly from oneness minister…
am not sure to which link you refer. But as I am familiar with both the works of the post apostolic fathers as well as the early church fathers, I feel confident to answer you concerning Justin Martyr.
Firstly you are mistaken in you…r statement that Justin was a disciple of the Apostles. Justin converted to Christianity after the testimony of an old Christian man. Before this he was the student of several different philosophies of his time.

Also, Justin did not hold that Christ was God, but rather leaned toward subordination, nor did he affirm the Trinity. Which does not make him a proponent of Roman Catholic teaching.

“There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Many scholars have been concerned that Justin incorporated much of the pagan and gnostic concepts of his time into his teaching. He certainly had very little knowledge of Hebrew.

But as I have already addressed – if the apostle Paul himself had contradicted the original Apostolic teaching, we are instructed to consider him accursed. So it is of greatest importance to search the Apostolic teachings of the New Testament itself, rather than concern ourselves with what Justin Martyr may have believed. For only then can we evaluate whether he held to the Apostles doctrine or not

Help me refute this Oneness minister.

 

[Vonier]

Basically, they believe in their private interpretation of Scripture. Each person, with their copy of the Bible, interpreting for themselves. Which quite handily explains the thousands of different denominations that comprise Protestanism.

What good is an infallible Scripture without an infallible interpretation?

Sola Scriptura is more than circular reasoning, it’s a dog chasing it’s own tail.

I’d much rather trust the Magisterium of the Church Christ founded than the magisterium of a single pastor.

 

[Vonier]

Further thoughts.

Most early heresies believed in sola Scriptura, and the Church refuted them by the method of “Bible as interpreted by apostolic Tradition”, which is significant because he’s a pastor in the Oneness Pentecostal church, actively denying the doctrine of the Trinity. His belief in the validity of private interpretations of Scripture produced that particular heretical doctrine.

 

[joclucsylv]

Thank you Vonier. Much appreciated!!

 

[joclucsylv]

Further thoughts.

Most early heresies believed in sola Scriptura, and the Church refuted them by the method of “Bible as interpreted by apostolic Tradition”, which is significant because he’s a pastor in the Oneness Pentecostal church, actively denying the doctrine of the Trinity. His belief in the validity of private interpretations of Scripture produced that particular heretical doctrine.

Could you educate me on the method of “Bible as interpreted by apostolic Tradition”

 

[Vonier]

It’s fairly straightforward. Think in terms of how the successors of the Apostles would have interpreted Scripture. They were the disciples of Jesus’ own disciples. What doctrines did they develop out of what they had been taught orally and what they read in the writings of their own teachers (the Apostles)? The Trinity was one of those doctrines. This is, plainly put, the Magisterium, the teaching authority of Jesus’s Own Church. Would you disciple a new Christian by just handing them the Bible and telling them to get busy? No, and neither did the Apostles and those who followed them. They taught orally and from the O.T. and the writings that were beginning to come together as the N.T. That’s the blend the Lord Himself designed to develop and educate His Church, all powered by the third Member of the Trinity Himself, the Holy Spirit.

Again, what good is an inerrant Bible without inerrant interpretation?

Here’s a quote for you…

“When Catholics argue from the Scripture we are acting very much like the Church Fathers, who constantly appealed to Scripture against the heretics, but whose final court of appeal was always tradition and Holy Mother Church where the proper interpretation of Scripture was verified.”

From where I sit as I type this, within less than a mile, there sit a Baptist church and a Oneness Pentecostal church, both churches organized around specific private interpretations of Scripture. A little bit further down the road is a Catholic Church, which interprets Scripture exactly like the Catholic Church 10 miles west of here and the one 10 miles east of here and so on. In agreement, just as Christ taught His Church should be. The Baptists and the Oneness Pentecostals wouldn’t agree with that, or each other. That’s Sola Scriptura.

 

[Vonier]

Try John Salza’s website, Scripture Catholic. I recommend his books too.

scripturecatholic.com/

Down the left hand side of the site you’ll see a list of topics. Click on any of them and it will take you to Biblical references and bite size explanations for each. Good stuff and really easy to learn from and use later.

 

[Vonier]

And…because I can’t resist recommending books…

amazon.com/Oneness-Pentecostals-Trinity-Gregory-Boyd/dp/0801010195/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311791294&sr=1-2

This will give you insight into what they teach and why they’re wrong. Understanding who you’re talking to is the second step in good apologetics. The first step is to understand who you are.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or letter. For we who are Catholics, we know what this means for our church. However, in conversation with a Oneness believer this is how he interprets it…I will copy and paste what he said…
Might I point out an obvious flaw in your statements concerning 2 Thess 2:15 – Paul was charging the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the things THEY had learned. He was not saying that they had the power to create traditi…ons that contradicted the original traditions that he had taught them.
Apostolic Christianity by nature seeks to appeal to the teachings of the early church as contained in the scripture over the teachings of those who succeeded the Apostolic age. We would contend that the New Testament contains a complete body of teaching in truth. While we believe in the Catholic(Universal) church, we believe that this church is founded upon the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ and not on the traditions of one branch of Christianity throughout history.Further, I might add that we believe that the message contained in the New Testament is communicated in such a way that the common person may understand without the aid of so-called learned scholars to re-explain them. So that we may read and understand what is contained in the scripture just as readily as those who read 200 or 300 years after the death of the New Testament authors.

---

The Christian faithful are on the path of salvation. They have received, through the medium of Paul’s preaching, the divine gift of sanctification that flows from faith in the gospel; it is the first step toward ultimate participation inn Christ’s glory. They are not to depart from the instructions given then at the time of their conversion nor from those contained in Paul’s previous letter. The apostle prayer is that God man comfort and strengthen them as they strive to live out the gospel in their own lives.

 

[pablope]

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or letter. For we who are Catholics, we know what this means for our church. However, in conversation with a Oneness believer this is how he interprets it…I will copy and paste what he said…
Might I point out an obvious flaw in your statements concerning 2 Thess 2:15 – Paul was charging the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the things THEY had learned. He was not saying that they had the power to create traditi…ons that contradicted the original traditions that he had taught them.
So that we may read and understand what is contained in the scripture just as readily as those who read 200 or 300 years after the death of the New Testament authors.

Check this thread, it asks the same thing. I think the pastor is mistaking Tradition, which is Sacred Tradition with tradition, which we call the small “t” tradition.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=584131

Actually, the oneness practice some sort of tradition too, from their founder, but their founder cannot trace his line of succession from the Apostles.

 

[pablope]

Here is more. He is a pastor in oneness…

Further, that Apostolic succession is in the form of what the Apostles taught, and not in those who led historical churches in their absence. In other words, those who preach the Apostles doctrine are the successors to the Apostles, not those who claim to have a historical lineage (which is a notion, as Bishop Hayes is demonstrating in this series of articles, that is itself suspect.).

 

[Big_Dummy]

Ask him what it means to Bind and Loose and what the nature of the “seat of moses” was.

 

[De_Maria]

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth or letter. For we who are Catholics, we know what this means for our church. However, in conversation with a Oneness believer this is how he interprets it…I will copy and paste what he said…

Ok. I’ll respond as though talking to him. Feel free to use anything with which you agree.

Might I point out an obvious flaw in your statements concerning 2 Thess 2:15 – Paul was charging the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the things THEY had learned.

How is that a flaw?

He was not saying that they had the power to create traditi…ons that contradicted the original traditions that he had taught them.

Only Protestants create Traditions such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which can’t be found in Scripture because they contradict the Word of God. The Catholic Church teaches the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

Apostolic Christianity by nature seeks to appeal to the teachings of the early church as contained in the scripture over the teachings of those who succeeded the Apostolic age. We would contend that the New Testament contains a complete body of teaching in truth.

That agrees with Catholic Teaching.

While we believe in the Catholic(Universal) church, we believe that this church is founded upon the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ and not on the traditions of one branch of Christianity throughout history.

The True Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ teaches the Traditions of Jesus Christ from which the New Testament itself sprang.

Further, I might add that we believe that the message contained in the New Testament is communicated in such a way that the common person may understand without the aid of so-called learned scholars to re-explain them.

If that were so, there wouldn’t be so many learned Protestant Scholars debating each other as to the meaning of the Scripture:
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So that we may read and understand what is contained in the scripture just as readily as those who read 200 or 300 years after the death of the New Testament authors.

Only those who hold the Traditions (2 Thess 2:15) which Jesus Christ established, can understand correctly the teachings of Scripture which are anchored to those Traditions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Here is more. He is a pastor in oneness…

I am not sure how you are prepared to make such a statement concerning my knowledge of Roman Catholicism based upon a couple of paragraphs. Even at that, I am not sure how one would develop a graduated system of evaluation to that poi…nt. I do have a better grasp of Roman Catholic history and doctrine than most of those who call themselves Roman Catholic. I make this statement based upon many encounters with close friends and family who are themselves Roman Catholic.

Very scientific. But hardly makes you an expert.

You said: “The church my friend holds true to the scripture and traditions of the Apostiles.” I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I would take your reasoning a step further … any group that does not hold true to the teachings of the Apostles and scripture are then NOT The Church.

That is in complete agreement with the Catholic Church. Further, any Church, such as your oneness Church, which contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, which wrote the New Testament by the way, will also contradict Scripture.

The litmus test then is simple…any group that calls themselves the church, regardless of their chosen name or historical lineage, must prove by examination that they are in fact true to those sacred teachings recorded in the New Testament – The Apostolic Teaching.

Complete agreement there.

Herein lays a subtle but distinct difference in philosophy. Does a false doctrine become a true doctrine if it has lived long enough?

No.

Is a doctrine true simply because it is old or widely accepted?

No. Arianism is an example. It is both ancient and was once held by the majority of Christians. Yet the Catholic Church judged it a heresy.

Apostolic Christianity asserts that Christian doctrine is truest at its source.

No, no. Apostolic Christianity asserts that Christian doctrine is taught by the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Further, that Apostolic succession is in the form of what the Apostles taught, and not in those who led historical churches in their absence.

Hmm? I can’t make heads or tails of that statement. However, Scripture says:
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Therefore, Scripture puts the authority in the hierarchy of the Church. I’m not really sure what it is you are saying in that last statement however.

In other words, those who preach the Apostles doctrine are the successors to the Apostles, not those who claim to have a historical lineage (which is a notion, as Bishop Hayes is demonstrating in this series of articles, that is itself suspect.).

Who wrote in the parenthesis? It is indeed suspect as the successors of the Apostles can be demonstrated historically by lineage. And it is they who have received the laying on of hands of the Presbytery (1 Tim 4:14).

The Apostle Paul strongly affirms this notion in his opening statement to the church of Galatia, when he insist that if an angel from heaven or even he himself came and preached to them a different gospel than what he had originally delivered that they should be looked on as damnation.

Correct. He also charges St. Timothy to:
2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Nowhere does any Apostle simply recommend passing out Scripture and letting the man decide for himself the meaning of Scripture.

So the challenge is to compare our present teachings to the New Testament, and not rather to prove that we have been teaching them a long time.

On the contrary, the challenge is to obey the Word of God which tells us how to determine who is teaching error and innovation.

First, you brought up Galatians 1:8
King James Version (KJV)
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Note that we are to compare that which someone, like yourself, preaches to that which we have been taught by the Church.

At this point, since I know that you teach ONENESS, I have to dismiss you, with all due respect, as an “accursed”.

Second, Scripture goes on to say in 2 Thess 2:15, that we are to hold on to the Traditions. What Traditions?

1. The Mass,
2. Baptism,
3. Confirmation,
4. Eucharist,
5. Matrimony,
6. Holy Orders
7. Unction
8. Confession

And many other doctrines and celebrations which we are taught such as the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

and lastly from oneness minister…
am not sure to which link you refer. But as I am familiar with both the works of the post apostolic fathers as well as the early church fathers, I feel confident to answer you concerning Justin Martyr.
Firstly you are mistaken in you…r statement that Justin was a disciple of the Apostles. Justin converted to Christianity after the testimony of an old Christian man. Before this he was the student of several different philosophies of his time.

Also, Justin did not hold that Christ was God, but rather leaned toward subordination, nor did he affirm the Trinity. Which does not make him a proponent of Roman Catholic teaching.

“There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Many scholars have been concerned that Justin incorporated much of the pagan and gnostic concepts of his time into his teaching. He certainly had very little knowledge of Hebrew.

But as I have already addressed – if the apostle Paul himself had contradicted the original Apostolic teaching, we are instructed to consider him accursed. So it is of greatest importance to search the Apostolic teachings of the New Testament itself, rather than concern ourselves with what Justin Martyr may have believed. For only then can we evaluate whether he held to the Apostles doctrine or not

The excerpt you provided seems quite in line with Catholic Teaching. However, whenever you want to go through the Scriptures, we may do so in minute detail and I will show you that any beliefs you hold which contradict the Catholic Church, also contradict Scripture.

Help me refute this Oneness minister.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you need more.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Big_Dummy]

Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

**Farewell. **

30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Above is a church council of the apostles, leaders of the church. They in essence created “new” tradition by looking back into scriptures and employing their authority to Bind & Loose. Church Coucils also employed the church’s authority to bind and loose.

Matthew 18:18
'Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

unrelated link, catholic apologetics course online
theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Contents.htm

From Matthew 18, you need only show historically and scripturally succession in the church. If you think about it, they assume succesion for their own church.**