K
kuroro
Guest
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
myfavoritmartin:
Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.
Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.
Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.
1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.
2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.
2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.
1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition). 1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
per Mr. Steve Ray:
We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?
We find out in Acts 17:1–9: “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.”
The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? “For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures” in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.
Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men” (Acts 17:10–12).
When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as “the people of the book,” in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the “seat of Moses” in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as “divinely inspired,” since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.
If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).
continue. . .
J
JaneFrances
Guest
. . .continued
When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of “additional revelation.”
Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.
When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.
By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of “additional revelation.”
Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Hmmm. Didn’t you read all of my post? You’ve set up a false basis here and knocked it down. A person would not have to “interpret the scriptures himself” because, while the verses you cited are nice support for our understanding of an infallible interpreter, the basis for this comes from the teaching church. You’ve started with the assumption that our church is designed from the Bible and that our understanding of it first depends on our “interpretation” of Scripture. This isn’t true. Scripture is a source of our understanding, but not the source. I feel that most of my posts will be pointing out your logical fallacies. Somehow you’ve managed to pretend I’ve asked you to critique Catholic understanding of authority to mask the fact that your real answer to the question is rather lacking:
Could you please explain how this verse teaches the exclusive use of Scripture for interpretation. We contend that Tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit. Don’t take this as an invitation to start on Tradition. What I am pointing out is that you have given a verse that affirms that truth comes from the Spirit. AMEN! My contention is that you have limited the guidance from the Spirit to Scripture alone.
My question still stands, but I will rephrase - when going by Scripture alone, how do Protestants resolve disagreements? How does one know whom the Spirit is leading and whom is deceiving himself? Please answer THIS question instead of trying to divert the thread back to an attack on Tradition.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Nice try, but you would never have accepted such a vague and platitude filled answer from us regarding Tradition. You demanded, over and over, to have proof that these Traditions were directly from apostles. I reversed the question to you with regards to Scripture. Now, try answering again, only this time give the same type of concrete proof that you demanded for knowing the inspiration of Tradition.
How? Are you going to avoid the question of determining inspiration yet a third time? How did they know? Please, please answer how you could possibly assert that they knew.
You have yet to give a concrete answer to any of my questions. You’ve tried misdirection. You’ve tried vague theological statements, but by my putting your understanding Scripture to the same test you’ve tried to put Tradition, you have failed over and over. You’ve offered nothing that would satisfy even the most remotely discerning sole.
Which brings me to a new question (though you still have several hanging): The Jews accepted oral tradition as an interpretive authority. Should you doubt this, I challenge you to reconstruct a sin offering from Scripture alone. Scripture is materially sufficient in that it told the Jews, for instance, that they must make a sin offering, but as Catholics have oral Tradition, the Jews had the interpretive authority of an oral Tradition to tell them how that sin offering should look.
You’ve demanded that we “codify” Tradition, yet the Oral Tradition of the Jews was not codified until over 200 years into A.D., with the Talmud.
I’ve tried to tell you that it is dangerous to codify something that was given orally, and the Jewish Tradition verifies that. Even though they finally wrote down the Oral Tradition (just as we eventually compiled the Catechism), the Talmud itself warns against such a “codification” in Gittin 60b, which says that what is given orally should not be written.
You demanded that Catholic Tradition be traced directly to an apostle, yet Jewish Oral Tradition, by and large, could not be directly traced to a prophet.
So, the new question is this: Why are you holding Christian “Tradition” to a higher standard to that of Jewish Tradition? And, since you do, would you have “protested” against the Isrealites church for the same reason? Phrased another way, where does Scripture give Protestants the authority to reject the means of revelation that was a part of our Salvation History from the beginning? Please cite Scripture to support this.
Fredericks, I hope your anonymous choir is following the discussion now. You are as evasive and as vague as ever. You’ve convinced me of nothing but the fact that, should I reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, according to your defence, Scripture is so weak a foundation that I might as well drop back into agnosticism.
God bless.
E
Eden
Guest
God did not need to give the authority to the early Christians to compile the New Testament and He did not need them to assert that they were inspired - true. But He chose to give us His Word that way.
Likewise, He chose to send the Holy Spirit to inspire the authors of the New Testament. He didn’t need to. God could have written it all down when He walked the earth. But He didn’t.
So, your assertion is that the early Christians took it upon themselves to declare which texts were inspired? That God had intended that humans be used to write His Word but not put all of those texts together?
Only because the Holy Spirit guided them to that knowledge.
Human decisions? So, you do not believe the Holy Spirit guided humans throughout the process of formation, discussion and fixation of the Canon?
And He showed us that path by His ministry and teachings which He prepared His disciples to carry on after He was gone. He did not show us by coming to Earth and writing the Bible.
The Wikipedia article that you referenced on the “Canon - Catholic Style” thread already provided the conclusion to this whole charade:
“In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.”
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon
F
Fredricks
Guest
Awful
Please state directly my next set of questions.
I cannot make up an answer that is not scriptural for personal interpretation. I have answered it. But if you see fit to answer me to answer it again, ask it again. I respectfully also submit my views on inspiration are DIRECTLY in line with Catholic doctrine.
Please state directly my next set of questions.
I cannot make up an answer that is not scriptural for personal interpretation. I have answered it. But if you see fit to answer me to answer it again, ask it again. I respectfully also submit my views on inspiration are DIRECTLY in line with Catholic doctrine.
M
Mickey
Guest
I am very much looking forward to the answer to this question.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Fredericks,
Yes, your views on inspiration (but not much else) are “directly” in line with Catholic doctrine, for which I’m sure you could provide support, however your views are not “completely” in line with Catholic doctrine. You can make this claim only in so far as you take from Catholic doctrine only that part which, removed from the doctines regarding tradition and teaching authority, does not stand on its own. You are “proof-texting” Catholic doctrine.
I asked you these questions (I’m simplifying them):
1. How do we determine inspiration when we reject the teaching church?
Your only answer is to live the Christian life and watch the Holy Spirit go to work. I don’t even care anymore if your answer is Scriptural. I’d be happy with an answer that made sense.
2. How do we authenticate the apostolic origin of Scripture as you have asked us to do with Tradition?
No answer (except some double-talk about God not needing the authority of the early Christians). Sorry, but that answer wouldn’t have worked from us on Tradition, try again.
3. As you have asked regarding Tradition, where is the authority given to add the epistles to Scripture?
The Christians knew they were inspired.
4. How?
No answer.
**5. How do Protestants determine correct interpretation when both, claiming guidance by the holy Spirit, disagree on key doctrine?
**No answer.
**6. Is baptism merely symbolic? If not, what is it?
**No answer.
7. Please define the Trinity as you understand it.
No answer.
**8. THIS WAS A NEW QUESTION (actually three) IN MY LAST THREAD, BUT YOU HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO ANSWER IT YET: Why are you holding Christian “Tradition” to a higher standard to that of Jewish Tradition? And, since you do, would you have “protested” against the Isrealites church for the same reason? Phrased another way, where does Scripture give Protestants the authority to reject the means of revelation that was a part of our Salvation History from the beginning? Please cite Scripture to support this.
**Please reference my last post for an explanation on this.
Fredericks, if I have made logical errors in my questions, please point them out. Otherwise, how about answering them? I will not move on to “new” questions, because I think I have effectively demonstrated that you have no answers - no adequate answers - for the questions I have already asked. I think you will fail miserably in question number 7. So, if you want to answer my questions, go at 'em.
BUT, according to what I have proposed in question 7 (as explained in my previous post), the burden of proof is now on you to explain the CHANGE to sola-Scriptura and a rejection of the Tradition + Scripture background we inherited from the Jews.
Please take on this burden of proof. Until you do, and do so successfully, I will keep bringing it up.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Don’t hold your breath.
He has no answers.
Only platitudes.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Which three questions would you like me to answer first.
Thanks
Thanks
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Fredericks,
I have played by the three-question rule. With the exception of the doctrine questions (which you gave me permission to ask above and beyond the limit of three), I’ve never asked new questions until you’ve answered … or have attempted to answer … the previous three.
In my second-to-last post, I’ve outlined all of the big questions you have avoided or answered in vague ways. I’ve not given you more than three, I’ve simply recapped all that you have been asked. My post stands as it is.
Apparently, yours do not.
F
Fredricks
Guest
I will answer all 8 in my next post.
Your comment about God not needing authority being “double talk” is offensive as a believer. I would think you would agree with me…
I know, beyond a doubt, that is what the quotes for the First Vatican council and Catechism support. They do not claim that God needed a human authority and I think you know that.
Your tone has changed as well. That is your choice.
Regardless, I will supply all 8. Give me awhile.
Your comment about God not needing authority being “double talk” is offensive as a believer. I would think you would agree with me…
I know, beyond a doubt, that is what the quotes for the First Vatican council and Catechism support. They do not claim that God needed a human authority and I think you know that.
Your tone has changed as well. That is your choice.
Regardless, I will supply all 8. Give me awhile.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
It should only be offensive if you didn’t read the context of that comment. Please do so. I said that it was “double talk” because you refused to accept similar answers from Catholics regarding Tradition but use it yourself regarding Scripture.
I KNOW that the First Vatican council and the Catechism support God’s sovereign authority. My point is that “double talk” is when you both reject that viewpoint (when attacking Catholicism) and accept it (when defending Protestantism). It shouldn’t be offensive to you as a believer.
It should be offensive to you as a debater.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I apologize - sincerely. However, I am growing frustrated at the fact that someone who has hammered so persistantly on my Church with these same types of questions both unable to answer them in a way he would have demanded of us and unwilling to admit so much.
Still …
F
Fredricks
Guest
If Catholics and Protestant agree on inspiration, why should I not point it out? Official Catholicism and Protestants agree. I do not “accept” it because they said it. I never said that at all.
I am pointing out that we agree on inspiration and it APPEARS you disagree with US.
When you debate Catholics(who might I add one that appears to have quite a few agnostic tendencies left I respectfully submit), I ALWAYS have to bring in official Catholic doctrine. I am not arguing your interpretation, I am arguing official. I know you would not think I should argue Awful’s interpretation if I see it differes from what your church teaches.
Later in the week, you will have my eight.
Have a good day.
I am pointing out that we agree on inspiration and it APPEARS you disagree with US.
When you debate Catholics(who might I add one that appears to have quite a few agnostic tendencies left I respectfully submit), I ALWAYS have to bring in official Catholic doctrine. I am not arguing your interpretation, I am arguing official. I know you would not think I should argue Awful’s interpretation if I see it differes from what your church teaches.
Later in the week, you will have my eight.
Have a good day.
M
Mickey
Guest
Hmmm? Ad hominem?
M
montanaman
Guest
I don’t think so, necessarily. I’ve encountered many Protestants who think my arguments against SS were arguments against the Bible. Whenever I’d post rhetorical questions like “How do you KNOW the Bible is inspired,” they’d assume I was coming from the swamp of relativistic theological goo–a close cousin of agnosticism. This may simply be Frederick’s perception.Hmmm? Ad hominem?
- Status