How do I answer this???

[Paris_Blues]

I have a question,

When Paul was referring to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), I assume it was the Traditions of the Catholic Church, correct?

The reason why I’m asking this is because a non-Catholic is telling me that:

"Paul could not possibly have been referring to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, because that church did not even exist yet. He could not have been referring to a tradition about purgatory because that concept wouldn’t be invented yet for a couple hundred years. There is simply no record of purgatory in the Scriptures. I’ve read the list you provided, and I don’t think that any of them can possibly refer to purgatory. If purgatory were such an important doctrine, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned it? But what did he talk about instead? The sufficiency of the atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Paul talked about the cross and the blood.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. Just as you feel called to defend your faith, I am called to preach the Word and to handle it accurately. I am accountable to the Bishop and clergy of my
conference to teach sound doctrine. But I am also sensitive to your passion and faith and surely don’t want to offend you in any way."

I’m not trying to sound rude or anything but it seems to me like non-Catholics tend to think the Church back in the Apostles time (like the book of Acts) as a non-denom so to speak kinda church!!! What’s up with that?

 

[forthright]

I think you need to get them to put the early Church into perspective. Ask them what these letters Paul wrote were used for. Were they a comprehensive encyclopedia of everything Christians were to believe? The answer, of course, is “no.” All these letters were specific responses to problems that different churches were facing. If no one questioned purgatory, then it wasn’t addressed in the letters.

There is plenty of evidence that people took purgatory (although not using that specific name) seriously in the early Church. Whether or not they accept Maccabees as an inspired book, the fact that the reference to praying for the dead being “holy and pious” and that it benefited the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) was an accepted Jewish belief prior to Jesus should still carry some weight with them. Add to that fact that nothing unclean can enter heaven and few if any of us are pefect when we die, there must be a method of cleansing prior to heaven. It cannot be that Christ just covers our sins - they must actually be removed before we enter heaven.

This is described by Paul when he talks of our works being saved through fire (1 Cor. 3:10-15). How can we be saved and still experience the fire of judgement unless there is a place of purgation separate from the fires of hell? Jesus tells us everyone will be “salted with fire” (Mark 9:49). In some sections of the Bible, fire is equated to persecution. However, I think it is safe to say that not every Christian in every age has had the opportunity to be persecuted. How then do they taste fire? When they pass through purgatory, of course.

Finally, we know that a 3rd place (besides heaven and hell) can exist, because the story of Lazarus and the rich man describes a place call the “bosom of Abraham.” If a separate place existed for those who died prior to the resurrection, why can’t a 3rd place exist now?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Paris Blues:

Paul could not possibly have been referring to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, because that church did not even exist yet. He could not have been referring to a tradition about purgatory because that concept wouldn’t be invented yet for a couple hundred years. There is simply no record of purgatory in the Scriptures. I’ve read the list you provided, and I don’t think that any of them can possibly refer to purgatory. If purgatory were such an important doctrine, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned it? But what did he talk about instead? The sufficiency of the atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Paul talked about the cross and the blood.

Ask your friend what happens if you substitute “Trinity” for purgatory. After all, if Paul believed that God being a Trinity is such an important doctrine, wouldn’t he have mentioned it?

 

[verismo]

I don’t really think that is a good verse to try and point out that Paul was a Roman Catholic. I think that verse rather supports oral Tradition of the Apostles, not just written, and their successors. That is the RC system, yes, and Paul was a member of that Body that came to be known as the RCC, but what this verse does for us is speak against “Sola Scriptura”.

 

[JimG]

The Catholic Church began on the day of Pentecost, so it was in existence during Paul’s preaching; and he was a part of its magesterium.

 

[javelin]

Paris Blues:

I have a question,

When Paul was referring to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), I assume it was the Traditions of the Catholic Church, correct?

The reason why I’m asking this is because a non-Catholic is telling me that:

"Paul could not possibly have been referring to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, because that church did not even exist yet. He could not have been referring to a tradition about purgatory because that concept wouldn’t be invented yet for a couple hundred years. There is simply no record of purgatory in the Scriptures. I’ve read the list you provided, and I don’t think that any of them can possibly refer to purgatory. If purgatory were such an important doctrine, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned it? But what did he talk about instead? The sufficiency of the atonement for the forgiveness of sins. Paul talked about the cross and the blood.

I’m a little confused as to the point of disagreement. Are the two of you talking about sola scriptura or Purgatory? This passage is generally used to support the Catholic recognition of doctrine that is not explicitly defined in the Bible (doctrines like Purgatory). Paul is exhorting them to hold fast to written teachings AND oral teachings. Our protestant brethren believe that all important and critical oral teaching was written down by *someone *and included in the canon of scripture. Catholics do not – they believe that it is the Church’s role (not just the written Bible’s role) to preserve accurate teaching, which includes the correct interpretation of the word of God itself.

If I were you, I would try to stick to one topic or the other – either talk about sola scriptura or Purgatory. Don’t let the other person shift topics on you.

If you were going to talk about Bible alone vs. Church, perhaps challenge him by presenting the two options for authority and each of you finding as much in the Bible as you can supporting your view. You will find much more directly pertinent to the Catholic position than the Protestant one because sola scriptura is simply not a Biblical doctrine.

Hope this helps,
javelin

 

[Kay_Cee]

Paris Blues:

Paul could not possibly have been referring to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, because that church did not even exist yet.

Come to think of it, this line of reasoning works against Sola Scriptura.

Since Tim 3:16 is the supposed “proof text” used to support Sola Scriptura, let’s see what happens when we apply this reasoning to it: Paul could not possibly have been referring to all the writings of the New Testament because some of those writings did not even exist yet.

 

[Paris_Blues]

javelin:

I’m a little confused as to the point of disagreement. Are the two of you talking about sola scriptura or Purgatory?

We were talking about Purgatory and he was telling me how it is not biblical. One said that he cannot have believe something that’s not in the BIble (of course, Purgatory). I told him that I cannot not have Tradition if it’s in Scripture. I told him about 2 Thess about traidtion, therefore, he started talking about tradition, etc.

 

[Orionthehunter]

javelin:

I’m a little confused as to the point of disagreement. Are the two of you talking about sola scriptura or Purgatory? This passage is generally used to support the Catholic recognition of doctrine that is not explicitly defined in the Bible (doctrines like Purgatory). Paul is exhorting them to hold fast to written teachings AND oral teachings. Our protestant brethren believe that all important and critical oral teaching was written down by *someone *and included in the canon of scripture. Catholics do not – they believe that it is the Church’s role (not just the written Bible’s role) to preserve accurate teaching, which includes the correct interpretation of the word of God itself.

If I were you, I would try to stick to one topic or the other – either talk about sola scriptura or Purgatory. Don’t let the other person shift topics on you.

If you were going to talk about Bible alone vs. Church, perhaps challenge him by presenting the two options for authority and each of you finding as much in the Bible as you can supporting your view. You will find much more directly pertinent to the Catholic position than the Protestant one because sola scriptura is simply not a Biblical doctrine.

Hope this helps,
javelin

I think the protaganist was using purgatory as an example to prove his Sola Scriptura errant beliefs.

 

[Church_Militant]

If he takes that line of reasoning, (and he is very much wrong about the passages that you gave him, I’m sure) then he is essentially saying that he does not accept implied teachings in the Word of God and that is messed up because it means then that he cannot believe in the Incarnation & Trinity since they are only implied in the Bible and neither is specifically spoken of.

If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable in this age and in the next then does that not imply that there is indeed some forgiveness of sins in that other age, then what does it mean? You really don’t wanna get into the mental gymnastics of that kind of theology…it just doesn’t work.

If he doesn’t wanna believe in purgatory that’s okay…he will when he finds himself there.
Pax tecum,

 

[johnshelby]

1 Corinthians 3: (KJV)

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day
shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire;
and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon,
he shall receive a reward.
15 If** any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:
but he himself shall be saved**; yet so as by fire.

bold mine