James White Debate

[preyoflove]

“Read Luke 22:24-30, where the disciples are walking along (on the night of Christ’s betrayal) and the disciples got into an argument about who among them would be considered the greatest. Clearly these disciples didn’t see Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 as establishing him as the foundation of the Church, the first Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth! If the disciples and Peter believed this then the argument wouldn’t even have started.”

Of course, they can argue who among them is the greatest, or who should be in St. Peter’s office–as you prefer it to be–at that time. They have free will to do so. They could ignore, reject every single word our Lord said. Why, look at Judas Iscariot’s betrayal-- to me, it has be the best demonstration of that freedom in us to reject our Lord and anything He said.

I mean, that was nothing new in His public ministry here on Earth. After He revealed that He was the living bread that came down from heaven in John 6, how many disciples remain following him? Does this make our Lord not who He says He is? So what if nobody believe our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, does that mean St. Peter is not the first Pope?

Shalom, amen.

 

[GAssisi]

As promised, here is a short list of examples of White’s dishonest rhetoric:

1. AD HOMINEM – White compares the Bishop of Rome with the Prophet of the Mormon Church. Most, if not all, Christians look upon Mormonism as a cult, not even worthy of the name “Christian,” so the purpose of the analogy is certainly deprecating – ESPECIALLY WHILE LACKING JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ANALOGY. White bases his opinion on the claim of authority to speak for the entire Church – the pope for the Catholic Church, and the Prophet/ Revelator for the Mormon Church. White sees no difference between the two claims, though White would have an impossible time trying to find the kind of claim to historical continuity for LDS authority and doctrine that the Catholic Church can claim for herself. White also bases his comparison on the claim to infallibility. But the Mormon Prophet/ Revelator has never claimed infallibility, but direct revelation from God. If White sees no difference between infallibility and the Mormon claim, then how can his competence to deal with the issue be trusted? The best comparison that can be made is that the Mormon Prophet/Revelator claims exclusive authority over his members. Except perhaps for free church denominations, this characterization actually belongs to the leadership of EVERY Christian church or ecclesial community.
2. STRAW MAN – in the Justification Debate with Father Pacwa, Father Pacwa demanded proof for the existence of the Protestant doctrine of justification prior to the eve of the Reformation. Sadly, White could only appeal to one Church father (St. Clement of Rome), a false appeal, to be sure, which Fr. Pacwa pointed out. White simply could not allow the forceful truth of Pacwa’s query (that the Protestant doctrine was an innovation) to sink in with the audience, many, to be sure, being Protestants. Accordingly, White waves the banner of Protestantism high and proud, reminding the audience why the Reformation had to occur: “the issue that I want to emphasize again is that at the time of the Reformation, you and I would both agree that there were tremendous abuses within the Church.” Were the abuses in the Church the actual issue being discussed? Of course not. But White had to resort to such an underhanded tactic because he could not defend himself. If one wanted to score debating points, White won; if one kept an eye on the Truth, Fr. Pacwa won.
3. STRAW MAN #2/ HYPOCRISY – Consider White’s debate with Jehovah’s Witness apologist Martin Smart regarding John 15. Smart’s intent was to demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching about the vine and the branches refutes the Reformed understanding of predestination. Smart provides lexical and grammatical proof for his thesis that by the words, “Every branch in me that bears no fruit,” Jesus was indicating that those who are cut off were once rightly regarded as Christians. White’s response? “Without any undue disrespect, Mr. Smart’s presentation is 98% smoke, and 2% dust. In essence, proving that EN EMOI means EN EMOI (“in Me”) proves nothing. The translation of the phrase is not at issue at all.” However, Smart’s focus was not the translation of EN EMOI, but its contextual implication that the branches that are cut off were *originally *“in Christ.” White cannot refute Smart’s assertion, and does not even acknowledge it; he can only counter by accusing his opponent of utilizing straw man argumentation. Such hypocrisy!

 

[GAssisi]

Continued—

1. EVASION - In a debate regarding the Deutero-canonicals with Gerry, White challenges Gerry Matatics to "prove that all of the books that are a part of the canon defined by the Council of Trent were unanimously accepted – that is, the correct canon – not just some of them, not just one or two of them, but all of them, to make his point this evening.” During the debate, White actually quotes St. Athanasius as a witness to HIS OWN canon. He races through a quote from the Saint’s 39th Festal Letter - but here is the funny thing. Athanasius not only EXCLUDES Esther from his Canon, but he INCLUDES two sections of the Deuteros that White rejects – namely, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Further, Athanasius accepts the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel! Unfortunately, Gerry failed to expose this in the debate, so White got away with his dishonest evasion of the facts.
2. HYPOCRISY#2 – Truth cannot abide with untruth in an absolute sense (I Cor 10:21-22; II Cor 6:14-16; I Jn 2:21). Either some visible entity possessed/ possesses the truth fully and with no compromise down through the ages per Christ’s prayer and promise, or the Gates of Hades prevailed against the Church. Jesus gave His promise to Peter in absolute terms. If any untruth has become dogma for the Church, then the Gates of Hades have indeed prevailed against her. Partial truth is no Truth at all. At this point, let us point out White’s hypocrisy. White appeals to Mt 16:18 to refute the LDS claim of a universal apostasy. He explains that “if the church failed in its mission, and ceased to exist for 1700 years, it is difficult to understand how the Father would be glorified in the church throughout all generations.” So White’s rationale is that the Father would not be glorified if His Gospel was not preached since the time of the Apostles all the way until the formation of the LDS Church. HOWEVER, White himself subscribes to a partial apostasy theory. Coach, can you yourself imagine that God would be glorified if His Truth was being preached IN ERROR? Is not preaching His Truth FULLY and WITHOUT ANY ERROR the ONLY real way that God can be glorified? What Church Father can White claim to have preached the same Gospel that White himself preaches? What Church Father can White claim to have preached some of the Truths to which White subscribes that has not simultaneously taught things that White himself considers heretical? White rejects baptismal regeneration as a false gospel, and there is ample historical documentation proving that the Church from the age of the apostolic fathers and onwards held to this belief, and taught it, vigorously and continuously. If that is the case, the Gospel, according to White and like polemicists, was not preached for over a millennium! And, according to his own words, “without the gospel, you do not have the Church!” Hence, the Church ceased to exist until the advent of the Reformation, putting him in the same boat with the Mormons and other heretical sects who need the total apostasy theory as a prerequisite for their very existence. White cannot have it both ways. Either the Church existed undefiled through the centuries, or she apostatized shortly after the death of the last apostle. Partial truth is no Truth at all!

It would take the space of an encyclopedia set to expose all White’s errors. I pray God opens your mind to see through White’s deceptions.

God bless,

Greg

 

[jimmy]

c0achmcguirk:

It’s a very simple doctrine, but easily confused. I recommend reading the section on sola Scriptura in the Roman Catholic Controversy by Dr. White. It does a good job explaining it. But perhaps this will help:

Sola Scriptura is not a:

1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge
3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth
4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church

sola Scriptura says:

1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

Maybe because the question is begging the question? It assumes (there is an infallible authority outside the Bible) what it seeks to prove.

God bless,
c0ach

coach, how do you know the scriptures are inerrant(infallable is a word for a person) if you do not have someone with authority to declare it so? It was a church council which decided what the scripture was.

 

[preyoflove]

“Do you need to know exhaustively how your computer works before you can use it?”

No, you don’t. But who taught you how to use the computer in the first place? The computer?

Seems to me like the computer said to its inventor,“Get out of my sight. I don’t need you around anymore. I can teach anyone who uses me all by myself.”

 

[AngelicDoctor]

c0achmcguirk:

MariaG, this would be a good argument if you could show that the oral tradition mentioned in the Bible contained something other than what was in the Scriptures.

Could you demonstrate us a tradition handed down by the Apostles that wasn’t recorded in Scripture?

God bless,
c0ach

I think you are too quick to dismiss MariaG’s mention of the “hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” quote in 2 Thess 2:15. How can YOU prove that the traditions passed on by word of mouth here mentioned are actually oral teachings about what is already in Scripture? The plain sense of the verse is that we must obey both the word of God as it is written down, and as it is communicated verbally by the authoritative Church. Would Paul even have needed to urge them to hold firm to the traditions communcated both orally and through letter, if the teachings that are explicitly written down in Scripture are the only ones that are authoritative. That is like saying, 'obey the traditions that we have handed down to you in letter,… and also obey the teachings that we have given orally ABOUT those teachings that are already recorded in Scripture. That is redundant.
What have you to say about the question of the development of doctrine? The church’s oral tradition has its kernal source in Scripture. However, questions arise about revelation as recorded in Scripture that had to be answered anew as the Church reflected on Sacrede Scripture, grew in its understanding of it, and applied it to new problems.
The CHurch found it necessary to debate and meet in council to decide that Jesus has both a human and divine nature (vs. Arianism and Docetism–Scripture can be used to argue both sides), and that his humanity was consubstantial with our own(monophysites denied this–citing Scripture). The Scriptures possess the foundation for a belief in the Trinity–but the Ttradition of the Church had to unfold to determine what exactly was the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (while some said the Son was subordinate to the Father, some said he was not, some denied the divinity of the HS).
How does Sola Scriptura solve these problems? How does sola scriptura (with private interpretation as a consequence) allow for an authoritative church to receive the Scriptures and grow in its understanding of them when heresies and new questions arise?

 

[c0achmcguirk]

preyoflove:

Eh? Are you saying that infallible Scripture is so definite and precise that a difference of interpretation is simply impossible?

No, where did I claim that? Does disagreement automagically create an infallible interpreter?

Are we to understand that every single fallible human being who reads the infallible Scripture will hopelessly, inevitably arrive at exactly the same infallible interpretation every other fallible human being, who ever read it, did?

No, and I never claimed it. If having an infallible interpreter solves this dilemma of disagreement…why do I see so much disagreement among Catholics on issues like Thomists Vs. Molinists, Novus Ordo Folks vs. the Traditionalists, Sedevacantists vs. mainstream Roman Catholicism, among many many many other issues.

There are disagreements among those who hold to sola Scriptura, I’ll admit it. But that doesn’t discount the rule of faith!

So to use your own critique above:

Are we to understand that every single fallible human being who reads the infallible Scripture and all the Papal Encyclicals and all the proceedings from every eccumenical council will hopelessly, inevitably arrive at exactly the same infallible interpretation every other fallible human being, who ever read it, did?

Disagreements do not render a rule of faith invalid. Or the Roman Catholic rule of faith is in serious trouble.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

fulloftruth:

If you cannot see that this is what Christ was doing and this is what the Apostles thought he meant, then I feel sorry for you.

A friendly tip from me, fulloftruth…Just listing verses and then saying you feel sorry for me if I don’t agree doesn’t really impress me too much.

If Isaiah 22 is your strongest prooftext for Papal succession, then you have huge problems, like those I mentioned earlier. (i.e. Key (singular) of House of David != Keys (plural) of Heaven; Jesus still having said key in Revelation 3:7; Lack of Patristic evidence that the fathers interpreted Isaiah 22 that way)

I hope you are being funny, Your line of thinking is quite comical and not at all on the level that any Protestant debater would hold a Catholic too much less himself.

I hope you enjoyed my post, not sure what was funny about it. But if you like jokes, I’m fond of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

The difference between a man and a boy is, a boy wants to grow up to be a fireman, but a man wants to grow up to be a giant monster fireman. --Jack Handey

no other church can trace an unbroken line of Successors from Peter

Eastern Orthodox, anyone?

every reformer was a Catholic, meaning the Catholic Church gave the faith to the reformers and that all of the reformers agreed that the Catholic Church was the Church That Christ started, but that it had fallen away at some point.

Boy, you have a lot of energy. You jump from logical conclusion to logical conclusion so fast that no one gets a chance to see how big the leap is and how many fallacies are made along the way…

I suppose now a Jew is going to say that Judaism is the true Church because every Apostle was a Jew first? Using your argument you’d have to agree with them.

The ego of Martin Luther and others got in the way of reform from within.

Ahhh, the ol’ trot out Luther and bash him, that’s the ticket! Come on now, what’s the topic again? Oh yeah, James White and Sola Scriptura and the Papacy, and, um, oh yeah add in Martin Luther. Actually, Luther was a very humble man, even saying that he didn’t want his books remembered in the years to come, just the Gospel. But that’s all beside the point, I guess.

but that in just 400 years because of Sola Scriptura, the Protestants have splintered into a loose association of believers in hardly the same Gospel, proclaiming beliefs that are quite different from Martin Luther and the reformers.

Disagreement doesn’t make my rule of faith (sola Scriptura) untrue any more than if I find Catholics who have different interpretations of the Catechism and Papal Encyclicals.

Yes, Protestants differ on many issues, but then again, so do Catholics. Does disagreement make your rule of faith invalid? You better hope not, or your rule of faith is invalid, too.

By whose authority did the reformers remove books from Sacred Scripture.

Judging from Jerome and most of Catholic Scholarship up until Trent (which rejected the Deuterocanonicals as inspired)…I’d ask you: why did Trent add the books?

And please don’t respond by quoting Carthage and Hippo…please study up on Jerome, Cajetan, Ximenes, and the Glossa Ordinaria that was so important to Catholic scholars in the Medievel period before you assume Protestants “removed” the Apocrypha from the canon.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MariaG:

I think you are saying that the oral words that we are told to hold fast to are the same as the written ones?

Yes, that is what I’m saying, until someone can produce proof that an Apostle taught of something that wasn’t in Scripture…

But then how do you explain the fact that Scripture also tells us that there are not enough books in the world to contain everything Jesus did (Jn 21:25)?

Yep, and it doesn’t tell us what Jesus ate for breakfast on April 24, 18 A.D., nor the color of Nicodemus’ hair. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible holds all knowledge, nor does it contain all religious knowledge. Sola Scriptura, plainly stated, is that the Bible is infallible and I can trust that it says what it’s supposed to say.

The Catholic faith can show Scripture that tells us to hold fast to oral tradition. We have oral tradition called Sacred Scripture. And the Scriptures even tell us not everything Christ did was written down. We are consistent.

You are the one asserting that the Apostles taught things that weren’t written in Scripture. Could you please demonstrate one of these extra-Biblical teachings?

How do you interpret the last verse of John telling us that not everything was written down?

The same way you do, Maria. The Bible doesn’t tell us what it didn’t record. The Bible doesn’t need to tell me the color of Peter’s eyes in order for it to function as my sole infallible rule of faith. Rome can’t tell you Peter’s eye color, either…does that mean your rule of faith is insufficient?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[MrS]

c0achmcguirk:

Sola Scriptura, plainly stated, is that the Bible is infallible and I can trust that it says what it’s supposed to say.

God bless,
c0ach

If you really believe that, how come you don’t recognize the Authority of the Catholic Church… it is infallible because it is in Scripture.

Or do you also believe Jesus lied about the permanency of the Church He founded.

Or do you also believe He founded more than one church?

“Upon this Rock I will build My Church”

Jesus did it
It is a work in progress
It is His
It is singular.

MrS

 

[c0achmcguirk]

preyoflove:

Of course, they can argue who among them is the greatest, or who should be in St. Peter’s office–as you prefer it to be–at that time. They have free will to do so.

But, if as Catholics claim, Jesus set Peter above all the other apostles to settle disputes among them as the infallible (when speaking on faith and morals, except in Galatians 2 ) why didn’t Jesus correct the apostles? Why didn’t he make it plain that Peter was to be the greatest among them? How strange that Jesus would leave the Apostles utterly clueless as to who their Prime Minister is.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[MrS]

c0achmcguirk:

But, if as Catholics claim, Jesus set Peter above all the other apostles to settle disputes among them as the infallible (when speaking on faith and morals, except in Galatians 2 ) why didn’t Jesus correct the apostles? Why didn’t he make it plain that Peter was to be the greatest among them? How strange that Jesus would leave the Apostles utterly clueless as to who their Prime Minister is.

God bless,
c0ach

He did. He renamed Simon to Peter. And no serious scholar, including Protestants, denies that the Rock is Peter. Jesus built His Church on Peter, not on Peter’s faith. Yes I can imagine the others saying " Your gonna build it on him???"

Only Peter was asked 3 times if he loved the Lord “…more than these…”, and each time was given the directive, from the Lord, to “feed my lambs” “tend my sheep” “feed my sheep”.

You should get a good Ctholic bible commentary(I suggest Navarre), learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, compare it to what you are being taught, and then let God take over,

MrS

 

[Apolonio]

Dave Armstrong in his blog site proves how White is a sophist. Now, let me give you one example how White is a great debater, but when it comes to truth, he is simply blind.

I think people are familiar with the Matatics/White/Svendsen “debate” (to White, this must not be a debate because it’s not a moderated formal debate, an excuse he brings when he has to speak of the debate with Akin, but anway) on Mary on the Dividing Line. The context was “heos hou” being used in Svendsen’s thesis. Matatics used the example of Joseph and Aseneth which is contradictory to Svendsen’s thesis. James White then said, “And can you show us any of that in the New Testament” Now…let’s hold on for a sec here. The topic was how heos hou was being used within the arbitrary timeframe of Svendsen. Matatics gave one example. White, who did not have an answer to it and could not interact with it, asked, “And can you show us any of that in the NT?” Matatics was pointing out how that’s not even the issue and then White interrupted him saying, “You’re really filibustering and I think everyone can see that.” Now, I think it is brilliant how White changed the subject completely and then tried to persuade the audience on how he was somehow filibustering, and then gave the reason of how Matatics was the one who talked the most.Matatics did talk the most, but that’s not the point. White never interacted with Matatics on this point and any honest person can see how he didn’t interact with the issue at hand. A great example of sophistry.

The next day or couple of days, White responded by saying, “One exception does not invalidate the rule” (not the actual words). I think he gave a comparison to a sport team which I don’t remember. Now, of course, the question involved here is the “rule” in the first place. So White already assumed the rule being true and said how one text is just an exception. However, anyone can see how this is contradictory to Svendsen’s theory.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

GAssisi:

As promised, here is a short list of examples of White’s dishonest rhetoric:

GAssisi, thanks for getting back to me. Let’s see if your charges of White being “arrogant” and “hate-filled” stick…

AD HOMINEM – White compares the Bishop of Rome with the Prophet of the Mormon Church.

First off, this isn’t ad hominem…you could say (possibly) Guilt by Association.

Secondly, whenever White uses Mormons in association with Catholics he clarifies and says why (“I’m not saying Mr. Madrid is a Mormon, we both believe in the Trinity…”). Thirdly, it’s a valid comparison when its used–it shows that there isn’t just one church that claims to be able to infallibly interpret Scripture (that follow Bible + Infallible Interpreter).

I don’t take issue when Catholic apologists make the same comparisons to make their points (like Tim Staples in the SS debate with White saying Protestants are like Jehovah’s Witnesses because we supposedly take one verse and run with it). It’s par for the course, it’s a debate and one must get their point across as quickly as possible.

I’m sorry but this isn’t an example of arrogance or hate. Let’s move on.

STRAW MAN – in the Justification Debate with Father Pacwa, Father Pacwa demanded proof for the existence of the Protestant doctrine of justification prior to the eve of the Reformation. Sadly, White could only appeal to one Church father (St. Clement of Rome), a false appeal, to be sure, which Fr. Pacwa pointed out.

He appealed to more than Clement, and I wouldn’t be so sure that it isn’t a valid appeal. I’ve read Clement’s teaching that we are saved by faith alone. At worst he’s inconsistent, you can’t just sweep the quote under the rug, my friend.

White simply could not allow the forceful truth of Pacwa’s query (that the Protestant doctrine was an innovation) to sink in with the audience, many, to be sure, being Protestants. Accordingly, White waves the banner of Protestantism high and proud, reminding the audience why the Reformation had to occur:

I will go back to listen to the MP3 to see if this is an accurate representation of the events. I don’t have time now. This seems very out of character for White, especially since I remember him referring back to Paul as a Church Father, and also Augustine in that debate.

However, what you described is not a Straw Man. A straw man is when you misrepresent your opponent, and then attack the misrepresentation…like if Bush would make a scarecrow that looks like John Kerry and tackled him onstage at a debate. Then Bush brushes himself off declaring himself the winner.

Still didn’t see any arrogance or hate, but let’s see what else you have.

STRAW MAN #2/ HYPOCRISY – Consider White’s debate with Jehovah’s Witness apologist Martin Smart regarding John 15…White’s response? “Without any undue disrespect, Mr. Smart’s presentation is 98% smoke, and 2% dust."

Again, I think you need to study up on what a Straw Man actually is. This isn’t a straw man, no matter how badly you want it to be.

But even if it were, this example falls far short of proving White to be arrogant and hate-filled.

GAssisi:

EVASION - In a debate regarding the Deutero-canonicals with Gerry

This assertion makes no sense. First off, evasion is when you dodge questions…I’ve never heard of evasion being “evasion of the facts.”

Secondly, Athanasius’ acceptance of the Deutero version of Daniel does not weaken White’s argument on the Canon one bit.

Third, I see no evidence of arrogance or hate here, brother. Just an argument you disagree with. Moving on…

 

[c0achmcguirk]

(Continued)

HYPOCRISY#2 – Truth cannot abide with untruth in an absolute sense (I Cor 10:21-22; II Cor 6:14-16; I Jn 2:21). Either some visible entity possessed/ possesses the truth fully and with no compromise down through the ages per Christ’s prayer and promise, or the Gates of Hades prevailed against the Church.

The gates of Hades cannot prevail against the Church because of Christ’s faithfulness to her not because the Pope is infallible. The Church is built upon the confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and as long as the Church confesses this truth, the gates of Hades are powerless against her. The Church does not need to be infallible in every action to be faithful to this promise from Jesus. Are you saying that if the Church ever errs than Satan has overpowered the Church?

Is not preaching His Truth FULLY and WITHOUT ANY ERROR the ONLY real way that God can be glorified?

This is a hard pill to swallow. Are you saying that every Catholic priest preaches without error? And the second these fallible priests make a mistake God’s glory is diminished completely? God must sure be frustrated that He can’t get any glory from all these fallible humans.

I note here that this “HYPOCRISY#2” is little more than a catch-all for disagreements you have with White’s beliefs. I disagree with your beliefs, too, does that mean I am arrogant and hate-filled?

Surely this piece of evidence wasn’t one of White’s arrogance and hatred, was it?

It would take the space of an encyclopedia set to expose all White’s errors. I pray God opens your mind to see through White’s deceptions.

The oft-cited “White is full of errors” soundbite. And to a point, I’d agree, White has made a few mistakes here and there, said some things he probably shouldn’t have.

But I don’t see this arrogance and hatred charge that you level against him. The two long posts you cited did little to show this, so I hope you’ll be apologizing and refining your critiques against him in this forum where many don’t know any better and will accept your claims without verifying them.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

jimmy:

coach, how do you know the scriptures are inerrant(infallable is a word for a person) if you do not have someone with authority to declare it so? It was a church council which decided what the scripture was.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the word “infallible” can be applied to an inanimate object, so the word is used properly.

Go back and read my posts on whether or not the canon is infallible…I’d hate to keep repeating myself here. I’m long-winded enough as it is tonight.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

preyoflove:

But who taught you how to use the computer in the first place?

Whether someone teaches me or whether I’m self-taught to use the computer…it changes little. I can still use the computer even if I don’t know how it works exhaustively.

In the same way, I don’t need to know the canon infallibly before I can claim that the Bible is infallible (inerrant, if you prefer).

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

I think you are too quick to dismiss MariaG’s mention of the “hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” quote in 2 Thess 2:15. How can YOU prove that the traditions passed on by word of mouth here mentioned are actually oral teachings about what is already in Scripture?

Because many times the Scriptures clues us into it, like how 2 Thess 3:6, which speaks of oral teachings, refers back to 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and 1 Thessalonians 4. This is an oral teaching which is recorded (one and the same) in Scripture!

So like Tertullian says, “oral teachings” in the Bible are not referring to some secret doctrines that will surface years later without any written evidence that they originated with the apostles.

Remember, it is you and Maria asserting that these oral traditions are not recorded in Scripture. Could you demonstrate one of them and prove they originated with the apostles?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Guys, I probably can’t do too many of these nights where I respond to everyone…so I probably can’t post too much more on this thread (I have a family I need to support )

I appreciate the civil dialogue… I think we’ve exhausted the thread topic for the time being.

God bless,
c0ach

PS: Please don’t call fellow Christians “arrogant” or “hate-filled” unless you have clear evidence that shows this.

 

[MariaG]

I think we’ve exhausted this topic . When you make a statement:

This is a hard pill to swallow. Are you saying that every Catholic priest preaches without error? And the second these fallible priests make a mistake God’s glory is diminished completely? God must sure be frustrated that He can’t get any glory from all these fallible humans

This is a complete overstatement and twisting of what has been said here. Are thes honest questions?