Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[des_scahill]

Do you truly believe that God is a democracy? Look at our country and all of the sins that are passed by legislatures. Almost every elected offical says they are Christian; yet, we pass laws that are morally depraved. Again do you truly believe your vote is not connected to culture and politics?

This is a perfect example of why Protestants do not truly believe in Sola Scriptura. If there was persipity of scripture would one have to vote on it. If you vote for a change this would mean that prior to the vote your theology was in error.

No, it might superficially look like a democratic process,but its not. Any doctrinal change proposed would have already been rigorously compared against the sacred texts we use. If it contradicted those, it would never be brought before the congregation in the first place.

If it did not contradict the sacred texts in any way, we would still subject it to a final test of acceptance that involved every admitted member of our congregation - those that have been sealed with the indwelling Holy Spirit. We believe He also guides ALL our members in discerning truth from error.

( Remember, we are supposedly talking about a major change of some doctrine we hold that is not already clearly defined) The Holy Spirit is quite capable of giving great wisdom and spiritual discernment to any member when needed, and we would want to ensure that His counsel is heard. If only ONE member rejects the change, then no change occurs.

This is not a legislative voting process, it is a verification process,

We merely seek to do our very best to ensure that God’s theocratic fiat is complied with.

We don’t feel there is any need to apologize for checking and testing ALL things to the best of our corporate human ability. As we freely acknowledge we are imperfect men, therefore there is ALWAYS in our view a possibility that we are in error in some way. This is NOT a case of someone coming up with a new idea and so we immediately vote whether we like it or not. The standard we set is:

  100% compliance with the sacred texts. That involves a
   very rigorous process of review and consultation. If it doesn't pass that, nothing happens.
  100% acceptance by EVERY member of the congregation

Anything less than that, nothing changes. To say this is akin to a democratic voting system is simply misrepresenting the situation.

.

 

[guanophore]

Please show me where our Savior says to take answers that we need for salvation to yours or my or any other church.

There is no “other church”. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. Therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of His ONE CHURCH.

It is written,“Search the Scriptures for in THEM you will find eternal life, for these are they that speak of me”.

Wow. This is one of the best examples I have seen of the twisting of scripture.

I don’t know who taught you to understand it this way, but you have (probably inadvertately) stood it on it’s head.

Jesus is telling them that Life is not in the Scriptures, but in Himself. The Scriptures point to Him.

Once again here is the difference of how we come to seperate the doctrines & commandments of men & the Almighty. Of course that is just my understanding. I know with that statement I will hear, as I have in this thread from my Catholic friends, that the Church has the last word, not Scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong in this conclusion. Your brother in our Savior.

No, this is a misperception. Catholics do not do “Church…and not Scripture”. The NT was produced by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that contradicts what the Church teaches because the whole of the NT contents was penned from the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. There is no “either / or”. It is both/and.

I hope that is corrective my brother in Christ!

 

[des_scahill]

NO!!!

You state, “Of course that is just my understanding”, which is very true, for you can have no other since there is no other authority to aid you in your search. So how do you determine whether your “understanding” is of almighty or of men, in this case you?

…

I do not wish to fight or belittle any of my non-catholic Brethren. We have here a difficult and basic Question of faith. We have discussed it persaonlly, We have discussed it among several of us and we cannot resolve it. There fore let us Obey Christ’s Command. Let us follow Christ’s Commandment to "Take it ti the Church. (Matthew 18:15-17)

Peace
James

Part of the problem here is that (naturally enough) Catholics in general don’t fully understand the way '‘church government’ operates in Protestant churches. I’ve tried to show a rough ’ outline of how the Baptist church handles things in Post 407 above.

We think our approach is biblically sound, but that doesn’t mean we think its perfect in practice. From what little reading I’ve done of the Douay Rheims bible so far, I quite honestly don’t think we’d have any great problem using that version or some other ‘Catholic’ version as our central authority reference.

And lets face it, seeing the major essentials of our faith are summarized in the Nicene Creed which we agree with are we really going to off and make up some weird new doctrine about the Deity of Christ? . .

My own synopsis of the baptist view is that the canon and the Creeds accepted by all the major denominations pretty much summarize all thats needed to preach the right gospel and ensure that believers build a right relationship with our Lord.

Our major fault - if it is one- is that most Baptists are totally paranoid about checking up on things… If anyone comes along to us and says ‘believe this doctrine’ the entire congregation of lay people, deacons, elders, and pastors are going to have to unanimously agree before we’d accept it. And long before it even got to the point of going before our congregation we’d have probably pulled out every bible version,and commentary we could find, (including catholic writings) , the underlying greek and hebrew texts, and debated the issue internally.

We find it quite incomprehensible how anyone with even the slightest commonsense - even a non-believer - could read a bible and convince themselves practicing homosexuals could hold a church office. And if another denomination came to up us and said on that particular matter “but by what authority do you make that interpretation, how can you be sure its correct” , being Australians, one of our more polite members would probably gently suggest they “catch the bus back to Disneyland before it closes” and end the conversation.

I’m not quite sure what we would say to Bishop Spong, but I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t want to be there. Here’s what he believed back in 1998

Bishop Spong’s argument

Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognised Christian leaders of the world.

My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The Issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

anglicantas.org.au/tasmaniananglican/200310-spong.html

 

[PerryJ]

No, it might superficially look like a democratic process,but its not. Any doctrinal change proposed would have already been rigorously compared against the sacred texts we use. If it contradicted those, it would never be brought before the congregation in the first place.

If it did not contradict the sacred texts in any way, we would still subject it to a final test of acceptance that involved every admitted member of our congregation - those that have been sealed with the indwelling Holy Spirit. We believe He also guides ALL our members in discerning truth from error.

( Remember, we are supposedly talking about a major change of some doctrine we hold that is not already clearly defined) The Holy Spirit is quite capable of giving great wisdom and spiritual discernment to any member when needed, and we would want to ensure that His counsel is heard. If only ONE member rejects the change, then no change occurs.

This is not a legislative voting process, it is a verification process,

We merely seek to do our very best to ensure that God’s theocratic fiat is complied with.

We don’t feel there is any need to apologize for checking and testing ALL things to the best of our corporate human ability. As we freely acknowledge we are imperfect men, therefore there is ALWAYS in our view a possibility that we are in error in some way. This is NOT a case of someone coming up with a new idea and so we immediately vote whether we like it or not. The standard we set is:

  100% compliance with the sacred texts. That involves a
   very rigorous process of review and consultation. If it doesn't pass that, nothing happens.
  100% acceptance by EVERY member of the congregation

Anything less than that, nothing changes. To say this is akin to a democratic voting system is simply misrepresenting the situation.

.

So how do you define major doctrine? Is that defined?

How was the first doctrine set and by who? Did it take 100% unanimous belief when it was set?

If I understand correctly you are stating the 100% to change doctrine is within your own congregation and not outside of it.

Concerning Democracy I am not trying to be sarcastic. I understand that you believe the Holy Spirit is involved and I would agree. Probably to a much lesser extent than you though. I am still trying to understand the details of your thought.

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou James for putting me straight on what you meant. I read from certain people that it is the church that we go to for the right interpretation for truth in the Scriptures. Our Savior gave us only one Representative & Spokesman when He left, & it wasn’t Peter. It was & is the Spirit Who guides us into all truth,John16:7-14;14:26;15:26. I have read that the church was built on Peter. To build a church on a sinning fallible man is not Scriptural. The church was built on our Savior,Eph.2:20, 1Peter2:6. The text that you gave me for the church being the last word, Matt.18:15-17, is talking about one sinning against another & not repenting. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the Law”, 1 John3:4. So it is not the church but what the church lives by, the word. It is the churches duty to get an Achan out of the camp when he or she is not living according to the word, not what the church says. Sorry for getting off the subject of this thread concerning Peter. Like I said before, I have been, & still seem, to be guilty of using this thread for another discussion. Thankyou for your responses to my questions & statements James. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[larry_m]

To James. When I stated that it was my understanding, I didn’t mean what conclusion I came to outside of Scripture. My understanding comes through Scripture. Thankyou my brother.

 

[PerryJ]

Thankyou James for putting me straight on what you meant. I read from certain people that it is the church that we go to for the right interpretation for truth in the Scriptures. Our Savior gave us only one Representative & Spokesman when He left, & it wasn’t Peter. It was & is the Spirit Who guides us into all truth,John16:7-14;14:26;15:26. I have read that the church was built on Peter. To build a church on a sinning fallible man is not Scriptural. The church was built on our Savior,Eph.2:20, 1Peter2:6. The text that you gave me for the church being the last word, Matt.18:15-17, is talking about one sinning against another & not repenting. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the Law”, 1 John3:4. So it is not the church but what the church lives by, the word. It is the churches duty to get an Achan out of the camp when he or she is not living according to the word, not what the church says. Sorry for getting off the subject of this thread concerning Peter. Like I said before, I have been, & still seem, to be guilty of using this thread for another discussion. Thankyou for your responses to my questions & statements James. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Do you believe that the “word” means the Bible?

Depending of the verse and the book it can mean that particular book of the Bible, Christ or oral tradition. The context and use of “word” is often not meant as the Bible. The Bible did not even exist.

 

[larry_m]

To Perry J. The word is the spoken, written, & Lving Word. They are all synonomous. One doesn’t contradict the other. Thankyou for your question & not coming to a conclusion of what I meant. The Almighty is not an Author of confusion. He is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow. There is no shadow of turning nor variableness in Him.

 

[des_scahill]

Thank you for this explanation. Most informative.
I highlighted the one section in order to ask one question.
I note that you say the there needs to be “completely unanimous agreement” in order for teaching to change.
What happens when 80% feel the interpretation should not change and 20% say it should and Both sides feel strongly about it.

Don’t forget that to even reach the congregation, its got to have passed rigorous review against our sacred texts. If it doesn’t pass that, then it never gets to the congregation.

What mechanism prevents a schism in the community?
Are the 20% expected to submit their will and beliefs to the majority?

Definitely not. They too have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and maybe they’ve heard Him clearer than the rest of us.

What happens if the 20% decide to split from the majority over this issue?

Thats really up to them if they decide to split. There’s no sanctions of any sort. If they felt that strongly over it, we would make sure we had listened to them very intently, had allowed plenty of dialogue, plus gaps of time so any heated emotional elements could cool down.

At the end of the day, we believe that every person is going to stand before God and be held personally responsible for what he/she decided to accept as “truth”. So the remaining 80% would also want to be sure as they could be that they were truly confident of their position, not “emotionally” confident. Numbers of people have nothing to with ‘truth’.

Peace
James

 

[PerryJ]

To Perry J. The word is the spoken, written, & Lving Word. They are all synonomous. One doesn’t contradict the other. Thankyou for your question & not coming to a conclusion of what I meant. The Almighty is not an Author of confusion. He is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow. There is no shadow of turning nor variableness in Him.

So do you believe in oral tradition? I believe oral tradition is not in conflict with scripture but could be an enhancement to scripture?

 

[JRKH]

Thankyou James for putting me straight on what you meant. I read from certain people that it is the church that we go to for the right interpretation for truth in the Scriptures. Our Savior gave us only one Representative & Spokesman when He left, & it wasn’t Peter. It was & is the Spirit Who guides us into all truth,John16:7-14;14:26;15:26. I have read that the church was built on Peter. To build a church on a sinning fallible man is not Scriptural.

I’m sorry my friend, but in this you are incorrect. Our Dear Lord did indeed build His Church upon “Fallible Men”, Jsut as His (and our) Father built the Jewish Nation upon the very Fallible Moses, and Saul, and David, and others even down to the fallible Scribed and Pharasees of Christ’s own time.
Are you saying that God did not ordain and sustain a Jewish Leadership - Both Good and Bad?
As to it being “unscriptural”, Matthew 16:18 clearly states that Christ Named Simon Kepha, and upon this Kepha He built His Church. You may disagree with this, but your disagreement does not make something “unscriptural”. Plus, 1975 years of continuous belief and practice (traditon) backs up my understanding so I am not standing upon just “my” understanding.

The church was built on our Savior,Eph.2:20, 1Peter2:6. The text that you gave me for the church being the last word, Matt.18:15-17, is talking about one sinning against another & not repenting. What is sin? “Sin is the transgression of the Law”, 1 John3:4. So it is not the church but what the church lives by, the word. It is the churches duty to get an Achan out of the camp when he or she is not living according to the word, not what the church says.

“Sin is a transgression of the Law”. So say you above. I will not disagree.
Will you, likewise agree that teaching a false doctrine is a transgression of the Law? One that is worthy of bringing to the attention of the transgressor, and the Church, if necessary?

Sorry for getting off the subject of this thread concerning Peter. Like I said before, I have been, & still seem, to be guilty of using this thread for another discussion. Thankyou for your responses to my questions & statements James. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No problem. This thread has had the great benefit of a most Christian discussion. I doubt that anyone here could say they have not learned something beneficial.

I also understand about getting off track…
I am planning to start a new thread on the subject of “Taking it to the Church” so that we can discuss this more fully.

Peace
James

 

[larry_m]

My brother, James, gave me Matt.18:15-18 as a proof text for the church as the last word. We cannot leave out verses19 & 20. If we go by these standards, as interpreted by man, then we have to say that all other beliefs are of the Almighty. Mormons with their BOM. After all they had more than two witnesses. JW’s with their heresy of our Savior not being Divine & equal with the Father. They have many witnesses. The Koran. After all there are a billion witnesses there. So all of these beliefs are bound in heaven by this process? This is why we need a standard to go to for our answers. Not the erring churches & all their schisms with unbiblical doctrines. The Scriptures that point us to our only hope, our Savior. All sorts of heresy has tried to creep into my church. The doctrine of holy flesh, shot down by Scripture. Arianism & semi-Arianism, that teaches that our Savior was created or made, shot down by Scripture. Pantheism, shot down by Scripture. Nothing outside of Scripture was & is used. This is why I & believe in SS.

 

[des_scahill]

So how do you define major doctrine? Is that defined?

How was the first doctrine set and by who? Did it take 100% unanimous belief when it was set?

If I understand correctly you are stating the 100% to change doctrine is within your own congregation and not outside of it.

Concerning Democracy I am not trying to be sarcastic. I understand that you believe the Holy Spirit is involved and I would agree. Probably to a much lesser extent than you though. I am still trying to understand the details of your thought.

I really appreciate your willingness to listen Perry

Yes, you are right - the change is restricted solely to
my congregation. But we do consult pretty widely
as part of the ‘change’ process

Its a bit late down here, and I really need to go to bed.
So rather than give you a 'quick’answer which might
lead to misunderstanding I’ll get back to you later on,
and try to give you some real-life examples

Blessings
.

 

[PerryJ]

My brother, James, gave me Matt.18:15-18 as a proof text for the church as the last word. We cannot leave out verses19 & 20. If we go by these standards, as interpreted by man, then we have to say that all other beliefs are of the Almighty. Mormons with their BOM. After all they had more than two witnesses. JW’s with their heresy of our Savior not being Divine & equal with the Father. They have many witnesses. The Koran. After all there are a billion witnesses there. So all of these beliefs are bound in heaven by this process? This is why we need a standard to go to for our answers. Not the erring churches & all their schisms with unbiblical doctrines. The Scriptures that point us to our only hope, our Savior. All sorts of heresy has tried to creep into my church. The doctrine of holy flesh, shot down by Scripture. Arianism & semi-Arianism, that teaches that our Savior was created or made, shot down by Scripture. Pantheism, shot down by Scripture. Nothing outside of Scripture was & is used. This is why I & believe in SS.

Is not the Lord in 19 and 20 speaking to the Disciples and not men at large?

 

[JRKH]

Don’t forget that to even reach the congregation, its got to have passed rigorous review against our sacred texts. If it doesn’t pass that, then it never gets to the congregation.

---

Definitely not. They too have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and maybe they’ve heard Him clearer than the rest of us.

---

Thats really up to them if they decide to split. There’s no sanctions of any sort. If they felt that strongly over it, we would make sure we had listened to them very intently, had allowed plenty of dialogue, plus gaps of time so any heated emotional elements could cool down.

---

At the end of the day, we believe that every person is going to stand before God and be held personally responsible for what he/she decided to accept as “truth”. So the remaining 80% would also want to be sure as they could be that they were truly confident of their position, not “emotionally” confident. Numbers of people have nothing to with ‘truth’.

Peace
James

It’s amazing how your first paragraph reflect the same sort of thing that goes on in the Magisterium. Study, Prayer, Discussion, Debate are all part of the Process. It may (and often does) take many years or decades before some new “teaching” or “understanding” is promulgated in the Church.

The big difference of course is that once the Church, under the Guidance of the HS, does make a decision and issues the appropriate documents, we the faithful are expected to submit our wills to that of the Church which has Christ’s authority. This allows us to adhere to Matthew 18:17. Without this authority, Your Church must simply allow the dissenters to leave because neither side can claim Authority.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

My brother, James, gave me Matt.18:15-18 as a proof text for the church as the last word. We cannot leave out verses19 & 20. If we go by these standards, as interpreted by man, then we have to say that all other beliefs are of the Almighty. Mormons with their BOM. After all they had more than two witnesses. JW’s with their heresy of our Savior not being Divine & equal with the Father. They have many witnesses. The Koran. After all there are a billion witnesses there. So all of these beliefs are bound in heaven by this process? **This is why we need a standard to go to for our answers. Not the erring churches & all their schisms with unbiblical doctrines. **The Scriptures that point us to our only hope, our Savior. All sorts of heresy has tried to creep into my church. The doctrine of holy flesh, shot down by Scripture. Arianism & semi-Arianism, that teaches that our Savior was created or made, shot down by Scripture. Pantheism, shot down by Scripture. Nothing outside of Scripture was & is used. This is why I & believe in SS.

I’m not sure I understand you correctly, but This “Standard” that you are refering to, The Bible, contains the very “Scripture” that you are saying OK’s the LDS, JW, and others. This only points up the falicy of SS, for it is by the Authority of Christ’s Church, properly using and teaching the Gospel, that tells us what is and is not proper teaching and understanding. After all does not the Gospel also tell us to “Cut off” offending body parts? (Matthew 5:30 and Matthew 18:8) Is there anything in the Bible that tells us Jesus was teaching metaphorically here? Not that I am aware of. It is by the Tradition and Authority of The Church that we know that we are not to mutulate ourselves.
But maybe it’s my turn to misunderstand you.

Peace
james

 

[twb1621]

Before a true Christian attempts to discredit the Catholic faith, he should have the deep curiosity and intent to learn how it is that his or her denomination came to be separate from the oldest Christian Church. Have you ever asked yourself, why would mine be founded by man centuries after Christ and the apostles? Within Scripture, Christ refers to the “sifting of Wheat”. Be curious as to why some followed the later opinions of men (often who left the Catholic Church) rather than “persevering” with the only true Christian Church as Christ stated. Why so many Christian denominations use the very basics of the Bible taken from the Latin Vulgate but yet not all of it. As far as those times in the church were at one time or other corruption existed, how can that justify those who left to form faiths based on their own opinions. Christ made a point of warning of the corrupt but also of the importance of perseverance not abandoning His Church. It is every person’s responsibility to seek the truth.

 

[larry_m]

I am sorry I am so ignorant on how to use the thread to answer each person line by line like my learned friends do. To PerryJ. Aren’t we all disciples to go out to the world to teach the gospel? So if it was just to the disciples, so much for our gathering in two or three & Him being with us. Doesn’t make sense. To James. The"scripture" that JW’s & Mormons use is not the same as what we use. That is my point. The Mormons say the BOM is new Scripture. The JW’s have their own bible that they have added & taken out key words to explain their false doctrine of our Savior not being Divine. They go against Scripture that states not to add or delete words from Scripture. That is my point. When I have JW’s or Mormons come to my door & tell me what they teach is truth, I do not, at the end of our discussion, say Gods speed. The real Scriptures tell me not to. What they use is not from Scripture. Even so I have learned something from both those groups. Their zeal, & their going from door to door to preach what they believe to be true. If only we would be so fervent. Too much laziness in our churches. We rely too much on the elected ones to bring the gospel to the world. I sure appreciate these rousing discussions. I am learning much here. Thankyou.

 

[chosensinner]

Is this what you mean by “letting the scripture interpret itself”? Sounds more like, twist the words of scripture to meet my preconceived notion. It never says anything about one or the other being sufficient.

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says about this passage in his Homilies on 2 Thessalonians (4):

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

In other words, the passage means what it says:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle.

This is basic reading comprehension. Stand fast to the traditions - to the traditions whether they came by word of mouth or by epistle. It never says the same traditions were transmitted in both forms. Do you really think that Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians contain everything he taught to the Thessalonians? Everything about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, which together are about 5 pages long?

If this is your proof of sola scriptura from the scripture, it’s pretty weak. I don’t think one person in a hundred reading this passage would say it’s a defense or justification of sola scriptura. After you try to twist it around - your whole argument rests on the word “or” (like Bill Clinton - it depends on what is is) - you try to twist the meaning of this one verse to fit what your preconceived notion is. Is this what you mean by the Bible being your sole rule of faith and morals? That you can justify whatever you want to by twisting around individual passages to try to make them fit what you want to say?

Where does the Bible teach, plainly (as you have indicated that sola scriptura says it should) the doctrine of sola scriptura?

(Hint: It doesn’t.)

I am sorry that you feel this way, and that you rely wholly upon other men for your faith, and religious comfort. (Chrysostom is not the greatest source of security if you ask me) Not that it’s always wrong to reference other men of the faith- but to simply quote Chrysostom as if he is the final say- and expect me to bow at his word- is a little humorous to me. We can all pick and choose from the fathers to support our interpretations- and then when it comes to another verse- we seem to abandon these same fathers, and jump on the band wagon of another. In my opinion, it is your method- (not my interpretation) - that is “weak.”

Furthermore- I did not twist the Scripture; for just as you accuse me of reading into the text, my preconceived notions- it is plain to all who are on this forum (and who’s conscience is not defiled) that it is you who have the pre-conceived notions.

You salivate over every appearance of the word “tradition” and automatically assume that it speaks of some un-recorded doctrine- (un-recorded in Scripture and unrecorded by Rome). You would assume that these “oral traditions” that are distinctlive to the Roman Catholic Church are actually spoken of in the Scriptures- and yet you could not identify them if your faith depended on it!

Funny that you would use ad-hominem arguments and loose accuasations (stained with double standards) - and yet avoid my original question entirely- great job.

So can you give me an answer to my question please?

If you would maintain that the content spoken by the apostle’s mouth differed from the content recorded in the apostle’s epistle, could you please give me an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle Paul refers in 2 Thes. 2:15?

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou TWB. As a Protestant, I have done decades of research, gone to a multitude of churches, had bible study with Catholic, Protestant & Jews alike to find out why people believe what they believe & what is their standard of belief. Why? For one, because I love fellowship with people of other faiths & to have an idea where they are coming from so I am not ignorant of their beliefs. So we can have good discussions as we do here. I respect all my brothers & sisters beliefs in this & other threads. I have studied the history, doctrines of many churches & why the Reformation. I have come to my conclusions based on these studies. Too many of my Protestant friends have no clue why they are Protestants. Shame on us if we don’t have an answer for our faith. Sorry for long answer. By the way, as you can tell, a scholar I am not. Just a layman seeking for more insight into Truth as it is in our Savior.