Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[larry_m]

Meaculpa. Start a new thread on transubstantiation & we will get down to the brass tacts of the blasphemy of its teaching. Thanks.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I
I also agree that Jesus never SAID “we must have a personal relationship with Him in order to be saved” BUT HE CERTAINLY TAUGHT IT with teachings such as Matthew 7. Those who are not saved are those to whom Christ will say “I never KNEW you.” This word “knew” is more than cognitive intake- but rather it denotes a personal and covenantal relationship- it’s called UNION.

Those who are saved are one with Christ as a husband and wife are also one- see Ephesians 5:25!

Other teachings such as the Head and the Body denote personal relationship.

      :bigyikes:   SCRIPTURE TWISTER ALERT!!!!!!!  :bigyikes:

Ephesians 5:25 says:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.

This doesn’t say anything about a “personal relationship with Jesus” - it’s about Christ’s love for the (Catholic) Church, which he founded and the apostles built. Christ is the Head, and the Church is His body.

Ephesians 5:29 says

For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body.

 

[chosensinner]

:bigyikes: SCRIPTURE TWISTER ALERT!!! :bigyikes:

Ephesians 5:25 says:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.

This doesn’t say anything about a “personal relationship with Jesus” - it’s about Christ’s love for the (Catholic) Church, which he founded and the apostles built. Christ is the Head, and the Church is His body.

Ephesians 5:29 says

For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body.

Wow I didn’t know I had to chew it up and feed it to you in baby food! Clearly you did not understand the distinction that I made between saying a thing and teaching a thing.

If the Bible teaches that husbends are to love their wives (the most personal relationship in the flesh)- “just as Christ loved the Church” - Is it “scripture twisting” to gather from this that there is a personal relationship between Christ and his church?

Please- just slow down and think about these things before you react so vehemently hostile toward the truth of Scripture.

If you would like for me to give EXPLICIT Scripture on the fact that we are ONE with Christ- (this way you will be able to properly discern the meaning of Eph. 5:25) THEN READ THIS:

“He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17)

Now I ask you- if we are one spirit with Christ (because of our union with him- “joined unto the Lord”) why do you accuse me of twisting Scripture- when that is exactly the point Paul was making in Ephesians 5, by referring to the marriage of a husband and wife?

And if you will read the context of 1 Corinthians 6:17- you will see that this too is speaking of marriage- though it is a spiritual marriage between Christ and his church- the closest and most personal relationship in all of creation!

I don’t twist Scripture- you just fail to discern it. :whacky:

 

[chosensinner]

If Jesus is just talking about believing in him, why would many of his disciples react so strongly against it? John 5:60 says, “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’”

Jesus didn’t then say, oh, I just meant you have to believe in me. No, he reaffirmed that he is the Bread of Life and that only those that eat this bread will have eternal life.

John 6:66 says, “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him.”

Jesus didn’t try to water down his teaching, or say He really just meant to believe in Him. As a consequence, many of his disciples left Him. Why would they leave if this teaching meant only, “You have to believe in me.”?

So, you’re like the disciples who find this a hard saying and leave Him.

Clearly you are in error because you do not understand the Scriptures. I am not shocked, however, since to discern spiritual things is impossible for the carnal man- “But the carnal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)! :whacky:

To answer your question on why so many of his professing disciplesbetrayed him and why even his true disciples thought that it was a hard saying- is because their minds were carnal.

They were all thinking about physical bread- and the whole time Jesus was really talking about spiritual sustenance!

Besides- Jesus himself was speaking spiritual truths in a parable so that those who were not of God could not understand- and he would never explain it to them privately either.

Don’t believe me? Well what saith the Scriptures?

“9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. [to see exactly how they asked him- see Matthew 13:10] 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 In order that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:9-12)

Did you not know that truth is “given” and even “hidden” as God sees fit?
Did you not know that truth is “revealed” and even “concealed” as God sees fit?

“25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, **because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. **26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” (Matthew 11:25-27)

This is why John 6:42-47 says:

“And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

This is why Jesus said to Peter: “Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah- for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you- but my Father in Heaven.”

This is why Jesus so often cried out “He who has ears TO HEAR- let him hear!”
The ears that Jesus spoke of were not physical ears- but spiritual ears- and only God gives this gift of grace. (Please see Deut. 29:2-4)

Not only is all of this true- BUT just incase all of this went over the heads of his true disciples- this clarification was given at the end of the ‘bread of life’ discourse in John 6:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Wow I didn’t know I had to chew it up and feed it to you in baby food! Clearly you did not understand the distinction that I made between saying a thing and teaching a thing.

If the Bible teaches that husbends are to love their wives (the most personal relationship in the flesh)- “just as Christ loved the Church” - Is it “scripture twisting” to gather from this that there is a personal relationship between Christ and his church?

Yes, his Catholic Church, and through it with its members. It’s not “me, Jesus, and the Bible.” He’s talking about the Church.

Please- just slow down and think about these things before you react so vehemently hostile toward the truth of Scripture.

So far, you’re misrepresented 2 Tim 2:15 (still waiting for some kind of coherent reply about that passage), John 6, and now Ephesians 5:25. I can now see why you like sola scriptura - just quote a verse out of context, say it means whatever you want it to, and you’re done!

In other words, I haven’t seen anything resembling the truth of Scripture in your posts.

If you would like for me to give EXPLICIT Scripture on the fact that we are ONE with Christ- (this way you will be able to properly discern the meaning of Eph. 5:25) THEN READ THIS:

“He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17)

Now I ask you- if we are one spirit with Christ (because of our union with him- “joined unto the Lord”) why do you accuse me of twisting Scripture- when that is exactly the point Paul was making in Ephesians 5, by referring to the marriage of a husband and wife?

Ah, no, he was talking about the relationship of Christ to the Church in Eph 5:25:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.

How you go from that verse to “having a personal relationship with Jesus” is beyond me.

And if you will read the context of 1 Corinthians 6:17- you will see that this too is speaking of marriage- though it is a spiritual marriage between Christ and his church- the closest and most personal relationship in all of creation!

I don’t twist Scripture- you just fail to discern it. :whacky:

Yes, a spiritual marriage between Christ and his (Catholic) Church" - what does that have to do with a “personal relationship with Jesus”?

By the way, Catholics have the most personal relationship with Jesus it is possible to have - we are members of his body (the Catholic Church) - the bride that he loved so much he was willing to die for her - and He is truly and substantially present to us in the Eucharist. There is no more personal relationship than this possible.

You too can have this real, holy, life-changing personal relationship with Jesus. The first step is to sign up for RCIA at your local parish. This will prepare you to receive His Holy Sacraments, including baptism (if you haven’t received a valid baptism), reconciliation (confession), Eucharist, Confirmation. These are the ways, taught by Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, for people to have a real, personal relationship with Jesus.

 

[chosensinner]

Yes, his Catholic Church, and through it with its members. It’s not “me, Jesus, and the Bible.” He’s talking about the Church.

So far, you’re misrepresented 2 Tim 2:15 (still waiting for some kind of coherent reply about that passage), John 6, and now Ephesians 5:25. I can now see why you like sola scriptura - just quote a verse out of context, say it means whatever you want it to, and you’re done!

In other words, I haven’t seen anything resembling the truth of Scripture in your posts.

Ah, no, he was talking about the relationship of Christ to the Church in Eph 5:25:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.

How you go from that verse to “having a personal relationship with Jesus” is beyond me.

Yes, a spiritual marriage between Christ and his (Catholic) Church" - what does that have to do with a “personal relationship with Jesus”?

By the way, Catholics have the most personal relationship with Jesus it is possible to have - we are members of his body (the Catholic Church) - the bride that he loved so much he was willing to die for her - and He is truly and substantially present to us in the Eucharist. There is no more personal relationship than this possible.

You too can have this real, holy, life-changing personal relationship with Jesus. The first step is to sign up for RCIA at your local parish. This will prepare you to receive His Holy Sacraments, including baptism (if you haven’t received a valid baptism), reconciliation (confession), Eucharist, Confirmation. These are the ways, taught by Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, for people to have a real, personal relationship with Jesus.

QUESTION:

Do you believe that Christ loves His church and is married to his church and is one with his church- and yet there are members of his church with whom he has no personal relationship?

C’mon Mea Culpa- are you that far gone? Can’t you see the obvious connection between marriage and relationship? Is marriage an impersonal relationship?

You act like I believe that Jesus is married to each of us separately- but again- you are simply building strawmen and knocking them down in order to seem like you are smart in front of your catholic audience. It’s not working. You cannot knock down TRUTH :banghead:

QUESTION:

You put (Catholic) in front of Church- are you under the impression that Non-Catholics are not a part of Christ’s bride?

Are we his mistressess then? Or do you take the position that all non-Catholics are outside of the Church- according to Vatican I?

I know that Catholic simply means universal- but don’t pretend that you were not referring to the Church of Rome and her affiliates- we all know the way you put that one across.

STATEMENT:

When we get back to Sola Scriptura- I would like to present the next passage that clearly teaches the doctrine we hold. Thx.

 

[chosensinner]

Mea Culpa: "-It’s about Christ’s love for the (Catholic) Church, which he founded and the apostles built."

Just a side note- the apostles did not build Christ’s Church.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)

"The Church is “built upon [not by] the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:20)- and this foundation of the apostles and prophets is the Old and New Testaments- which speak of Jesus Christ who is the foundation of all- (the ROCK and the Chief Corner-Stone)

“And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47)

So again- the apostles did not build Christ’s Church.

Jesus Christ built his own Church and is still building it!

 

[guanophore]

Are you claiming the NT Scriptures has its source of authority in the church itself?

No, I am claiming that the Scriptures cannot exercise authority. Jesus gave this responsibility to people because it requires acts of the will, judgement, discernment, and decision making. None of these elements belong to Scripture.

 

[chosensinner]

Instead of trying to change the subject - How about showing us where the Bible teaches sola scriptura?

OK- let us resume our original conversation:

Let’s continue with John 20:30, 31!

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Here again is a clear and plain [please take off your Roman Catholic truth-blinders] declaration of the sufficiency of Scripture.

This is one of my all-time favorite passages in the whole Bible!

With one good look at what this passage ACTUALLY says, Roman Catholics * are left with two choices:

Either go ad hominem on me, and then turn around and do violence to this text (in order to maintain their catholicity in the face of their catholic clones)

OR

Repent and come to Christ for the forgiveness of their foolishness.

When Roman Catholics attack the sufficiency of Holy Scripture- they not only indict the written word- but they indict it’s Author.

To knowingly and continually deny the sufficiency of Holy Scripture then- [after being given sufficient evidence of the truth] is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. :bible1:*

 

[guanophore]

First of all- like I said: The Trinity is taught clearly and systematically in the Scriptures- period. It’s too bad that you are not aware of this.

This is a ridiculous assertion. If this were the case, we would not have people reading scripture that think that Jesus and the HS are not God, or persons, etc. however,

If then, you can teach me anything that is true about the Trinity that is *not * taught in the Bible- then please do. Only use another thread for it, because this is about Sola Scriptura.

It is not what is present in the Bible, it is how we interpret what is there. But I agree, that is grist for another thread.

The relevance here is that the error of SS can be seen in the fact that two reasonable an sincere persons of faith can read the same passage and reach opposite conclusions.

About the historicity of the principle of Sola Scriptura- I can only say this. It is clear from a cursory reading of the earliest fathers- that they held the Scriptures as the Highest and Final authority of matters of faith and practice.

The regard for the Holy Scripture as inestimable value in preserving matters of faith and practice is completely Catholic. However, Scripture does not “teach”. People teach. Scripture also does not make decisions and judgements. People do that. This is why Jesus left people in charge, and not the Holy Writings. The Church did not imagine that the Scriptures would be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

I would love to give you numerous quotes from various fathers- but 1) I cannot copy/paste that much 2) I am not too interested in switching this conversation over to a debate about men- (the church fathers).

However- because I cannot resist the temptation- I will give you a few examples of things that were said by the Fathers when it came to this business of establishing truth- and combating heresy.

There is no doubt that the Holy Scriptures are excellent defense against heresy. However, they can also be used to fuel the source of it (departure from Apostolic Teaching). You may note, since you seem to be familiar with the ECF’s, that those heretics used the same scriptures.

I think, if you are fair with these fathers, you will find that they are all Catholic, and they all esteem Sacred Tradition equally with Scripture. Cherry picking out the references to Scripture will not change that.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220)

“He will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” (ANF, Vol. III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3)

The “doctrine confessed by all Christians” was never confined to the pages of Scripture, though amply supported by it.

NOW- I should also make this point. It is also clear from a cursory reading of the Fathers that they held to many traditions (that we as Protestants know are NOT in Scripture, and are even sometimes contrary to it). BUT- the principle of Sola Scriptura is not disproved by this fact; rather- it is actually established.

How does that make any sense? You are saying they are promoting a doctrine they don’t even follow? What hypocrites!

For though the earliest fathers may have held to un-biblical traditions- the fact remains that THEY BELIEVED that all they held to was taught in Scripture. They functioned according to this rule- though we know that they fell short. If one were to ask them- if they held to traditions that were un-biblical- they would deny it.

This is not true. In fact, the Scripture itself testifies otherwise!

However, I do agree that they believed all they held to was consistent with scripture. Since the whole of the NT came from the same Sacred Tradition, there could be no contradicitons.

Indeed- when reading the fathers with Roman eyeglasses, one will automatically assume that at every appearance of the word “traditions” or “traditions” the fathers were speaking of extra-biblical traditions.

Such a statement reflects an anti “Roman” bigotry. Not only is this untrue, but the holding to the Sacred Tradition is not even “Roman” !

This is not the case. When the fathers spoke of “traditions” they were speaking of the written traditions “handed down by the apostles” THROUGH HOLY SCRIPTURE. And to establish this truth- we need only view a few more citations.

Please consider my next post.

Well, have at it. I agree that the Sacred Tradition is that handed down by the Apostles. However, it was never thought that all these were found in Scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

To Mea culpa. Question. Where in Scripture can you show me that the Catholic Church is even mentioned? I keep reading from my Catholic friends that the Catholic Church is the original Church or the Church spoken of by the disciples & our Savior, is the Catholic Church. Give me Scripture please. …
Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I’m really glad you asked that.

Here’s Acts 9:31 in the Greek.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
ai men oun** ekklhsiai kaq olhV**

thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicon eirhnhn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhqunonto

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
ai men oun ekklhsiai kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicon eirhnhn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhqunonto

Byzantine Majority
ai men oun ekklhsiai kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicon eirhnhn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhqunonto

Alexandrian
h men oun ekklhsia kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto

Hort and Westcott
h men oun **ekklhsia kaq olhV **thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicen eirhnhn oikodomoumenh kai poreuomenh tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhquneto
The bolded words say “ecclesia katholou” which would be literally “Catholic Church” and even by definition it is translated, “the church throughout all”, or “universal church”, but you asked…and there it is. Don’t see any other such in the original.

 

[guanophore]

My question was a sincere as the milk of the word! No joke.

Your last post was all I read of yours- and I wasn’t sure if you were still a Protestant- or had become a Catholic convert. Sorry for my un-informed question.

I have had some experience with some undercover Catholics who knew enough about Protestantism to play the role- but it didn’t last long. I am glad that you are truly a Christian- and from now on- I will be checking out more of your posts- on this thread at least.

I work a 9-5 that doesn’t really let me get to the computer much- and once I get home it’s Daddy time- know what I mean?

I am new to this forum, and don’t plan on sticking around for very long. What a lot of people don’t get is that it is so much better to emmerse yourself in the truth, than to argue and debate with error.

Though the latter is certainly necessary (from time to time) - the former is absolutely indispensible to a healthy Christian life.

I am not an apologist- just a lover of truth- and an ex-Catholic. Thought I could shine some light upon these poor souls- but soon I will move on. I can’t actually convince them- Only God can! All I can do is give them sufficient reason to repent and come back to Christ and his word. That’s my job. I am here for that- and then I will be gone. I may stop by and visit from time to time- but this is not my calling- I am called to preach the Gospel and to feed Christ’s sheep. I do hope there are some true sheep among these Catholics- and so I will open the gate, and point them to liberty: We will see if they run to Christ.

God bless you brother.

This post represents a great deal of prejudice. However, it is good, if you have this attitude, that you don’t plan to stay. CAF is not a venue for you to evangelize Catholics into your anti-Catholic ideas and practices. Not only is it not welcome here, but it is against the forum rules. CAF is here to answer questions of sincere persons wanting information.

Peace be upon you in your departure.

 

[guanophore]

OK- let us resume our original conversation:

Let’s continue with John 20:30, 31!

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Here again is a clear and plain [please take off your Roman Catholic truth-blinders] declaration of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Sufficient unto faith, certainly. Not containing all the information needed to practice that faith. It is very rude of you to insinuate that Catholicism is “Roman”, I suspect part of the bigotry in which you have become steeped. It is also improper for you to use language of “truth blinders” in relation to the Catholic faith. You are required to respect our faith, even if you don’t agree with it. Do you want to come and go at your own whim, or be banned for non-compliance with the forum rules?

This is one of my all-time favorite passages in the whole Bible!

With one good look at what this passage ACTUALLY says, Roman Catholics * *

If you used to be Catholic, then you are very poorly catechized in your faith, and apparently have some unresolved issues with your experience which you are acting out here.
chosensinner;4135109:

Roman Catholics left with two choices:

Either go ad hominem on me, and then turn around and do violence to this text (in order to maintain their catholicity in the face of their catholic clones)

What are “catholic clones”? It seems very insulting to me.

I am not even sure you know what ‘catholicity’ means.

Do you even realize that the NT was written by Catholics? That is why there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic doctrine.

OR

Repent and come to Christ for the forgiveness of their foolishness.

When Roman Catholics attack the sufficiency of Holy Scripture- they not only indict the written word- but they indict it’s Author.

More prejudice and judgemental comments. Do you have a dimmer switch for that?

A Catholic is who wrote that the scriptures are sufficient. Your accusation about the “foolishness” of Catholics in this regard describes yourself much better than the Church. Have you even read what the Church teaches about the sufficiency of Scripture?

Sufficiency does not equate to being the final authority.

To knowingly and continually deny the sufficiency of Holy Scripture then- [after being given sufficient evidence of the truth] is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. :bible1:

I agree.

Perhaps, when you are ready to learn, you will come back with a more humble attitude, and be willing to read the teachings of the Church on this subject?

 

[chosensinner]

Sufficient unto faith, certainly. Not containing all the information needed to practice that faith.

Well- I am sorry that you are so worked up- and that you are so offended at my language. I will try to keep it “religiously correct” for you. This way I will not get in your way of seeing and accepting the truth as it is in Christ.

When I am to defend the principles of Sola Scriptura- I usually like to point to 2 Thes. 2:15 and John 20:30, 31 because they are so clear and powerful. What we are really looking at in these passages is the plain demonstration of the sufficiency of the Scriptures- (that one may read the Scriptures alone, and it would be sufficient for one to believe and receive eternal life). Please re-read John 20:30, 31, because it is evident that you have not grasped the full meaning of this text.

When examining the principle of “sufficiency” it is important to grasp the fact that the Apostle John was indeed under the impression that he had provided all that was necessary for one to understand the gospel- the person and work of Jesus Christ; who he is, what he did, who he did it for- and that he rose again from the dead!

Clearly -according to John 20:31, the apostle was under the impression that the contents of his single “book” were sufficient for men and women to “believe”- and that by believing they might have “life through his name.” This is significant, especially when considering that the gospel of John contains no distinct Roman Catholic dogmas- and yet was considered to be sufficient for eternal life.

This being the case, then to believe that the Apostle Paul was likewise under the impression that his epistle(s) that is - first and second Thessalonians, were sufficient for men and women in Thessolonica to understand the heart of the gospel, believe, and receive life, is not so much of a stretch after all. Especially when we examine the contents of these two epistles. When we do, we see that the fullness of the gospel message is contained therein-

The honorable deity of Christ- 1 Thes. 1:1
The unjust death of Christ- 1 Thes. 2:15
The resurrection of Christ- 1 Thes. 1:10
The second coming of Christ- 1 Thes. 2:19 etc.

*(this was all in the first two chapters alone)

Now please understand that I fully realized that there were not only the gospels and epistles written- but also the gospel and doctrines preached. My case is not against oral tradition- which is simply the passing along of the faith; with this I have no quarrel.

My whole point of contention, not against you my friend- but in general, is that Roman Catholics are hard pressed to provide Protestants with any proof that the apostolic oral tradition (preaching) of the first century, contained extra biblical revelation. That is, that the oral traditions (teachings) differed from those things which were eventually written.

This is why I asked if anyone could provide me with an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle referred in 2 Thes. 2:15- None responded.

The reason I originally asked, was because Roman Catholic apologists have often - in my experience - used 2 Thes. 2:15 in such a way as to cause me to believe that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly preserved these traditions throughout the centuries, and continues to hold them and practice them even until today- and yet this cannot be the case- for none can even identify which traditions the apostle Paul was alluding to.

It is my contention then- that Roman Catholics have no real right to appeal to this text, until or unless they can demonstrate from scripture and from history- that these “tradtions” (in 2 Thes. 2:15) have indeed been defined, preserved, and are still in practice today. Otherwise, so long as you guys are unable to provide this material- I simply cannot- and will not, blindly travel this vague and imaginary path which supposedly leads back to Rome.

Thank you for your time- and all your effort.

 

[guanophore]

I will try to keep it "religiously correct" for you. This way I will not get in your way of seeing and accepting the truth as it is in Christ.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

When I am to defend the principles of Sola Scriptura- I usually like to point to 2 Thes. 2:15 and John 20:30, 31 because they are so clear and powerful. What we are really looking at in these passages is the plain demonstration of the sufficiency of the Scriptures- (that one may read the Scriptures alone, and it would be sufficient for one to believe and receive eternal life).

This definition of sufficiency is Catholic, and will not get any argument from me. Don’t’ forget that these passages about sufficiency are written by Catholics, and completely reflect Catholic teaching.

When examining the principle of “sufficiency” it is important to grasp the fact that the Apostle John was indeed under the impression that he had provided all that was necessary for one to understand the gospel- the person and work of Jesus Christ; who he is, what he did, who he did it for- and that he rose again from the dead!

Yes.

Clearly -according to John 20:31, the apostle was under the impression that the contents of his single “book” were sufficient for men and women to “believe”- and that by believing they might have “life through his name.” This is significant, especially when considering that the gospel of John contains no distinct Roman Catholic dogmas- and yet was considered to be sufficient for eternal life.

Catholicism is not “Roman”.

We read the gospel differently. Catholics see the sacramental life richly in the Gospel of John.

This being the case, then to believe that the Apostle Paul was likewise under the impression that his epistle(s) that is - first and second Thessalonians, were sufficient for men and women in Thessolonica to understand the heart of the gospel, believe, and receive life, is not so much of a stretch after all.

I think not. If he believed this, he would not have directed them to hold the oral and written teachings with equal esteem.

Especially when we examine the contents of these two epistles. When we do, we see that the fullness of the gospel message is contained therein-

Now please understand that I fully realized that there were not only the gospels and epistles written- but also the gospel and doctrines preached.

Seems that you embrace more Catholicism than you let on at first!

My case is not against oral tradition- which is simply the passing along of the faith; with this I have no quarrel.

Evidently you do.

My whole point of contention, is that Roman Catholics are hard pressed to provide Protestants with any proof that the apostolic oral tradition (preaching) of the first century, contained extra biblical revelation. That is, that the oral traditions (teachings) differed from those things which were eventually written.

It is very hard to pursuade people about things which they have made up their minds against in advance. Part of the problem is refusal to consider all of the evidence. Once part of the evidence is excluded, then it is more difficult to demonstrate anything. However, I don’t think it is possible to “prove” matters of faith, even to one who is open minded. Matters of faith require that one make an act of trust, despite the facts.

This is why I asked if anyone could provide me with an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle referred in 2 Thes. 2:15- None responded.

I can undersatnd why not. Have you ever made a “list” of all the things taught in Scripture? Daunting task. However, Sacred Tradtition is a lifestyle, a world view. In the NT it is called “The Way”. It is a way of being inthe world, and does not commend itself to a “list”.

The reason I originally asked, was because Roman Catholic apologists have often - in my experience - used 2 Thes. 2:15 in such a way as to cause me to believe that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly preserved these traditions throughout the centuries, and continues to hold them and practice them even until today- and yet this cannot be the case- for none can even identify which traditions the apostle Paul was alluding to.

well, we see it differently in several ways. For one thing, the Traditions are not “Roman”. Secondly, it is God who preserves the Church, and HIs Word in it, not the fallible men who are joined to Him.

I am sorry that you were so poorly catechized, and that you have not had the opportunity to learn the Catholic faith from knowledgeable persons.

It is my contention then- that Roman Catholics have no real right to appeal to this text, until or unless they can demonstrate from scripture and from history- that these “tradtions” (in 2 Thes. 2:15) have indeed been defined, preserved, and are still in practice today.

They are not Roman. That is, in fact, one of the most convincing demonstrations that exists.

Otherwise, so long as you guys are unable to provide this material- I simply cannot- and will not, blindly travel this vague and imaginary path which supposedly leads back to Rome.

I think it is very hard for SS persons to understand Sacred Tradition. It is like nailing jello to the wall.

Thank you for your time- and all your effort.

And thank you for your courtesy. :getholy:

 

[jhblack]

Just a thought: Faith begot of negativity is not faith but jealousy.

Another thought: Given the current state of the Protestant view, and its 30,000 or so sects, would our Lord have desired this of us? Unity was preached, not diversity. Personal interpretation has wrought nothing else but diversity.

In a court of law, the jury is not given to interpret the law for themselves. They are given the interpretation of the law by the court, and then instructed to apply it.

Where I live, the most devout are Catholics, though they are few and far between. The Protestants that are abundant in rural Ohio, as well as urban Ohio, heed not the Word of God, but the word of themselves. Scripture is subject to human interpretation, and thus is subject to human error. However, the Catholic Church was given to us to give us infallible interpretations that we may have order. One faith.

 

[2Tim2Ten]

Sufficient unto faith, certainly. Not containing all the information needed to practice that faith. Perhaps, when you are ready to learn, you will come back with a more humble attitude, and be willing to read the teachings of the Church on this subject?

Hey there! Thought I would give you some insight as to why ignorant people reject the Trinity (even though they are reading the same Bible as Protestants).

think you mis-place the fault. The fault of those who cannot discern the truth of the Trinity in Holy Scripture are NOT that they hold to Sola Scriptura- but that they hold to an “infallible teaching authority” such as The Watchtower Society, or those who follow some supposed “Prophet of Christ” like Ellen G. White, the false prophetess- not to mention Mary Baker Eddy!

Actually, you will be hard pressed to find any historic Protestant Christian (one who actually practices the principle of Sola Scriptura) that denies the Trinity! No my friend- it is not Sola Scriptura that blinds many to the truth of the Trinity as revealed in Holy Scripture- but Scripture plus some tradition- as in the examples given above.

I would also remind you of the massive controversy within the Roman Catholic Church itself – even when it comes to the supposed clarifications of church councils. Let’s say the Partim / Partim controversy?

In my opinion, what Roman Catholics have done is simply take this whole thing and advance the problem by one step.

Now- instead of having disagreement about what the *Scriptures *actually teach- (as we Protestants are so inclined to do over the proper interpretation of a given passage) – Roman Catholics are now entrenched in disagreements about what the Church actually teaches- (as Catholics are so inclined to disagree about the proper interpretation of a given pope, or council, or canon, or church father).

In my opinion- this doesn’t really solve the problem- it simply begs the conflict!

Also- I don’t think that any of us have ever asserted that the Scriptures were to sit upon some throne and verbally dictate to the Church all that we must do and believe. You are right when you say (in this way) that the “Scriptures do not teach”

BUT then you fall short, and claim that “people do.”

This is only half right. The truth of the matter is that First - GOD teaches His Church- and He does so by His Spirit Through His word.

Those who are gifted of God, are then prepared by God and equipped by His Spirit to further instruct His people in the word.

Chosensinner quoted Tertullian and I believe you commented a bit hastily. Here is the quote:

“He will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” (ANF, Vol. III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3)

Now- here is where I believe you have built a straw man.

As far as I have read, no one never asserted – as you have insinuated – that the Doctrine confessed by all Christians was "confined” to the pages of Scripture. All we have ever set forward is that the gospel is clearly contained in Holy Scripture- and therefore all that is necessary for salvation is contained – (not confined) – in Scripture.

This “confinement” language of yours is very mis-leading.

We as Protestants, believe in not only the word of God, but also in the SPIRIT of God- and by no means is the Holy Spirit some mystical ink mark that is “confined” or “bound” or even “contained” in the paper pages of the written word. [see how ridiculous this gets when taken to its logical end]

Clearly what we believe is this:

If all one has is the Holy Scripture; the message contained therein would be fully sufficient for one to understand the gospel- (granted, the Holy Spirit quicken him- bringing him to life and faith in that message- which is Christ and him crucified).

In other words- the Holy Spirit will not be at a loss, but will have more than enough truth in the Scriptures alone- to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ; plain and simple.

Would you disagree with this?

 

[2Tim2Ten]

**CHOSENSINNER SAID: **

“My whole point of contention, not against you my friend- but in general, is that Roman Catholics are hard pressed to provide Protestants with any proof that the apostolic oral tradition (preaching) of the first century, contained extra biblical revelation. That is, that the oral traditions (teachings) differed from those things which were eventually written. This is why I asked if anyone could provide me with an official list of those “traditions” to which the apostle referred in 2 Thes. 2:15- None responded.”

**YOU REPLIED: **

I can undersatnd why not. Have you ever made a “list” of all the things taught in Scripture? Daunting task. However, Sacred Tradtition is a lifestyle, a world view. In the NT it is called “The Way”. It is a way of being inthe world, and does not commend itself to a “list”.

**CHOSENSINNER CONTINUED: **

“The reason I originally asked, was because Roman Catholic apologists have often - in my experience - used 2 Thes. 2:15 in such a way as to cause me to believe that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly preserved these traditions throughout the centuries, and continues to hold them and practice them even until today- and yet this cannot be the case- for none can even identify which traditions the apostle Paul was alluding to.”

---

Here I think I must speak up.

It has been my experience as well, that Roman Catholics often point to this passage in 2 Timothy 2:15 and act as if they know something that we do not. But Chosensinner made a great point- and no one has adequately responded to his question.

How can Roman Catholics appeal to this text, when they cannot give any evidence that their Church has actually defined, preserved, and practiced these “traditions” up to this present day? Do Roman Catholics wish to make Protestants blindly accept these “traditions” and yet not even attempt to define them?

In my opinion- this is a dangerous move for any Christian; Protestant or Catholic! This means that the Roman Catholic Church can come up with anything she wishes- and simply point to this text for their “scripture proof” of the authority of “tradition.”

I don’t know about you - but to me - that seems pretty fishy . . . and it aint even Friday!

 

[guanophore]

Hey there! Thought I would give you some insight as to why ignorant people reject the Trinity (even though they are reading the same Bible as Protestants).

Welcome to CAF. I think, if you remain here, you will be able to learn that a great many things that you have been taught are actually errors and misrepresentations of Catholicism.

think you mis-place the fault. The fault of those who cannot discern the truth of the Trinity in Holy Scripture are NOT that they hold to Sola Scriptura- but that they hold to an “infallible teaching authority” such as The Watchtower Society, or those who follow some supposed “Prophet of Christ” like Ellen G. White, the false prophetess- not to mention Mary Baker Eddy!

Actually, I was not trying to find “fault”. Personally, I think it is a useless exercise. However, I will say that, if Jesus did not think we needed an infallible teaching authority, why did He leave one? Why didn’t He just spend HIs time on earth writing the books HImself?

Actually, you will be hard pressed to find any historic Protestant Christian (one who actually practices the principle of Sola Scriptura) that denies the Trinity! No my friend- it is not Sola Scriptura that blinds many to the truth of the Trinity as revealed in Holy Scripture- but Scripture plus some tradition- as in the examples given above.

Since SS is not in the Bible itself, then I think it certainly qualifies as a tradition.

I would also remind you of the massive controversy within the Roman Catholic Church itself – even when it comes to the supposed clarifications of church councils. Let’s say the Partim / Partim controversy?

There is no “controversy”. The teaching is clear. There are those who rebel, and choose not to accept the Teaching. It does not invalidate the Teaching, any more than Judas betrayal of Jesus invalidated what Jesus taught.

In my opinion, what Roman Catholics have done is simply take this whole thing and advance the problem by one step.

Just goes to show what an opinion is worth.

Now- instead of having disagreement about what the *Scriptures *actually teach- (as we Protestants are so inclined to do over the proper interpretation of a given passage) –

The scriptures don;t “teach”. People teach. Everyone who reads them interprets them according to his own perceptions.

Roman Catholics are now entrenched in disagreements about what the Church actually teaches- (as Catholics are so inclined to disagree about the proper interpretation of a given pope, or council, or canon, or church father).

Disagreement and disobedience don’t change the infallible teaching either. This is like saying the disciples that walked away from Christ were a testimony to the fallibility of His words!

In my opinion I don't think that any of us have ever asserted that the Scriptures were to sit upon some throne and verbally dictate to the Church all that we must do and believe. You are right when you say (in this way) that the “Scriptures do not teach”

BUT then you fall short, and claim that “people do.”

This is only half right. The truth of the matter is that First - GOD teaches His Church- and He does so by His Spirit Through His word.

Yes, and that Word has never been confined to the Holy Writings.

Those who are gifted of God, are then prepared by God and equipped by His Spirit to further instruct His people in the word.

I believe you left out the important element of ‘authorized’.

Chosensinner quoted Tertullian and I believe you commented a bit hastily. Here is the quote:

“He will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” (ANF, Vol. III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3)

Now- here is where I believe you have built a straw man.

As far as I have read, no one never asserted – as you have insinuated – that the Doctrine confessed by all Christians was "confined” to the pages of Scripture. All we have ever set forward is that the gospel is clearly contained in Holy Scripture- and therefore all that is necessary for salvation is contained – (not confined) – in Scripture.

This “confinement” language of yours is very mis-leading.

We as Protestants, believe in not only the word of God, but also in the SPIRIT of God- and by no means is the Holy Spirit some mystical ink mark that is “confined” or “bound” or even “contained” in the paper pages of the written word. [see how ridiculous this gets when taken to its logical end]

Clearly what we believe is this:

If all one has is the Holy Scripture; the message contained therein would be fully sufficient for one to understand the gospel- (granted, the Holy Spirit quicken him- bringing him to life and faith in that message- which is Christ and him crucified).

In other words- the Holy Spirit will not be at a loss, but will have more than enough truth in the Scriptures alone- to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ; plain and simple.

Would you disagree with this?

Yes. However, such a statement is not equivalent to Scripture being sufficient to act as an authority in all matters of faith and morals.

 

[guanophore]

Here I think I must speak up.

It has been my experience as well, that Roman Catholics often point to this passage in 2 Timothy 2:15 and act as if they know something that we do not. But Chosensinner made a great point- and no one has adequately responded to his question.

The Apostolic Traditions are not “Roman”.

How can Roman Catholics appeal to this text, when they cannot give any evidence that their Church has actually defined, preserved, and practiced these “traditions” up to this present day?

Catholics wrote that text, and it was written to and about Catholics. The fact that you reject the evidence does not prevent the evidence from existing. Those that rejected Christ did not prevent Him from being the Savior to anyone but themselves. Your rejection of Sacred Tradition only makes it inaccessible to you.

Do Roman Catholics wish to make Protestants blindly accept these “traditions” and yet not even attempt to define them?

No. Any well informed Catholic will know that faith is a matter of acceptance, produced by grace in the heart by the Holy Spirit. No man can be “made” to believe.

In my opinion- this is a dangerous move for any Christian; Protestant or Catholic!

I agree.

This means that the Roman Catholic Church can come up with anything she wishes- and simply point to this text for their “scripture proof” of the authority of “tradition.”

The Catholic Church is based on the Teachings of Jesus through the Apostles. Nothing is “made up”. All of it is “received” (paradosis).

I don’t know about you - but to me - that seems pretty fishy . . . and it aint even Friday!

The wisdom of God is foolishness to men.