Queen of Heaven and Earth

[Dmitri77]

Does the Orthodox Church have Marian Doctrines that are similar to the Roman Catholic doctrines?

Very similar but not identical. And remember, the Oriental Orthodox Churches split from the rest of the Church in the 5th century, and yet they share essentially the same beliefs and practices that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches share.

 

[Mintaka]

Folks seem to have forgotten the traditional application of a lot of other verses to Mary, most notably Psalm 44/45, the king’s wedding song:

Daughters of kings are among your honored women;
at your right hand is the queen in gold of Ophir.

“Listen, daughter, and consider, and bend your ear;
Forget your own people and your father’s house.
Let the king be enthralled by your beauty;
honor him, for he is your lord.
The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift,
people of wealth will seek your favor.”

All glorious is the princess within her chamber;
her gown is interwoven with gold.
In embroidered garments she is led to the king;
her virgin companions follow her—
those brought to be with her.
Led in with joy and gladness,
they enter the palace of the king.

Your sons will take the place of your fathers;
you will make them princes throughout the land.
I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.

Besides being about a royal woman and the House of David, obviously this could be seen as having been quoted by Gabriel when he says that the Lord says, “All generations will call you blessed.”

(Pretty standard kind of rabbinical quoting/referencing, which Mary would have recognized. Everybody knew the Psalms, often by heart from having sung them so often. Also, even though the structure of the psalm has those lines primarily addressed to the King/Bridegroom, the nature of a wedding song is that there is usually a part addressed to both members of the couple. So it’s not unusual that people have taken that as addressed to the Bride as well. And if God wants to quote freely from His Bible, I’m not gonna say it’s improper.)

We know a fair amount about how early Christians were constantly singing the Psalms, and how they were constantly applying them to Jesus and everyone in His life. Seeing Marian significance in the Psalms, and particularly in Psalm 44/45, showed up very early. (Although of course it was also applied to Israel as God’s Bride, and to the Church.)

 

[Della]

I’m afraid, dear tstor, that having had a limited amount of teaching and historical knowledge, not to mention the biased opinions of James White, you are making assumptions in ignorance–no fault of yours, but you cannot limit yourself to arguments and authors that appeal to what you think you know/want to believe.

For example, you wrote that the Trinity is obvious from Scripture alone. But it isn’t–not for many people who also read the Bible. If what you claim is true there would be no denominations that deny the Trinity, but there are.

Not only that, but Church councils had to be called to deal with this very thing because various heretical groups claimed that Jesus was not fully God and fully man but some combination or lesser of these natures. The title Mary, Mother of God came from one of these councils, not to exalt her (although the title does that) but to reaffirm that Jesus was God at the Incarnation, not merely a man blessed by God or endowed with God-like powers, etc. but fully God and fully man. If Jesus were not fully God then there is no Trinity for us to worship.

A good many doctrines were and still are challenged, which is why Christ established his Church to interpret Scripture, which is a witness to Christ’s Church not her ruler, and to decide matters of faith and morals.

Christ gave his authority to the Apostles to preach and teach what he taught. They did that and appointed successors to carry on Christ’s commission. If they hadn’t, we wouldn’t believe in the Trinity today or many other things we hold in common–all due to the vigilance and perseverance of Church safeguarding the deposit of the Faith, of which Mary is an integral part because God chose her before the foundations of the world to be the Mother of God, not only while she carried Jesus in her womb but for all eternity.

Open your eyes and your heart, my friend. Ask Mary herself who she is and for her aid in understanding her place in salvation’s story. Jesus will approve and you will gain greater insight into the fullness of the truth Christ gave to us in his Church.

 

[tstor]

For Mary is, not only a daughter and mother of God, but in an analogical sense (and not any way that implies equality) His spouse (in the Holy Spirit and as the archetype of the Church).

I wanted to touch on this last sentence. Someone in the Traditional Catholicism section made a post about Mary’s spouse(s). You can read my response to it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1012541

As to the apostles not passing down authority . . . I guess that might be something you can declare now, so many centuries later. It’s certainly in disagreement with the Christian Church in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries.

Allow me to clarify. I do not deny that the apostles appointed bishops to lead the church. I do deny the Catholic concept of such an event. I do not accept that there was a clear, undisputed, line of successors to the apostles. Consider the following examples:

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.

Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.

For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly.

(The first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians)

The issue between Cornelius and Novatian in Rome, and later between Cyprian, Maximus and Fortunatus in Carthage, was not whether a local church might be served by more than one bishop. …] Each of the rival bishops in Rome sought the exclusive recognition of his fellow bishops. Cornelius denied all legitimacy to his opponent and reported that Novatian was requiring a loyalty oath from his communicants and a vow not to return to Cornelius. …] Novatian sent out bishops to other cities, intending to supplant the existing bishops who had refused to recognize him, just as he had attempted to overthrow Cornelius in Rome. …] Displaying a prejudice against the multiplication of bishops, many of the laity who had joined the laxist schism in Carthage refused to support Fortunatus as a rival bishop and returned to Cyprian’s communion.

(Cyprian the Bishop, J. Patout Burns Jr., pp. 89-90)

Of course, there are other examples such as the theory that Ignatius was arrested because he was rejected as bishop, whether or not Donatus was the recognized bishop, etc.

But, all that said, the part on Mary is only a small part of the Catechism. I hope it doesn’t prevent you from reading further. Even if you don’t accept everything, there is a lot of good in there.

I want to clarify, as it has occurred to me that it may be unclear, I am not outright rejecting anything as it stands. I am simply presenting my initial objections to it, which may or may not be resolved with further research/clarification. This has always been my approach when studying a religion (such as the JWs, Mormons, Islam, etc.). If all of my objections fall flat, then I will lack any objections to the Catholic faith. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[Church_Militant]

tstor, you seem to have overlooked one small but very important scripture that is the persistent message of Mary both in scripture and every apparition.

See here John 2:5, "His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”

That whole passage is indicative of Mary and Jesus knowing her very scriptural place as the Queen Mother of the Messianic King of Israel.

Check these links out.
Is There a Queen in the Kingdom of Heaven?
Is There a Queen in the Kingdom of Heaven? Pt. II

 

[tstor]

I’m afraid, dear tstor, that having had a limited amount of teaching and historical knowledge, not to mention the biased opinions of James White, you are making assumptions in ignorance–no fault of yours, but you cannot limit yourself to arguments and authors that appeal to what you think you know/want to believe.

I would not say reading publications by James White is anymore of a handicap than reading a Catholic produced publication. Both are going to be bias in their own ways, which is why it is never a good idea to put all of one’s eggs in one basket.

For example, you wrote that the Trinity is obvious from Scripture alone. But it isn’t–not for many people who also read the Bible. If what you claim is true there would be no denominations that deny the Trinity, but there are…

I think that we can both come the conclusion that your reasoning is faulty. Both you and I can say that the Bible makes it painfully clear that all Christians should partake of the memorial emblems (John 6:53-58), yet Jehovah’s Witnesses do not (unless they are of the anointed). It is painfully clear from Scripture that Jesus died for the sins of someone (whether the elect or the whole world), yet my father (who is a Christian) rejects this idea. Scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is a sin, yet many protestants are accepting homosexuals as clergy and overseeing homosexual weddings. Just because one, two, three, or one hundred groups reject a clear teaching from the Bible does not mean that the teaching is any less clear.

A good many doctrines were and still are challenged, which is why Christ established his Church to interpret Scripture, which is a witness to Christ’s Church not her ruler, and to decide matters of faith and morals.

This, on surface, makes perfect sense. I have studied with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various other groups (and various other religions) that teach of one organization, church, or body that interprets Scripture. However, I have found fatal flaws in each one. I am sure you have as well, which is why you reject their legitimacy. Catholicism is the “group” I am studying now and I will treat it the same way I have treated the others. Should the theology stand up to scrutiny, then I will be more than happy to settle on it. Should it not, then I will reject it like I did Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not to say all teachings are inherently bad, but there only has to be one bad teaching for me to reject the whole body when dealing with a church that claims to belong to Christ.

Open your eyes and your heart, my friend. Ask Mary herself who she is and for her aid in understanding her place in salvation’s story. Jesus will approve and you will gain greater insight into the fullness of the truth Christ gave to us in his Church.

I am not terribly sure what you mean by “ask Mary herself.” Surely you do not mean praying to her?

 

[Della]

I would not say reading publications by James White is anymore of a handicap than reading a Catholic produced publication. Both are going to be bias in their own ways, which is why it is never a good idea to put all of one’s eggs in one basket.

I respectfully disagree. I do not accept James White’s ideas anymore than I do JW’s or LDS, etc. because they are deeply faulty, not because I prefer to keep “all my eggs in one basket.”

I think that we can both come the conclusion that your reasoning is faulty. Both you and I can say that the Bible makes it painfully clear that all Christians should partake of the memorial emblems (John 6:53-58), yet Jehovah’s Witnesses do not (unless they are of the anointed). It is painfully clear from Scripture that Jesus died for the sins of someone (whether the elect or the whole world), yet my father (who is a Christian) rejects this idea. Scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is a sin, yet many protestants are accepting homosexuals as clergy and overseeing homosexual weddings. Just because one, two, three, or one hundred groups reject a clear teaching from the Bible does not mean that the teaching is any less clear.

Again, I have to disagree. What you are saying is that your interpretation is the correct one while all these others are faulty in one way or another. It’s just another way of saying you are the one who knows what the writers of the NT intended better that others. This is not an accusation against you–it’s how you have been taught to think of biblical interpretation. And you’ve been taught that everything Christians ought to believe is explicitly stated in Scripture, but that’s simply not the case. If the Bible were that transparent and everyone had the same mind as the Holy Spirit, no one would have a differing opinion about any doctrine. But, that’s not reality. Catholicism is very much about what is real and what isn’t. Sometimes to the point that many simply can’t accept her teachings because it offends their personal sensibilities or cherished ideas. But the truth is the truth even if no one believes it or sees it. The Bible is not to be personally interpreted by all and sundry for determining doctrine:

2Pt. 1[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…" Rather it was given to those men whom God called to convey it to us, as Peter goes on to explain.

This, on surface, makes perfect sense. I have studied with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various other groups (and various other religions) that teach of one organization, church, or body that interprets Scripture. However, I have found fatal flaws in each one. I am sure you have as well, which is why you reject their legitimacy. Catholicism is the “group” I am studying now and I will treat it the same way I have treated the others. Should the theology stand up to scrutiny, then I will be more than happy to settle on it. Should it not, then I will reject it like I did Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not to say all teachings are inherently bad, but there only has to be one bad teaching for me to reject the whole body when dealing with a church that claims to belong to Christ.

Jesus didn’t leave us wondering who has his authority to teach us what he wants us to know. He very clearly founded the Church and gave her authority with the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All other Christian bodies are offshoots of the one Church Christ established. Some through distance from the main body and others through deliberate rejection of her authority. But the Catholic Church’s claims to being the one Christ established is historical fact. As to apostolic succession, a few disputed claims in no way negates it. There have been more than one claim on the papacy, as well, but it’s always been sorted out. Jesus never promised the Church wouldn’t have troubles or desenters or rebellious leaders. If even Jesus couldn’t keep his own people from deserting him and even betraying him, why would we expect generations to follow wouldn’t have the same difficulties? Human beings are fallen creatures prone to selfish motivations, even the baptized. It’s one of the things we have to guard ourselves against as we follow Christ in obedience to his Church.

I am not terribly sure what you mean by “ask Mary herself.” Surely you do not mean praying to her?

Yes, I do mean praying to her. Now, let’s get our definitions straight. Catholics do not worship Mary merely by asking for her intercession and heavenly aid. Why is that? Because we believe in the Communion of Saints, which means that we believe the saints are alive with God in heaven, not dead until the resurrection. They can and do pray for us, just as we, who are still on earth, do. There is nothing wrong and everything right about asking their prayers for us because we are all one family in Christ–one body, not separated, for nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even death. I could go into this more, but it would take too much space in this thread. You may want to start another thread on the topic.

 

[Wesrock]

Oh, men will certainly engage in politics, and the truth is that the men of the Church are not immune. I would have quoted Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians as very early support of apostolic succession and the idea that the laity can’t just drive off those rightfully appointed. Apostolic succession is attested to in greater detail by Irenaeus and third and fourth century Church fathers, who were much closer to the apostles than us and a part of the living tradition handed down and taught to them. They didn’t just pick up a Bible and earlier Church writings and come up with proper religious dogma from that alone.

Anyway, apostolic succession isn’t really the subject of the thread. My fault, I believe. I’ll try to stick to Mariology.

 

[TimothyH]

It is very easy to discern that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth from just the scriptures alone.

The Old Testament queens were the mothers of the kings. Jesus’ kingship is no different. He is the king of all and therefor his mother is queen of all.

It doesn’t take a PhD in mystical theology to figure this out. it is very, very simple.

-Tim-

 

[pablope]

I was limited to Unitarian studies, actually. I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago, so I had no desire to look into Catholicism or eastern Christianity. However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone. I have to disagree with you in that the Bible does very clearly state the trinity. I did not need to rely on the writings of the early Christians to define it. Had it not been clearly and completely defined in the Bible,

I think you should look back at history. The Bible did not declare the Trinity…a council of the Catholic Church did.

For one thing, the Bible does not have authority to declare anything.

I would still reject it. This is primarily because I reject the Catholic concept of Sacred Scripture and

 

[pablope]

I

I want to clarify, as it has occurred to me that it may be unclear, I am not outright rejecting anything as it stands. I am simply presenting my initial objections to it, which may or may not be resolved with further research/clarification. This has always been my approach when studying a religion (such as the JWs, Mormons, Islam, etc.). If all of my objections fall flat, then I will lack any objections to the Catholic faith. Hopefully that makes sense.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya6.htm

Mary’s Queenship

by Fr. William G. Most

The beginning of the concept that Mary is a Queen is found in the annunciation narrative. For the angel tells her that her Son will be King over the house of Jacob forever. So she, His Mother, would be a Queen.

The Fathers of the Church soon picked up these implications. A text probably coming from Origen (died c. 254: cf. Marian Studies 4, 1953, 87) gives her the title domina, the feminine form of Latin dominus, Lord. That same title also appears in many other early writers, e.g. , St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. Peter Chrysologus (cf. Marian Studies 4. 87-91). The word “Queen” appears abut the sixth century, and is common thereafter (Marian Studies, 4, 91-94).

 

[tstor]

I respectfully disagree. I do not accept James White’s ideas anymore than I do JW’s or LDS, etc. because they are deeply faulty, not because I prefer to keep “all my eggs in one basket.”

He has definitely been the one to help me see the doctrine of the trinity in Scriptures, but I am by no means trying to endorse all of his positions, as I do not know all of them. I view both James White and Catholicism equally at the moment, as I have yet to come across anything completely erroneous.

Again, I have to disagree. What you are saying is that your interpretation is the correct one while all these others are faulty in one way or another. It’s just another way of saying you are the one who knows what the writers of the NT intended better that others. This is not an accusation against you–it’s how you have been taught to think of biblical interpretation. And you’ve been taught that everything Christians ought to believe is explicitly stated in Scripture, but that’s simply not the case. If the Bible were that transparent and everyone had the same mind as the Holy Spirit, no one would have a differing opinion about any doctrine. But, that’s not reality. Catholicism is very much about what is real and what isn’t. Sometimes to the point that many simply can’t accept her teachings because it offends their personal sensibilities or cherished ideas. But the truth is the truth even if no one believes it or sees it. The Bible is not to be personally interpreted by all and sundry for determining doctrine:

And again, I have to disagree. There is no other way of interpreting the issues I listed. The Bible could not be more clear on them. For example, give me one verse that might challenge homosexuality being a sin. I can tell you that it is impossible, because it is not there. However, both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures clearly speak against homosexuality. For anyone to interpret it differently is to deny Scriptures wholeheartedly. Also, not to draw too large of a comparison, but your last bit sounded exactly like the JW I studied with

Yes, I do mean praying to her. Now, let’s get our definitions straight. Catholics do not worship Mary merely by asking for her intercession and heavenly aid. Why is that? Because we believe in the Communion of Saints, which means that we believe the saints are alive with God in heaven, not dead until the resurrection. They can and do pray for us, just as we, who are still on earth, do. There is nothing wrong and everything right about asking their prayers for us because we are all one family in Christ–one body, not separated, for nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even death. I could go into this more, but it would take too much space in this thread. You may want to start another thread on the topic.

So do you believe that a prayer is “louder” if more people are involved? I am having trouble grasping why one would need to have a saint to pray for them.

 

[tstor]

It is very easy to discern that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth from just the scriptures alone.

The Old Testament queens were the mothers of the kings. Jesus’ kingship is no different. He is the king of all and therefor his mother is queen of all.

It doesn’t take a PhD in mystical theology to figure this out. it is very, very simple.

-Tim-

I do not believe it is very clear at all. While I do grasp how Catholics have come to the conclusion, I also see why others do not, as it is not the clearest testimony in the Bible.

 

[Wesrock]

Deuteronomy 4:2 -
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

This might be one of the reasons the Sadducees didn’t accept anything but the Pentateuch as canon.

Proverbs 30:5, 6 -
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

But we’re not adding to His words. We’re just saying His words aren’t limited to scripture.

1 Corinthians 4:6 -
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Paul isn’t speaking about scripture as a whole here. This is a continuation of 1 Corinthians 3:18 - 23 to discourage them from boasting among themselves.

Revelation 22:18, 19 -
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Yes, nobody’s added any addendum to the Book of Revelation, which is all that verse applies to.

I’m not sure the other quotes regarding apostolic authority require a full rebuttal, as it doesn’t say nearly so much as you say it does. And 2 Timothy 3:16 has been taken severely out of context. The Church does acknowledge that the apostles did have a higher level of authority, but their ministry, the handling of the sacraments, the idea of actual succession, etc . . . was clearly passed on. The idea that it wasn’t is a sixteenth century innovation. And, as I said I wouldn’t dive back into apostolic succession, I’ll just leave it at that.

I reject the Catholic understanding of tradition, that is, it is on the same level as Scripture.

…

This would make sense if I had the same understanding of “tradition” as a Catholic. I do not view any “tradition” as authoritative. Scriptures verify the tradition. Traditions, even if they agree with Scriptures, are never authoritative.

Which is clearly out of sync with all the Churches that can date themselves back to the apostles, and their views not just recently but from the earliest days of Christianity.

Matthew 15:3-6 -
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Now, let’s clearly consider what Jesus is talking about. This was not the layman, pagan, tradition that local people had. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about their religious traditions!

Again, out of context. The pharisees were using a loophole in the law to avoid using their funds to care for their parents.

Did not Jesus also advise:
Matthew 23 1-3
“Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” ?

Jesus was not condemning traditions per se, but the hypocrisy of the pharisees and the use of legal loopholes to appear righteous when in fact they were flaunting the intent of the commandments.

God’s word was entrusted into the care of the Church, both the scripture and the tradition. The Church has the proper authority to interpret this text, and the Church was and is necessary, given our nature, for unity among Christ’s body.

So do you believe that a prayer is “louder” if more people are involved? I am having trouble grasping why one would need to have a saint to pray for them.

Jesus told us to nag God until we get what we want, no?

All that aside, Saint Paul asked others to pray for him. Christians have been asking others to pray for them since the beginning. The intercession of the martyrs is clearly attested to in the early Church. The prayers of an exceptionally holy man or woman, of someone more right with God, can be more effective. And we are one body in Christ. That’s not just a metaphor. We are mystically all united in Christ. Not just in beliefs, not just in creed, not even just in our baptism, but on a higher level than that. We are not solitary creatures, and that is very much accounted for in the Church.

 

[TimothyH]

I do not believe it is very clear at all. While I do grasp how Catholics have come to the conclusion, I also see why others do not, as it is not the clearest testimony in the Bible.

I appreciate that you can see how Catholics have drawn the conclusion. It means a lot to me that you took a moment to say that.

-Tim-

 

[Duane1966]

I was limited to Unitarian studies, actually. I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago, so I had no desire to look into Catholicism or eastern Christianity. However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone.

Great. But your answer does not prove anything, except that you have made what you can see clearly as the norm for what should be accepted. This is known as individualism. You say you have now accepted the Trinity, which means that at one point you did not accept it. You say you see it clearly now, why did you not see it clearly the first time?

I I have to disagree with you in that the Bible does very clearly state the trinity.

Where is the word Trinity in the bible?

I did not need to rely on the writings of the early Christians to define it. Had it not been clearly and completely defined in the Bible, I would still reject it.

But your rejection does not mean that something does not exist. And there are millions of people who say they have the Spirit, but do not see the concept of the Trinity in the bible, and so reject it. What is clear to one person is not clear to another. And it was obviously not clear to many of the early Christians. The arguments between the Trinitarians and the non-Trinitarians was causing havoc in the Roman empire. That is why the council of Nicaea was called. I believe it was Athanasius that said something like this (you will probably find it offensive to your sola scriptura ears): "For every verse we gave them in favor of the Trinity, they answered with a verse from Scripture that seemingly denied the Trinity. In the end, we went outside of Scripture and appealed to the constant witness of the church Fathers" The concept of Mary, Queen of Heaven from the bible, is clear to most people on this thread, but not you.

This is primarily because I reject the Catholic concept of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (as it stands).

And we reject your concept of how to define dogma.

I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago

Unitarians reject the Trinity. You cannot call yourself a Unitarian and accept the Trinity.

I used to find the trinity to be a rather poorly supported doctrine, but it was primarily because many Trinitarians misrepresented it. I had debated the doctrine of the trinity with many people and none of them presented it as well as James White did in his publication The Forgotten Trinity.

You found his presentation well done? Great. I have always found his writings and debates poorly presented. But to each his own.

Let’s continue with the example you gave, which is the doctrine of the trinity. There is not one verse that spells it out for us. There is not one verse that tells us Jehovah is triune in nature, that is, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Yet the Bible does reveal this teaching through a network of scriptures (Matthew 3:16-17, 11:27, 17:1-9, 27:46, John 1:18, 14:16-17. The Pre-existence of the Son: Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, John 1:1; Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18; identification as Yahweh: John 6:39-41/Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:10-12/Psalm 102:25-27, etc.).

Yeah. I already connected those dots years ago, and you can connect them for every doctrine about Mary also, if you so choose to. Or you can reject them if you choose to.

I can say the same thing regarding sola scriptura. Consider the following texts (NASB):

2 Timothy 3:16 -
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

This verse clearly says all. Can you show me where it says only? You have another problem on your hands with this verse. At the time of this writing the ***only ***scriptures were the OT, and that is what Paul is referring to. Is Paul saying only the OT can be used for doctrine?

What did Jesus and the apostles appeal to?

Acts 17:11, 12 -
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men…

Now, let’s clearly consider what Jesus is talking about. This was not the layman, pagan, tradition that local people had. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about their religious traditions!

[Continued on next post]

from Catholic.com :

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’” Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2–3).

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

part 2.

I gather that Catholics like to make arguments from silence (e.g. someone in this thread has stated " the Church does not hold to the idea that a teaching must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be valid.") This, of course, is not acceptable according to Scripture itself.

Every one of these verses does not support, nor negate sola scriptura. The fact that the concept of sola scriptura is a tradition of man from 500 years ago, seems at odds with what you state. Now if you can show me where it was explicitly taught in the early Church, then you will help your argument. Good luck.

Deuteronomy 4:2 -
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Refers to not adding to the Ten Commandments

Proverbs 30:5, 6 -
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Is the New Testament adding to His words? The Jews feel so. Catholics would add that we have not added anything, they were the teachings handed down to us from the Apostles. And again, we can see them clearly in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 4:6 -
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

5Therefore, brothers, **stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.***If it’s oral, how can it be sola scriptura?

Revelation 22:18, 19 -
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This verse refers to not adding anything to the Book of Revelation, since the bible was not compiled yet. Most Protestants I know realize this.

I will now show you that the apostles had authority only because they were set up by Christ.

We agree here.

This authority that the apostles had did not transfer onto bishops after their deaths, as one had to be a witness of Christ.

Where does Christ say this? Can you show me this from scripture? Seems to be a tradition of you.

Acts 1:22 -
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.

Nowhere does this verse say that the authority cannot be passed on.

1 Corinthians 9:1 - Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Nowhere does this verse say that the authority cannot be passed on.

Now, one could reasonable argue (and I would agree with the position) that the Greek Scriptures do not contain all of the teachings of the apostles. This would be consistent in our understanding of how the New Testament is written given that all of Jesus’ teachings were not recorded either (John 20:30). However, as quoted above, 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that everything in Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…” I would like to request from you a passage out of the Bible that tells us the traditions (or oral teachings) of the apostles were “god-breathed.”

I would like to request from you a passage that says they aren’t? If you can, then I guess we can then throw out Paul’s admonishment to hold fast to the traditions taught orally.

We should also consider what the Scriptures are told to be written for.

John 20:30, 31 -
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Romans 15:4 -
For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

1 John 15:13 -
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

…

And these support sola scriptura how?

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

part 3. The following shows where the Apostles use Oral Tradition as Scripture.
From David Palm:

“Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our authority in matters of faith and morals?” If Scripture makes no such claim for itself, then the doctrine of is self-contradictory, and this undermines a central pillar of Protestantism. To me this question was critical.

I did not get a persuasive answer from either scholar, but one of them responded to my question with one of his own: “Does any New Testament author cite oral tradition as authoritative for doctrine?” His point was that if the apostles’ use of Scripture—for them the Old Testament—illustrates that they held to a doctrine of , then it seems reasonable that this pattern would hold for later Christians’ use of the New Testament. His argument is a good one, but only to a point.

One problem is that the question assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to establish. By asking “Where in the New Testament do you find such and such?” the questioner is limiting the discussion only to written revelation, but this is the very point we are trying to establish. We must have some evidence that all of God’s revelation comes to us in written form; we cannot merely assume this. So we are back to the original question, “Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our authority for matters of faith and morals?”

Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.

But my professor was concentrating on the way the apostles treated Scripture. If we could find in the New Testament no case in which the authors drew on Jewish oral tradition as authoritative, one could make the case that is a doctrine taught by the apostles, if not explicitly in the pages of the New Testament, then at least implicitly by their example. While this is not as satisfying as being able to point to chapter and verse to support , it is a way out of the logical quandary that the doctrine generates.

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”

The proposed solutions to explain this verse are legion. They range from trying to find some word-play on “Nazarene” in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to viewing this text as loosely “fulfilling” a conglomeration of Old Testament passages that refer to a despised Messiah. The serious grappling by scholars with the text is admirable, but in the end their solutions seem farfetched.

It may be that we should seek resolution in simplicity. When read in Greek, the introduction to this prophecy differs from all the other “fulfillment” sayings in Matthew (for example Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 3:15, and others). Thus, the failed attempts to locate the Old Testament background to this prophecy, coupled with this unique introduction, suggest to me that the simplest solution is probably the correct one: Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This then would be an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3).

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abôte indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected.

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

to be continued…

 

[TimothyH]

part 2.

to be continued…

This thread is impossible to follow and no one is convincing anyone of anything.

 

[Duane1966]

Conclusion.

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. In a further development, another Tradition, given by Philo, even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: “For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God.”

It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1 Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel. The details provided in these Traditions preserved under the Old Covenant shed fresh light on the preparation that God made through Israel for the building of his Church and on the characteristics of the Christian sacraments.

1 Peter 3:19

In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which “the sons of God” cohabited with “the daughters of men” and produced ghastly offspring. According to ancient interpretation, these “sons of God” were actually rebellious angels who sinned by mating with human women.

It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well. “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until judgment . . . then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial” (2 Pet. 2:4, 9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day . . .” These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching “to the spirits in prison.”

Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. In this work, which was popular both in ancient Jewish and early Christian circles, the righteous man Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at God’s command to the place where these sinful angels are imprisoned and proclaims their impending judgment and punishment for their sin.

The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too close to dismiss. It seems possible that Peter views Enoch as a “type” of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays Christ as a “second Enoch,” who goes to the spirit world and proclaims the final downfall of these evil spirits (compare Col. 2:15). Peter’s source for this analogy is Tradition, not Scripture.

This example is significant because it highlights one of the important functions that Tradition still plays for us. As is all too clear from the divisions within Christendom, Scripture may be interpreted in many different ways. Sometimes the Traditions passed on in the Catholic Church provide the interpretive key to certain passages. This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible in support of their doctrine.

It is simply false to suppose that the early Church relied on to defend Christian orthodoxy. “There is no reason to infer,” says J.N.D. Kelly in , “that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles.” Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the “rule of faith,” that is, the deposit of Tradition passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the Catholic Church and preserved through an unbroken lineage.

A specific application of this is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The data of the New Testament concerning the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are ambiguous by themselves, although I would argue that the biblical evidence leans toward the Catholic interpretation. But we have additional help in the form of the Traditions preserved in the early Church which say that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children besides Jesus. So Tradition can sometimes serve as arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear.