I am guessing you meant 1 Thessalonians and the “rapture” verses?
Can’t you see the reason historical criticism is so crucial when reading apocalyptic writings such as these? The rapture, unless I am really mistaken, is an interpretation of scripture in a “prophetic writting” sense that only has a history of a century of two? By the way to subscribe to this theory, only my opinion here, is contrary to sola scriptura, because Jesus clearly states in scripture that no one knows except the Father, except for John Hagee and others who follow the rapture doctrine. Scripture cannot contradict itself.
I know none of us have read and studied all of the Early Church Father’s writings, but am I not right in saying that almost all of the theologians who have done what you describe been reformation or Protestant in background? If so, why does that concern a cradle Catholic like me? I know, that sounds a little closed minded.
If I believe in the “one, holy, Catholic’ and Apostolic Church”, then I believe what the Catholic writers of these documents believed. So I guess that is why I don’t agree with your premise of the differing meanings of exegesis (agree to disagree). If the teaching is outside of the Church then I suspect it as being possibly made in error.
The only reason I repeatedly brought up this topic is the fact that I was discussing this with DD2007 when you joined, that’s it.
The scripture that DD continues to regurgitate as a stand alone teaching of scripture is at fault if used alone. Other statements of Paul refute this statement if it is taken in a strict literal sense as presented by DD; such as 2 Thess 2:15,
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Don’t the two statements, 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 contradict each other if you follow the sola scriptura tradition? This is not a new argument to this thread, just overlooked and ignored by DD.
(14) “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, (15) and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Stating that the first quote is true and the second is as well would be a contradictory statement for a believer of the sola scriptura tradition. How does one reconcile the conflict? DD2007, answer please!
I believe they are in no way contradictory.
I guess that’s why I am so adamant about exegesis. If one is honestly looking to see what the word of God says and means to the universal Christian church, then you have to know what the writer was facing when the piece was written, i.e. time setting. But most of all, there has to be an understanding of what the representatives of the group, in this case the Catholic Church, who wrote the piece.
If that makes my view narrow minded or closed to “reformed theological” opinions, I’m guilty.
Edwin,
Sorry I haven’t been posting, I had classes this weekend, yes with a liberal professor. It was very painful!!!
