Sola Scriptura Silence

[inkaneer]

Unanswered Question Of The Century:

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH???

It doesn’t. In fact it says just the opposite. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul writes:

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

Like it or not that is God breathed scripture and is as valid today as it was when Paul penned it almost 2,000 years ago. But you will never hear a protestant minister preach a sermon on it. Some protestants say that when Paul wrote that not all scripture was written but once it was written the verse no longer applied. Sounds good, real good, however, they can’t find any scripture verse that says that. So the solo scripturist have to add their own tradition to scripture so they can justify their man made tradition. But the one thing that seals the deal for me against sola scriptura is the absolute lack of anyone in the early church teaching sola scriptura. For 1500 years there is no sola scriptura being taught in the church. Now Jesus did say that hell would not prevail over His Church [Mt 16:18]. Now think about that. How could hell prevail over the church? Certainly not by killing believers in an attempt to stamp it out. The church prospered and grew during the persecutions. When you think about it the only way hell can prevail over the church is to get the church to teach error. The church then becomes apostate. BUT, Jesus said in Mt 16:18 that hell would never prevail over the church. So was the church wrong for 2000 teaching Apostolic Tradition comes to us in both the Written Tradition as well as the Oral Tradition? Or is Luther and the thousands of protestant cults that sprang from him wrong in claiming sola scriptura? How can any christian who claims to love holy scripture cling to sola scriptura when not only is it so unscriptural but it in effect calls Jesus a liar? Is there a reason that scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth [1Ti 3:15] and not scripture? If sola scriptura was a valid doctrine I would think Paul would be telling Timothy that scripture was the pillar and foundation of truth. But he doesn’t. Instead he tells Timothy:

“14 But as for you, 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:14-17]

Here he tells Timothy to use the scriptures “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but he also tells Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” Notice the "FROM WHOM he learned it. Timothy, of course, learned it from Paul. Paul later goes on to tell Timothy:

“and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” [2Timothy 2:2]

Timothy was to teach whad he heard from Paul. This is God breathed scripture and as such it is immutable. That means it is unchanging. It is just as valid and inerrant today as when Paul penned it. Sola scriptura flies in the face of inerrant scripture and is a doctrine from the depths of hell.

 

[centurion210]

Anyone who hasn’t read HOWIE01’s link entitled “What do We Mean By, Sola Scriptura”
, should do so( post # 433) We are are here to learn so I thought it would be a good idea. It is so factually incorrect and poorly written. The reasoning and logic are so shallow I can’t believe this man has a PhD.

Just his interpretation of 2 Timothy 3, makes a good case for why we need a magisterium. It’s easy to see why good people like Howie make the claims they do. Another interesting aspect of these Protestant position papers is their sources; they reference each other. And they try to make St. Augustine look like a card carrying Calvinist. I wonder if any of them have read anything more than a clip of something written by St. Augustine.

Really guys, you are here posting quite a lot so it is obvious that you really do love the Lord and are sincerely trying to make your point. But please, you will be doing yourselves a big favor if you do your own research. The rewards will be great!

The way they mischaracterize Catholic positions is hurtful.

 

[bullfrog654]

i copied about the bible above into my concept of faith poem i posted today and concept of the denial of love so i post this for you

“Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people’s suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal.” The Dalai Lama

“This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you”. Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

“Tse-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘shu’ – reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’” Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

“Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam “Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths”

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.

“All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk

Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

There are some situations in which a strict application of the Ethic of Reciprocity is contraindicated because it can lead to harming others.

and my reply to this

we are not to mis up love thy neighbour with helping thy nighbour if your brother asks you for help take the thorn out of your own eye before your brothers own this is the golden rule of religion such as you seem to call the ego.

we are also not to want what our neighbour has such as keeping up with the joenses.

follow the whole it does become fulfilling

some stretch it in the olden days by having the moral of allowing their mariage partner to make their choices for them

in the stretch of things we are left with faith and trust the good and bad senario

 

[josie_L]

I never made a comparison between the reformers and the fathers, you’re the one doing that.

Just the answer I was looking for. Neither have disagreements between the reformers affected my doctrine, and the doctrine of those churches which adhere to SS, just as all of the other denominations whose doctrines are peculiar to them don’t affect my doctrine, and just as my doctrine doesn’t affect yours.

Take a look around and then, you tell me.

The church is always in danger of being overrun by false teachers, Josie, thus all of the warnings against false teachers.

Wonderful; is there nothing you wouldn’t believe should the church declare it so?

It’s not a ridiculous request, but you wish to make it seem so because you can’t fulfill it.

I don’t need to cite the fathers, Josie, the proof is in the passage, 2 Tim 3:14-17.

I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread with the verse cited.

The reformers disagreed on many key doctrinal issues, so who was right - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox - take your pick? If the Reformation was truly the work of the Holy Spirit then without any further complications the reformers should have come to the exact interpretation of Scriptures, why is it that they didn’t?

This was my response.

I would expect that had the apostles taught the early fathers orally, there’d be no variance in understanding either, but there was. Why was that?

This was yours.

This is why I said what I said at the beginning of my post. Also, you said that the Church erred hence you are stating the Bishops (early church fathers) erred. Again reason enough for stating what I did. So I don’t understand your comment.

I do however, wish to apologize to you for my lack of courtesy, that was not well-done of me. I would like to hear what you have to say just as long as you play fair and do not resort to things that cannot possibly be done on a forum or that you actually answer the questions posited to you fairly and with logic, that is, without glossing over some questions while not answering others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I only refered to Jesus as sinless. Ralph

Yes, I corrected that.

 

[ralphy]

I have great news for you. I have found them. They are also available for your education too.

That’s great, where did you find them? How did they look? Ralph

 

[inkaneer]

Anyone who hasn’t read HOWIE01’s link entitled “What do We Mean By, Sola Scriptura”
.

I like the part that says the scriptures can be understood correctly by everyone and so there is no need for any other authority like the Church to interpret them. I really have to laugh at this because it is so stupid. Let me explain. According to Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, a noted protestant training institution for protestant ministers, the number of protestant denominations is now 40,000 and projected to increase to 55,000 by 2025. Go here to see the figures:

gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/glo…

Now how can anyone claim that anyone can understand the scriptures correctly when there is so much doctrinal division in protestantism that they have over 40,000 denominations? They cannot even agree on baptism. Lutherans say yes to infant baptism but Baptists say adult baptism only. Some say Baptism saves, others say no it doesn’t. Some say Baptism is a sacrament others say it is only an ordinace. Some say baptism is unnecessary. And they all use the same scriptures to try to prove their doctrine. So two questions arise here. Who is interpreting the scriptures correctly here? The second question is, How do you know who is interpreting correctly? The old saying about protestantism is that it is a river a mile wide and an inch deep. According to Gordon Conwell it is getting wider. Whenever thwo protestants disagree on doctrine a new denominations starts.

 

[centurion210]

Inkaneer,

The following quote from page 6 of the aforementioned paper is interesting. The writer is attempting to show the tension between tradition and the value of reading the Bible. He quotes Pope Pius IV from The Index of Forbidden Books:

" Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles."

I say the figures you cite from Gorden-Conwell proved that the Pope was a prophet. Look what happened. He goes on to state how the Vatican II had a different approach. But even the quote from Vatican II stated that the church "with maternal concern"should make the scriptures available… etc.

Even as this guy shows us a quote like that, I can’t imagine how he can ignore the obvious result of what indiscriminate interpretation of the Bible can, will, and has produced. What was that figure again?

Seriously, is anti-Catholic apologetics an integral part of non-Catholic Christian teaching? Look what they’ve done to our Blessed Mother since the Reformation. Contrast their dismissive views of her now with those of Luther. Amazing!!!

 

[Benadam]

Inkaneer,

Seriously, is anti-Catholic apologetics an integral part of non-Catholic Christian teaching? Look what they’ve done to our Blessed Mother since the Reformation. Contrast their dismissive views of her now with those of Luther. Amazing!!!

 

[Jerry_Marino]

funny

 

[Randy_Carson]

if God was capable of protecting mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? therefore, mary being sinless is neither necessary or Biblical.

Well, you’re half right.

Catholics do not believe that Mary was sinless in order to protect Jesus from sin; however, the fact that she WAS sinless is Biblical - at least implicitly.

the problem with this doctrine first and foremost like i stated above, it is not biblical. also, as you and others can see this doctrine takes the focus off of Jesus Christ towards mary. which is against what the Bible teaches.

To the contrary, seeing the glory of Mary gives us some indication of what God intended for all of us. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve chose another path.

Understanding these doctrines about Mary helps us to glorify God in the same way that standing before the Mona Lisa helps us to appreciate the genius of Leonardo da Vinci.

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 timothy 3:16 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.

Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language.

God bless

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

[Howie01]

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

I agree, viewed that way one could arrive at your conclusion for that passage.

However, there’s a word used to describe the method you’ve employed to arrive at your conclusion, which, if known, causes one who recognizes your method to quickly reject your view:eis•ege•sis \I-se-jē-ses\ noun

plural ** eis•ege•ses** -ˌsēz\

[Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis — more at IN]

(1892)

: **the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas **— compare EXEGESISThe Sacred Writings are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (v15).

And the Writings are able to do that without a magisterium, as there was no magisterium back then. To think otherwise, is to engage in anachronism.

 

[Howie01]

inkaneer:

But you will never hear a protestant minister preach a sermon on it.

Your statement is dishonest, unless you’ve read or listened to every protestant sermon ever given, or that ever will be given.

Have you?

 

[Howie01]

centurion210:

Anyone who hasn’t read HOWIE01’s link entitled “What do We Mean By, Sola Scriptura” , should do so( post # 433)…The reasoning and logic are so shallow I can’t believe this man has a PhD.

Care to list your bona fides for us, centurion?

centurion210:

Another interesting aspect of these Protestant position papers is their sources; they reference each other.

Doesn’t the RCC reference itself in its papers and pronouncements, or does she do so in a vacuum?

centurion210:

And they try to make St. Augustine look like a card carrying Calvinist. I wonder if any of them have read anything more than a clip of something written by St. Augustine.

Will you cite the statements, in the essay, that make Augustine look like a card carrying Calvinist, or any statements in the body of that essay that even mention Calvin?

Methinks you read others in the same way you read scripture—you read into it what you want it to say.

centurion210:

Really guys, you are here posting quite a lot so it is obvious that you really do love the Lord and are sincerely trying to make your point. But please, you will be doing yourselves a big favor if you do your own research. The rewards will be great!

Assumes “we guys” haven’t done any research.

centurion210:

The way they mischaracterize Catholic positions is hurtful.

You’re making a charge without any support.

centurion210:

I say the figures you cite from Gorden-Conwell proved that the Pope was a prophet. Look what happened. He goes on to state how the Vatican II had a different approach. But even the quote from Vatican II stated that the church "with maternal concern"should make the scriptures available… etc.

Even as this guy shows us a quote like that, I can’t imagine how he can ignore the obvious result of what indiscriminate interpretation of the Bible can, will, and has produced.

He goes into that in his fourth point. He also deals with the illusion of RC unity in that point as well.

centurion210:

Seriously, is anti-Catholic apologetics an integral part of non-Catholic Christian teaching? Look what they’ve done to our Blessed Mother since the Reformation. Contrast their dismissive views of her now with those of Luther. Amazing!!!

I seriously can’t take Catholics seriously regarding Mary. I don’t know any protestants who have a dismissive view of Mary. The difference is, protestants don’t care to drag Mary’s name through the mud as you do in elevating her to a position not revealed by the Spirit of truth.

 

[inkaneer]

Your statement is dishonest, unless you’ve read or listened to every protestant sermon ever given, or that ever will be given.

Have you?

You picked a minor point of my post to quibble about. How about the rest of it? Can you explain 2 Thess 2:15? How about show me one, just one early church writer who taught sola scriptura. How about in the first 3 centuries? Okay, how about the next 3 centuries? Want to try the next 4 centuries. That covers the first 1,000 years of christianity. The first person who taught sola scriptura was Martin Luther and that was 1,500 years after the church came to be. 2 Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura. In it Paul plainly and clearly tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the oral teaching [Tradition] they received as well as the written Tradition. Sola scriptura denies the Oral Tradition. Since the word of God is immutable that verse was as valid for Luther and us today as when Paul penned it. So are you scriptural? Are you holding on to the Oral Tradition as Paul instructs? Catholics are. Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, a highly reputable protestant seminary states there currently are 40,000 protestant denominations and projects that in 15 years there will be 55,000. This fracturing of protestantism is all because of sola scriptura where every protestant is their own pope and can interpret scripture for themselves. How can you justify 40,000 denominations when Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers be one as He was one with the Father? Maybe it’s that new new math I hear about. You know, the one where 40,000 = 1.

Thank you,

 

[Howie01]

You picked a minor point of my post to quibble about.

If I’m merely quibbling, why aren’t you answering my question?

inkaneer:

How about the rest of it? Can you explain 2 Thess 2:15?

I did earlier in the thread:Furthermore, you’ll hear that the apostles taught oral tradition, and 2 Thess 2:15 is cited as proof of that.

Anyone caring more about truth, than about some overused and faulty apologetic, would take the time to read the entire chapter and beyond.

In so doing, one finds that Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings he already delivered to the Thessalonians.

In v1, the oral teaching concerns the Coming of our Lord, and our gathering to Him, and Paul reminds them that he had told that to them before in person v5. Regarding the holding to traditions in v15, one finds the other oral teaching already delivered in v 6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. That’s a clearly written teaching throughout scripture.

With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles. That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done.

inkaneer:

How about show me one, just one early church writer who taught sola scriptura. How about in the first 3 centuries? Okay, how about the next 3 centuries? Want to try the next 4 centuries.

There were a few mentioned in the link I provided, and you’ve just blown them off. You’ll do the same when I offer more.

inkaneer:

2 Thess 2:15 is the wooden stake in the heart of sola scriptura. In it Paul plainly and clearly tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the oral teaching [Tradition] they received as well as the written Tradition.

I’ve shown that if one takes the time to read the entire passage, in context, Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings to which he referred.

inkaneer:

Sola scriptura denies the Oral Tradition.

No it doesn’t. It rejects oral teachings not supported by scripture.

inkaneer:

Since the word of God is immutable that verse was as valid for Luther and us today as when Paul penned it. So are you scriptural? Are you holding on to the Oral Tradition as Paul instructs?

Yes, with respect to the passage you cite 2 Thess.

inkaneer:

How can you justify 40,000 denominations when Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers be one as He was one with the Father? Maybe it’s that new new math I hear about. You know, the one where 40,000 = 1.

I don’t have to justify it, I’m not the cause of it.

That’s as much a strawman as my holding you responsible for the US Supreme court legalizing and upholding abortion—you’re an American, so it’s your fault.

 

[SteveGC]

Oral tradition is not extra-biblical tradition.

There’s no “list” of oral traditions, per se.

The concept of Apostolic Tradition is one of authority and of translation, not one of oral vs. written. Tradition is both, simultaneously.

Howie, in one sense you’re absolutely right. In Scripture, Paul’s reference to “oral” was also written tradition. The teachings spoken were also written.

But again, we’re talking about authority and translation…

By authority, what is meant is inspired humans having equal authority with the written word which was born from that same human inspiration. This human authority did not die with the death of John. Apostolic succession itself is shown biblically, and historically.

The very canonization of the Bible is proof of equal human authority. It could not have been canonized otherwise. In both cases (human and Bible), the inspiration came to only one of them…the humans. They were inspired to write it…they likewise were inspired to teach it. Through succession, they were likewise inspired to canonize, and continue to teach it.

The human inspiration makes possible the proper, authentic translations of Scripture (the other part of Apostolic Tradition), and what we receive is the fruit of the Spirit the Church provides for all.

Dei Verbum says it better than I…

*"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.” *

So, if we had to “list” some Tradition, it might start out looking like this…

• Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
• Seven Sacraments (fountains of grace)
• Role of Mary
• Purgatory

These are not extra-biblical. These are authentic translations of Sacred Scripture, as given by authentic Apostolic Tradition, and which are made possible by virtue of the fact that the Apostles received a fuller deposit of teaching from Christ than could possibly have all been written down. It wasn’t “different” teaching…it was “deeper” teaching of that which Scripture also reveals.

So the debate isn’t over whether oral tradition is important or not, or whether it’s based on Scripture or not. It IS important, and it IS based on Scripture.

The debate, rather, is over whether or not the Bible suddenly became the ONLY authority after the death of the last Apostle. Can the Bible provide for it’s own authentic, consistent teaching to all of Christendom or not? Sola Scripturist’s say Yes. Catholics say No.

God Bless

 

[inkaneer]

If I’m merely quibbling, why aren’t you answering my question?

RESPONSE: Because you’re quibbling.

and 2 Thess 2:15 is cited as proof of that.

Anyone caring more about truth, than about some overused and faulty apologetic, would take the time to read the entire chapter and beyond.

In so doing, one finds that Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings he already delivered to the Thessalonians.

In v1, the oral teaching concerns the Coming of our Lord, and our gathering to Him, and Paul reminds them that he had told that to them before in person v5. Regarding the holding to traditions in v15, one finds the other oral teaching already delivered in v 6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. That’s a clearly written teaching throughout scripture.

RESPONSE: I read Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians, all eight chapters. Nowhere does Paul list what he already delivered to them and his two letters to them are woefully short of the complete gospel. Yet 2 Thess 2;15 makes no claim that it has any limitation as you claim.

With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles. That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done.

RESPONSE: Here is a partial list: Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, Baptism remits sin, Confession of sins to a priest, Sunday worship, Purgatory, prayers for the dead, intercessory prayer to the saints, indulgences. For a compolete list read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There were a few mentioned in the link I provided, and you’ve just blown them off. You’ll do the same when I offer more.

RESPONSE: What link??? Post it again because in reviewing your earlier response [the one where you were quibbling] there was no link.

I’ve shown that if one takes the time to read the entire passage, in context, Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings to which he referred.

RESPONSE: You have done no such thing. Paul makes no mention that his statement applies only to what oral teachings he referred to. He simply states: “15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

No it doesn’t. It rejects oral teachings not supported by scripture.

RESPONSE: Well that’s your interpretation guided by your doctrine. What was that word you used again??? Oh yeah, eis•ege•sis \I-se-jē-ses\ noun

plural eis•ege•ses -ˌsēz\

[Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis — more at IN]

(1892)

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas —

I don’t have to justify it, I’m not the cause of it.

That’s as much a strawman as my holding you responsible for the US Supreme court legalizing and upholding abortion—you’re an American, so it’s your fault.

RESPONSE: Not personally but your doctrine of sola scriptura is the culprit. All these protestants running around ‘eisegesising’ and creating more and more denominations. The old saying that every protestant is his own pope is true. If the projection of Gordon Cowell Theological Seminary is accurate that 1,000 denominations are formed every year [15,000 in 15 years] that is about 3 per day. Christ prayed that His followers be one but sola scriptura says “the more the merrier.”

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t have to justify [40,000 denominations], I’m not the cause of it.

That’s as much a strawman as my holding you responsible for the US Supreme court legalizing and upholding abortion—you’re an American, so it’s your fault.

Bad analogy and a very weak argument. It’s incumbent on you to justify 40,000 denominations because you are a proponent of sola scriptura, which is the cause and source of 40,000 denominations. If your doctrine is true, you should have no trouble explaining why it has led to the complete chaos of 40,000 denominations. If you can’t defend your doctrine, why is it your doctrine?

I expect you’ll deflect this question as you do the rest of them.