Sola Scriptura

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

I will discuss the fact that Scripture doesn’t condone God’s people praying to anything else except directly to God.

You misunderstand Catholic teaching here. The Church does not teach that we are to pray to anyone else in the same way that we pray to God. What the Church does teach is that those alive in heaven can still pray FOR those of us still on earth. It’s the word “pray” that confuses people. In English the word “pray” can mean “a humble request”, in this context a prayer request. It’s confusing because in our culture we don’t really use the word “pray” in that way anymore. Nonetheless, it remains a valid way to use it.

You need to be careful not to inadvertanly attribute a teaching to the Church that she does not hold to be true. That is what you are doing here. You’re implication is that Catholics pray to those in heaven in the same way that they pray to God which is absolutely not the case. Please be careful with that.

Asking or writing to other Christians who are alive to pray for you is not the same as praying to those who have left this life. Nowhere does Scripture condone praying to saints no longer living on earth.

Again, we have to be careful when using the phrase “praying to”. “Praying to” God is completely different from “praying to” someone in heaven, which is simply a prayer request. So what you mean to be saying is that you don’t believe that Scripture condones asking those in heaven to pray for us. Do all practices need to be specifically condoned by scripture? If so, where does scripture tell us so. If not, where did you get this extra-biblical teaching?

Many Protestants practice things that are not condoned by Scripture. Birth control is not condoned. Nor are altar calls. We have to be careful not to use a double standard when deciding which practices are acceptable and which are not.

At most, this shows that saints in heaven can pray to God. It does not show or condone those alive on earth praying to those who are not alive on earth.

Again, “praying to” those in heaven is asking them to pray FOR us. It’s NOT the same as “praying to” God. What was it that the saints in heaven were praying about in Rev. 5:8? The needs of those on earth. This is perfectly consistent with the Catholic teaching that those in heaven can intercede in prayer for those on earth. It is INconsistent, of course, with the misconception that to pray for someone in heaven is the same as to pray to God.

Neither these, nor any other verses in Scripture condone praying to the dead for intercession. We are commanded to pray only to God alone. I will continue to do just that.

As well you should. Remember, praying to God is completely different from “praying to” those in heaven, which is simply a prayer request.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Agreed, but I’d like to hear your opinion nonetheless.

Drawing ones own conclusions makes truth relative. That’s how Protestantism began and continues to split and grow.

Do these two responses contradict each other?

Sure it’s evidence. Jesus tells them to listen to their teaching because they sit in the seat of Moses, because they have teaching authority. From the time of Moses someone always occupied the “seat”. Before the Pharisees it was someone else.

It may be evidence that we should obey those in authority when they teach the truth, but nothing else. See my longer response to Pax.

I’m not familiar with that, but it would mean that he’s lumping all legitimate rites and dissenting sects under the general heading of “Catholic”.

So if he screwed up his statistics regarding Catholicism, your still going to accept his conclusions regarding Protestantism uncritically?

Here is a pretty thorough treatment of Barrett’s research and conclusions:
ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

Your think that those who are in heaven cannot intercede nor pray for us. This is a very shallow argument not well grounded in Scriptures and the power of God working on these Saints in heaven.

Pay attention to the subject. I asked for one instance from Scripture that teaches we should pray to anyone or anything other than God. You have provided none. I am not interested in your opinion on the subject.

If the subject of prayer, teaching on how to prayer, and examples of prayers are covered extensively (literally hundreds of times) in Scripture and there is not even one single example where we are taught to pray to anyone other than God, I am not going to pray to anyone other than God and I will continue to unapologetically point out that it is wrong.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Corpus Cristi:

Um, you can’t prove that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 means what you say it means from the Bible, it doesn’t. How do you know that the letters in the Bible are the ONLY letters written to the church by Paul? How do you know that they are the complete letters? How do you know that the letters by any of the apostles are the ONLY letters that they wrote to the church? Many books weren’t included in the Bible, some written by the very apostles themselves. You’re argument has lots of holes in it Brian. And also, can you PLEASE look at my post “The HUUUGE difference between CATHOLIC and ROMAN CATHOLIC?” You’re a real pain when you keep on butchering terminology like that, which shows that you know much less about the church than you think.

Okay, then show me one tradition (with evidence) passed on from the church of Thessalonica throught the apostles and early church up until today that isn’t found in Scripture. Your theory is only a theory unless you can prove it in practice.

As I responded in the other thread, so that it doesn’t become an obstacle, I will try to break the habit of using the descriptor “Roman”.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Personally, I’d be willing to accept a demonstration throughout Scripture. How is the sufficiency of Scripture demonsatrated throughout Scripture?

The Word of God was made available to His people in different ways throughout Scripture. Oral revelation, when God spoke directly to Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc. Written revelaiton, when Moses, guided by God, wrote the law. Oral revelation through other various prophets throughout OT history. Written revelation, when prophets, guided by God wrote Scripture. Oral revelation through the Words of Jesus Christ in the NT, etc. Written revelation when Apostles and a few others, guided by God, wrote Scripture. There were times of oral revelation and times when no oral revelation was available. During these times God’s enScripturated Word was the only access to God’s Word available. Therefore, Scripture was their sole infallible authority. Everything else was fallible. We are now living in “normal times” where oral revelation has ceased. (In the NT era beleivers also have the Holy Spirit indweldt in them.) Therefore, as demonstrated throughout Scripture, Scripture is our only access to God’s infallible Word. Sola Scriptura basically means that Scripture is our sole infallible authority.

To be continued. I have to go help my wife … Apparently me being on the computer for several hours on my off days and not getting anything done that I was supposed to do does not make her happy… Pray for me

Brian

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

brianberean:

Okay, then show me one tradition (with evidence) passed on from the church of Thessalonica throught the apostles and early church up until today that isn’t found in Scripture. Your theory is only a theory unless you can prove it in practice.

As I responded in the other thread, so that it doesn’t become an obstacle, I will try to break the habit of using the descriptor “Roman”.

Brian

Epistles to the Thessalonians
Two of the canonical Epistles of St. Paul. This article will treat the Church of Thessalonica, the authenticity, canonicity, time and place of writing, occasion, and contents of the two Epistles to that Church.

I. THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA

After Paul and Silas had, during the Apostle’s second missionary journey, left Philippi, they proceeded to Thessalonica (Thessalonike, the modern Saloniki), perhaps because there was in the city a synagogue of the Jews (Acts, xvii, 2). Thessalonica was the capital of the Roman Province of Macedonia; it was a free city, ruled by a popular assembly (cf. Acts, xvii, 5, eis ton demon) and magistrates (cf. verse 6, epi tous politarchas). St. Paul at once began to preach the Gospel to the Jews and proselytes. For three successive sabbaths he explained the Scriptures in the synagogue, opening up the way and gradually leading his hearers to the tremendous truth that there was need the Christ should die and rise again from the dead, and that Jesus whom Paul preached was in very truth this Christ. Some of the Jews believed and took sides with Paul and Silas.

It would seem that Paul stayed in the city some time thereafter, for, according to the reading of Codex Bezæ (fifth century), and the Vulgate and Coptic Versions (Acts, xvii, 4), he converted a large number not only of proselytes (ton te sebomenon) but of Gentile Greeks (kai Hellenon). In the first place, it is unlikely that a large number of these latter were won over to the Faith during the three weeks devoted to the synagogues; for Paul did manual labour night and day, so as not to be burdensome to his converts (I Thess., ii, 9). Secondly, these converts from idolatry (I Thess., i, 9) would scarcely have become, after so brief an apostolate, a “pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia” (I Thess., i, 7). Thirdly, the Church of Philippi sent alms twice to Paul at Thessalonica (Phil., iv, 16), a fact which seems to indicate that his sojourn there was longer than three weeks.

Be this as it may, the signal success of Paul’s apostolate among Jews, proselytes, and Hellenes together with the conversion of “not a few noble ladies” (Acts, xvii, 4), aroused the Jews to a fury of envy; they gathered together a mob of idlers from the agora and set the whole city in tumult; they beset the home of Jason, found the Apostle away, dragged his host to the tribunal of the politarchs and charged him with harbouring traitors, men who set Jesus up as king in place of Cæsar. That night the brethren made good the escape of their teacher to Berea. There the Gospel of Paul met with a much more enthusiastic reception than that accorded to it by the synagogue of Thessalonica. The Jews of that city drove Paul to Berea and there, too, stirred up the mob against him. He left Silas and Timothy to complete his work and went to Athens (Acts, xvii, 1-15).

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

II. FIRST EPISTLE

A. Authenticity

(1) External Evidence

(a) II Thessalonians. The strongest external evidence in favour of the authenticity of I Thessalonians is II Thessalonians which, whatsoever be its date of composition, is the very earliest document that clearly presupposes I Thessalonians to have been written by Paul.

(b) Manuscripts. The evidence of manuscripts alone is such as to set the authenticity of this letter beyond all doubt; it is in the Greek text of the Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), Cod. Vaticanus (fourth century), and Cod. Alexandrinus (fifth century); it is in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions, which trace its authenticity down to the middle of the second century.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

(c) The Apostolic Fathers give evidence of very early use of the Epistle as Sacred Scripture. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 110-17, according to the chronology of Harnack which we shall follow in this article), in “Eph.”, X, i, probably uses the adialeiptos proseuchesthai, “pray without ceasing”, of I Thess., v, 17; and undoubtedly had in mind I Thess., ii, 4, when writing to the Romans (II, i) the distinctly Pauline thought of ou thelo hymas anthropareskein alla theo, “I will that ye please not man but God”. Because St. Ignatius, as the other Apostolic Fathers, cites from memory, without the exactness of later Fathers and without ever mentioning the name of the sacred writer quoted, Dr. Inge, the Lady Margaret professor of divinity in the University of Cambridge, says: “The evidence that Ignatius knew I Thessalonians is almost nil” (cf. “The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers”, Oxford, 1905, p. 74). Against such scepticism, the clear use of St. Paul by the Apostolic Fathers is of no avail. Harnack, who cannot be accused of overmuch credulity, thinks that St. Ignatius of Antioch possessed a collection of the Pauline Epistles; and that by the year 117, St. Polycarp of Smyrna had a complete collection (eine ganze Sammlung) thereof before him and veritably lived therein (cf. Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, I, 249, note 2). In the “Pastor” of Hermas (A.D. 140), we find the phrase of I Thess., v, 13, “Be at peace among yourselves” (eireneuete en heautois) several times, used almost as it occurs in the Alexandrian and Vatican Codices (cf. Hermas, “Simil.”, VIII, vii, 2; “Vis.”, III, vi, 3; III, ix, 2, 10; III, xii, 3).

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

The Apologetic Fathers are clear and to the point. St Irenæus (A.D. 181-9) cites I Thess., v, 23, expressly attributing the words to the Apostle’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians (“Contra hæreses”, V, vi, 1 in P. G., VIII, 1138), and I Thess., v, 3, as the saying of the Apostle (ibid., V, xxx, 2 in P. G., VII, 1205). Tertullian quotes at length passages from each of the five chapters of I Thess. to prove his thesis of the resurrection of the body (“Liber de resurrectione carnis”, xxiv, in P. L., II, 874) and uses the Epistle against Marcion (“Adv. Marcionem”, V, xv in P. L., II, 541). St Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-210) very often cites this brief letter – cf. “Pædagogus”, I, v, 19 (Stählin’s ed., I, 101) and “Stromata”, I, i, 6 (Stählin’s ed., II, 5) for I Thess., ii, 5-7; “Stromata”, II, xi, 4, IV, xii (Stählin’s ed., II, 138 and 286), for an allusion to I Thess., iv, 3, and an accurate citation of six verses (3-8) of the same chapter; “Pædagogus”, II, ix, III, xii, IV, xxii (Stählin’s ed., I, 206 and 288, and P. G., VIII, 1352) for the appeal to almost every verse of I Thess., v, i. e. verses 5, 8, 13, 15, 19, 22; “Stromata”, I, xi (Stählin’s ed., II, 34) for a quotation from the same chapter. So strong is the external evidence in favour of the authenticity of I Thess. as to convince all scholars save only those who, on account of internal evidence, deny to Paul the authenticity of all his Epistles.

(2) Internal Evidence

In I Thessalonians all the main Pauline doctrines are taught – the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (i, 10; iv, 14; v, 10); His Divinity and Sonship of the living God (i, 9, 10); the resurrection of our bodies (iv, 15-18), the mediatorship of Christ (v, 10); the call of the nations to the Kingdom of Christ, which is the Church (ii, 12), sanctification by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (iv, 8). The plain and direct style, the writer’s affectionate concern for his spiritual children, his impatience of Judaizers, the preponderance of personal over doctrinal statements, the frank and honest self-revelation of the writer – all these distinctly Pauline characteristics argue strongly for the authenticity of this letter.

Baur, the prime mover of neo-Tübingen ideas, was the first to wave aside recklessly all external evidence and seriously to attack the authenticity of I Thess. from internal evidence (cf. “Der Apostel Paulus”, ed. 2, II, 94). He was followed by Nowack, “Der Ursprung des Christentums” (Leipzig, 1857), II, 313; Volkmar, “Mose, Prophezie und Himmelfahrt” (Leipzig, 1867), 114; and Van der Vries, “De beiden brieven aan de Thessalonicensen” (Leyden, 1865). The reasons which impel Baur and his followers are trivial.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

The lack of doctrine makes the letter unworthy of Paul. We have noted that the main heads of Paul’s teaching are included in this short letter. Moreover, the letter is a most touching revelation of the great heart of St. Paul and as such alone is befitting the outspoken Apostle.
The Epistle is a clumsy forgery. The author has worked up his story from Acts. Paul could not have written ii, 14-16. It is far-fetched to compare the woes inflicted by the Jews upon the Church of Thessalonica with the ills they wrought upon the Church of Judea. It is un-Pauline to set Jewish Christians up as an example to Gentile converts (Baur, op. cit., 482). These purely subjective objections are worthless. The Apostle was too broadminded to be tied down to the narrow ideas of Baur. True, in his later letters – to the Romans end Corinthians and Galatians, for instance – we might not look for the juxtaposition of Jewish with Gentile Christians; but the Judaizers were not so troublesome to Paul when he wrote to the Thessalonians as when he wrote to the Romans.
The expression ephthase de ep autous he orge eis telos, “the wrath hath come upon them unto the end” (ii, 16), naturally refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) as an accomplished punishment of the Jews for killing the Lord Jesus. This is an unwarranted assumption. The phrase eis telos is indefinite; it has no definite article nor any defining qualificative; it modifies ephthase and refers to no definite end either accomplished or to be accomplished. St. Paul indefinitely but surely sees the oncoming end, reads the easily legible writing on the wall, and interprets that writing: “The wrath [of God] hath come upon them even unto making an end of them”. (iv) Baur (op. cit., 485) finds the eschatology of the Epistle un-Pauline. In the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians, for instance, there is no diving into the future, nothing said of the Parousia, or second coming of Jesus. But the reason is clear – those to whom Paul wrote his great and later Epistles had not the eschatological difficulties of the Thessalonians to meet. He adapted his letters to the wants of those to whom he wrote. The very fact that the apprehension of an immediate Parousia us not mentioned in the later letters would have prevented a forger from palming off as Pauline such an unusual topic.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

Canonicity
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians are included among the canonical books accepted by the Councils of the Vatican, of Trent, and of Florence, and are among the homologoumena of all early lists of canonical New-Testament Scriptures; for instance, to mention only such early lists as accord with the received canon of Trent, these two Epistles are listed in the Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 195-205), in the canons of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 373), of the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), in which Saint Augustine took part, of St. Epiphanius (A.D. 403), of Innocent I (A.D. 405), and of Gelasius (A.D. 492). In fact there can be no reason whatsoever to doubt the canonicity of either letter.

C. Time and Place

The textus receptus, at the end of the two Epistles, gives a subscription stating that they were written from Athens (egraphe apo Athenon); and this same subscription is contained in the great uncial codices A, B2, K2, L2 – that is, Alexandrinus (fourth century), Vaticanus (fifth century corrector), Mosquensis, and Angelicus (both of the ninth century); it is likewise translated in important Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts. None the less, there can be no doubt but that the letters were written during Paul’s first stay in Corinth. Timothy had been sent to Thessalonica by Paul from Athens (I Thess., iii, 2). Hence some Fathers inferred that, on this mission, Timothy brought along I Thess. The inference is wrong. As Rendel Harris says in “The Expositor” (1898), 174, Paul may have sent another letter from Athens by Timothy to the Thessalonians. He cannot have sent I Thessalonians from there by him. Paul clearly states that Timothy had returned from Thessalonica before the writing of I Thessalonians. (cf. iii, 6). Whither did he return? I Thessalonians does not state. Acts, xviii, 5, supplies answer. When Timothy returned from Macedonia with Silas to Paul, the Apostle was at Corinth. The news brought him by Timothy was the occasion of I Thessalonians. Moreover, in the greeting with which each letter begins, the names of Paul, Silvanus (i.e. Silas), and Timothy are grouped together; and we know that the three were together at Corinth (Acts, xviii, 5) during Paul’s first visit to that city (cf. also II Cor., i, 19). We have no proof that they were ever elsewhere together. I Thess., then, was written during the eighteen months Paul stayed. at Corinth, i.e. in the year 48 or 49, according to the chronology of Harnack, “Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur” (Leipzig, 1897), I, 717; in the year 53 or 54 according to the commonly received scheme of Pauline chronology. Both letters are generally considered to be the earliest extant writings of St. Paul. Some few now deem it proved that Paul wrote to the South Galatians even before he wrote to the Thessalonians, cf. Zahn, “Einleitung in das Neue Testament” Leipzig, 1897), I, 138.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT . . .)

D. Occasion

Having arrived at Athens, Paul at once set himself to convert the Jews, proselytes and Gentiles of that city. Among the latter he met with unusually small success. The Epicureans and Stoics for the most part rated him as a talkative lounger in the agora and either berated him with ridicule upon the Hill of Ares or waved him aside (Acts, xvii, 16-32). Meanwhile he trembled for the Church of Thessalonica. So long as he had been there, only the Jews strove to set his work at naught; now in his absence, the Gentiles joined the Jews (I Thess., ii, 14), and made a vigorous onslaught upon the faith of his children. Paul yearned mightily to see their face once more. In his intense affection and concern, he breaks away from his wonted first plural: “We willed to have come to you, even I, Paul, and that once and again; but Satan hindered us” (ii, 18). The hindrance wrought by Satan was probably a security against his return given by Jason and some friends (Acts, xvii, 9). Being unable to follow the yearnings of his heart, Paul sent Timothy to save the flock from the ravening wolves (I Thess., ii, 2). The Acts make no mention of this legation of Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica. Not long after, Paul left for Corinth (Acts, xviii, I). Thither Timothy, who returned from Thessalonica, brought back an eyewitness’s testimony as to the conditions of the faithful of that city. Rendel Harris, in “The Expositor” (1898), 167, thinks that the Thessalonians sent Paul a letter by Timothy and, to make good his theory, appeals to I Thess., i, 2, 5; ii, 1, 5, 9-13; iii, 3-6. There may be some ground for such conjecture in “We also” (kai hemeis) of I, ii, 13; “Also I” (kago) of I, iii, 5, and in “you have a good remembrance of us always” (echete mneian hemon agaphen) of I, iii, 6. Be this as it may, whether by letter or by word of mouth, Timothy fully informed Paul of the needs of the Christian community at Thessalonica; and these needs were the occasion of the first Epistle to that community.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

E. Contents

No other letter of Paul to a Church is so free and easy and epistolary as is this letter; it defies strict doctrinal analysis, and is far more personal than doctrinal. Merely for the sake of some division, we may consider chapters i and iii as personal, chapters iv and v as doctrinal.

Personal part – a missionary’s free outpouring of a noble heart’s yearnings. He is filled with joy at hearing how they stand fast by the faith which he preached to them (i, 2, 8); fondly talks about his labours and about his stay with them (I, 9-ii, 12); thanks God for the way they received from him the word of God (ii, 13 - 16); delicately hints at his apprehensions for them, by telling how at Athens he yearned to see them, how he sent Timothy in his stead, how relieved he now is as Timothy’s message has brought him peace of mind (ii, 17-iii, 10). Then follows a brief and beautiful prayer which sums up the yearnings of the great soul of the Apostle (iii, 11-13).
Doctrinal part. With this prayer ends what is meant to be free and epistolary. Now follows as little phrase of transition – “For the rest, therefore, brethren” – and a thoroughly Pauline and direct exhortation upon how they “ought to walk and to please God” by purity (iv, 1-8), brotherly love (iv, 9-10), and peaceful toil (verse 11). The peace of everyday toil had been disturbed by a fanatical lethargy due to the supposed oncoming Parousia. Hence the eschatological passage that follows. The brethren who have died will have part in the Second Coming just as they that are now alive (verses 12-17); the time of the Parousia is uncertain, so that watch-fullness and not lethargy are needed (v, 1-11). The letter ends with a series of pithy and pointed exhortations to respect for their religious teachers, and to the other virtues that make up the glory of Christian life (v, 12-22); the Apostolic benediction and salutation, a request for prayers and the charge that the letter be read in public (verses 23-28).

 

[E.E.N.S]

(I always seem to get into trouble when cahining posts, so I am helping you out here CC.)

The context of 2 Timothy 1-3 referred several times to Paul’s oral teaching. Did Paul consider his oral teaching to be merely his own ideas? No; according to 1 Thessalonians 2:13 he considered them the very words of God:

“and also we thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Here we see that Paul’s oral teaching was inspired by God, just as were his written words. If these words were inspired by God, then they were infallible. If the inspired oral preaching was infallible, Timothy had another infallible source from which to draw to help make him a fit man of God prepared for every good work. Therefore, by the principle of infallibility, Paul cannot be teaching the concept of sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

(Now continue with your postings!)

 

[cazayoux]

TheTruth:

Let’s face the clear facts…tradition is catholic interpretation. Just like sola scripture is protestant interpretation…logic follows that sola scripture is a protestant tradition…

It’s Catholic tradition because it is apostolic tradition, right?

It’s not an interpretation decided upon in the 1500’s. It’s understandings of our faith from the very first Christians.

michel

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(I always seem to get into trouble when cahining posts, so I am helping you out here CC.)

The context of 2 Timothy 1-3 referred several times to Paul’s oral teaching. Did Paul consider his oral teaching to be merely his own ideas? No; according to 1 Thessalonians 2:13 he considered them the very words of God:

“and also we thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”

Here we see that Paul’s oral teaching was inspired by God, just as were his written words. If these words were inspired by God, then they were infallible. If the inspired oral preaching was infallible, Timothy had another infallible source from which to draw to help make him a fit man of God prepared for every good work. Therefore, by the principle of infallibility, Paul cannot be teaching the concept of sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

(Now continue with your postings!)

Good, because that was only for the first Epistle

 

[brianberean]

Corpus Christi -

Here is what I asked for:

Okay, then show me one tradition (with evidence) passed on from the church of Thessalonica throught the apostles and early church up until today that isn’t found in Scripture.

I don’t know why you posted all that, it didn’t answer my question. Want to try to answer my challenge now? One tradition, thats all I ask. It would make your interpretation of the verse in question much more credible.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

History has test those and shown them to be fallible.

How so? Please be specific.

Purgatory, indulgences, mandatory confession to a priest, prayer to saints, icons, veneration of saints, etc.

Does scripture tell us that history is the standard by which we should test infallibility? If so, where? If not, how have you come to choose this is the standard?

Post biblical history is…well…post biblical. We can subject it to Scripture. Scripture tells us to test everything, hold fast what is good.

Quote:
The traditions by word were the same as the traditions by letter.

How can you be sure?

What I can be sure of is that nobody can produce one tradition taught by Paul to the church of Thessalonica that has been passed down to today’s RCC that is not in Scripture. You claim this verse is proof of oral traditions around today being equal with Scripture, but you can’t produce a single oral tradition around today Paul is allegedly referring to.

Quote:
All Paul is saying is hold fast to the Gospel I shared either when I was there in person or when I write you.

Scripture tells us that sometimes Paul preached all night long (Acts 20:7-12). It doesn’t stand to reason that he said absolutely nothing other than what can be found in his epistles unless he repeated the same things over and over again for hours and hours. There is nothing in scripture which indicates that that which was written is identical to that which was spoken. One must leave scripture and enter into extra-biblical speculation which violates sola Scriptura.

Extra-biblical speculation in no way violates sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura basically means that Scripture is our sole infallible authority. What does the Catholic Church teach that Paul said all night long, that isn’t contained in Scripture?

Quote:
If you disagree, can you show me one single tradition that is not in Scripture that has been passed up from the church of Thessalonica through the apostles and still held by the RCC today? Just one. (with some sort of evidence)

Auricular confession. Of course, Catholics see this plainly in scripture, but I assumed you were referring to something that Protestants don’t believe is in there. My evidence is the Didache, a Christian document dating back to the first century. The document implores Christians to “confess your sins in Church”. This can’t simply mean confessing ones sins in a general sense because one doesn’t need to go to Church in order to do that.

1st response:
You said its in Scripture. Show me something that’s not in Scripture. You disqualified your own answer.

2nd response:
Didache:
4:19 In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience.

The Catholic Church’s tradition is that one must confess their sins to a priest (to my knowledge it doesn’t have to be in church).

3rd response:
There’s no evidence that the Didache came from the church of Thessalonica.

Quote:
The RCC abuse tradition by attempting to raise it to the level reserved for Scripture alone.

Where does scripture itself indicate the level that is reserved for scripture alone?

Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. It doesn’t say this about anything else that still exists today.
In special times of oral revelation like when the OT prophets spoke as guided by God, or when Jesus taught orally, or when Paul taught orally, what they taught was equal to Scripture. But, as the Catholic Church teaches we do not live in a time of oral revelation.

Brian

 

[Peg]

brianberean, you did not answer the question about why you left the Catholic Church. I would love to hear your story!

 

[fulloftruth]

I would like to apologize to Brian for minimizing my statement and over emphasizing his. I also have noticed that his interpretation of our “Praying to Saints” is somehwat askew. We do not pray to Saints and Mary the way we Pray to God. Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven. I think as a Protestant you don’t seem to understand that God will not have any more glory at the end of time then he did at the beginning. He did not create man to get more glory but to “Share” His glory. My question to you Brian would be how successful was he at sharing that glory? What Father feels neglected or supplanted when his wife or children are Honored, not worshiped but Honored. My success as a father will be gauged by how successful my children are. When I say success, I mean how much has thier will been mended with Gods, how truly Christain are they. And when my oldest son teaches my younger children the values and morals that I taught him, mainly by example and by being there for his siblings, I do not feel like my authority has been supplanted but I feel like my authority has been headed at the highest level. When we, as Gods adopted sons, and Christs brothers and sisters, can pray for eachother and teach eachother, and lead eachother into full submission of our will to God the Fathers will, we have fullfilled the Commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. This in no way offends God. Only a cold, strictly legal view of God as Judge, and not as a Loving Father raising up obedient Sons, would view God as being offended by the actions of intercession that I have stated. God is Jealous but not Envious. This is the Catholic Churches teaching on the Communion of Saints, and all “Proper” intercession flows from this. Also all Proper Marian Doctrine flows from 2 tenets:#1 the Belief that Christ as a perfect Jewish son would have fullfilled the Law to perfection, and the Ten commandments sum up that law. The first commandment that deals with Human inter-relations is to “Honor thy Father and thy Mother” The hebrew word for honor, means to bestow glory upon, #2 we simply imitate Christ. All **proper **Marian doctrine flows from that belief. We do not bestow any Glory or Honor on Mary that Christ does not bestow upon her First. If Catholics worship Mary then they are outside of the Churches teaching.