The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[mercygate]

The laying on of hands is not just for transmitting Apostolic authority. Catholics receive the laying on of hands, and thereby receive the Holy Spirit, in Confirmation. We also receive it for healing and sometimes in the Sacrament of Confession (which is also a kind of healing).

Paul received the laying on of hands from Ananias and also from Barnabas for “the work” at Antioch.

The issue in this thread is about the united teaching of the early Church; the full development of an institutional interpretation and practice of the dominical mandate for a Petrine focus grew over the first century of Christian life and continued to grow. It is already clear by the year 175 in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon.

The point is that the Gospel was preached not merely by personal “inspiration” but also by constant communication. If “inspiration” teaches me a Gospel that differs from the Apostolic faith, then how is it valid?

Paul himself goes twice to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles there. In Galatians 2:2 Paul, “laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.”

Self-confident, Christ-sent, Spirit-driven Paul – who rebukes Peter to his face – nevertheless seeks the affirmation of Cephas that his Gospel is true.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

The laying on of hands is not just for transmitting Apostolic authority. Catholics receive the laying on of hands, and thereby receive the Holy Spirit, in Confirmation. We also receive it for healing and sometimes in the Sacrament of Confession (which is also a kind of healing).

Paul received the laying on of hands from Ananias and also from Barnabas for “the work” at Antioch.

The issue in this thread is about the united teaching of the early Church; the full development of an institutional interpretation and practice of the dominical mandate for a Petrine focus grew over the first century of Christian life and continued to grow. It is already clear by the year 175 in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon.

The point is that the Gospel was preached not merely by personal “inspiration” but also by constant communication. If “inspiration” teaches me a Gospel that differs from the Apostolic faith, then how is it valid?

Paul himself goes twice to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles there. In Galatians 2:2 Paul, “laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.”

Self-confident, Christ-sent, Spirit-driven Paul – who rebukes Peter to his face – nevertheless seeks the affirmation of Cephas that his Gospel is true.

You have spoken well here, but as always I would like to make some observations. You still can’t show from 33AD to 175AD(as you show above) how this supposed doctrine was growing and by whom it was growing.

I wonder about the gospel being preached by constant communication - I don’t quite understand what you mean here.

What’s interesting is that Paul says all through his epistles that the gospel he preached was the true gospel and if anyone comes along preaching another gospel that their version was not the true gospel. I can get the Scripture verses if you want.

Now, let’s look at this verse you quoted above again, along with surrounding verses you inadvertently left out. This is Galatians 1:1-2

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain

You mean to tell me and everyone else that after preaching for 14 years that Paul has to come to Jerusalem and see the apostles to make sure his gospel is correct? The same gospel he had been preaching for so long? Not likely. This is why so many times I have to remind gracious people like yourself to seek the “whole counsel of God” when dealing with the Bible. Your interpretation is not Biblical. Notice this from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible:

Text: - Ver. 1-10 Observe the apostle’s faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism. This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it. His care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered.

Paul never saught affirmation that the gospel he is preaching needed Peter’s affirmation.

 

[oat_soda]

ahimsaman72,

Do you think scripture can be interpreted wrong? For instance, in Romans, when Paul talks about “works of the law”, does he mean the moral law such as the 10 commandments or does he only referring to the ceremonial customs and practices in the temple?

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

ahimsaman72,

Do you think scripture can be interpreted wrong? For instance, in Romans, when Paul talks about “works of the law”, does he mean the moral law such as the 10 commandments or does he only referring to the ceremonial customs and practices in the temple?

Yes, I believe it can be interpreted wrong by sincere and insincere people, including by me.

The subject of works of the law and that of faith is not an easy subject. The depth of this topic would require some time which I don’t have now. Here is a short answer:

We all refer to the Mosaic law as being of three basic types: moral, ceremonial and civil. To the Jews, though, there were really all one. There are 613 commandments which make up the Mosaic law. They were considered as one unit, though, not three separate categories. So, we have to keep that in mind.

There are many “laws” referred to in the book of Romans. There is Law of God, Law of Sin and death, Law of Moses, so on. I haven’t found the specific verse you are alluding to here, so I can’t comment specifically on what you have asked here.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

You still can’t show from 33AD to 175AD(as you show above) how this supposed doctrine was growing and by whom it was growing.

Actually, the evidence *is *there. (There was a good list of citations from the Early Fathers on these Forums a few weeks ago but I can’t find it now: somebody help?) Moreover, if by the time Irenaeus writes Adversus Haeresis (ca. 175) the idea that Rome has preserved the whole faith in integrity is so widely affirmed that he can use Rome as his benchmark in refuting heresy, that carries a great deal of weight – unless you’re one of those people who says the whole enterprise had already gone down the drain.

ahimsaman72:

I wonder about the gospel being preached by constant communication - I don’t quite understand what you mean here.

All that traveling about, writing to the churches, meeting with the other Apostles, sending this one here that one there.

ahimsaman72:

Now, let’s look at this verse you quoted above again, along with surrounding verses you inadvertently left out.

I wasn’t neither inadvertent nor prejudicially selective.

ahimsaman72:

This is Galatians 1:1-2

1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain

You mean to tell me and everyone else that after preaching for 14 years that Paul has to come to Jerusalem and see the apostles to make sure his gospel is correct? The same gospel he had been preaching for so long? Not likely.

On the contrary. Likely or not, he went. Why would he go at all? Why would he trouble himself to consult with anybody else? Why would he boast of the affirmation, “the right hand of fellowship,” as he does?

ahimsaman72:

. . . Your interpretation is not Biblical. Notice this from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible:

*Text: - Ver. 1-10 Observe the apostle’s faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism. This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it. * *His care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. *
Paul never saught affirmation that the gospel he is preaching needed Peter’s affirmation.

**
Matthew Henry makes the point for me. *His [Paul’s] care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. *
**
Why would it be lessened or hindered? Only because the churches valued the whole Apostolic teaching. My interpretation is not biblical? The biblical text states that Paul did confer with the others. If the personal inspiration granted to Paul were sufficient, why should he care whether he preached with the other Apostles at all? Why should he care that his ‘labors be lessened or future usefulness be hindered’? Clearly, the affirmation of the Apostles was important to building up the Body of Christ, and even self-confident Paul knew it. His was the Church of Christ, not the Church of St. Paul-in-the-Vacuum.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Actually, the evidence *is *there. (There was a good list of citations from the Early Fathers on these Forums a few weeks ago but I can’t find it now: somebody help?) Moreover, if by the time Irenaeus writes Adversus Haeresis (ca. 175) the idea that Rome has preserved the whole faith in integrity is so widely affirmed that he can use Rome as his benchmark in refuting heresy, that carries a great deal of weight – unless you’re one of those people who says the whole enterprise had already gone down the drain.

All that traveling about, writing to the churches, meeting with the other Apostles, sending this one here that one there.

I wasn’t neither inadvertent nor prejudicially selective.

On the contrary. Likely or not, he went. Why would he go at all? Why would he trouble himself to consult with anybody else? Why would he boast of the affirmation, “the right hand of fellowship,” as he does?

Matthew Henry makes the point for me. *His [Paul’s] care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. *

Why would it be lessened or hindered? Only because the churches valued the whole Apostolic teaching. My interpretation is not biblical? The biblical text states that Paul did confer with the others. If the personal inspiration granted to Paul were sufficient, why should he care whether he preached with the other Apostles at all? Why should he care that his ‘labors be lessened or future usefulness be hindered’? Clearly, the affirmation of the Apostles was important to building up the Body of Christ, and even self-confident Paul knew it. His was the Church of Christ, not the Church of St. Paul-in-the-Vacuum.

Paul obviously valued the other apostles (name removed by moderator)ut and teaching. Beyond that, he was also a Christian and sought unity with the others. So, the personal revelation to him by Christ was not enough for what Christ set him apart to do in the first place? He needed validation from Peter and the others? No, and there are no clear verses you can show that would substantiate those claims.

I’m not debating the building up of the the body of Christ. I’m debating the building up of a church built on one apostle. Paul started more churches than anyone and he stated more doctrine than any other apostle and commanded more than any other apostle.

He had no need of validation, consecration or whatever else you think he needed from the other apostles to become exactly what Jesus Christ called him to be.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

The point is that the Gospel was preached not merely by personal “inspiration” but also by constant communication. If “inspiration” teaches me a Gospel that differs from the Apostolic faith, then how is it valid?

I agree there were different ways that the gospel was communicated in the early church. The apostles taught their faith. They started in Jerusalem and spread out from there. Inspiration teaches a gospel different from the apostolic faith? You would have to be more specific here. I’m not catching on. Maybe it’s cause I’m tired :yawn:

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Philthy
As far as how to “test” the Catholic Church I have a couple of thoughts. The first is that nothing that the Church teaches (understood truthfully) should contradict what Scripture (understood truthfullly) teaches.

In other words, I can’t test the Catholic Church’s claims regarding oral tradition. I should just accept that your church is right, and if not, that I simply don’t understand. Not really Matt. You can test them along with Scripture, along with the ECFs who learned them from the Apostles (or their successors) and you can view them in the context of history. One example of such a teaching is the Real Presence. Is this consistent with Scripture? Yes. Christ said “This is my body” and much more to support the concept. Now we can argue back and forth, about what’s meant by that statement, but one logical, faithful conclusion is that the Eucharist is the Real Presence. Some would say that a symbolic interpretation is just as logical, but notice how this latter conclusion fails to stand up to the other measures: All the ECFs spoke of the eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ, not as a symbol and this has been the constant teaching throughout history. Does this not validate the tradition? What’s the alternative to validating the interpretation of the symbolic presence? Endless debate from an incomplete historical context derived from a book that we received from the very same Church? And what, exactly, would ever end the debate? Nothing, because everyone is entitled to their opinion - and that is why when you remove the Church and the historical context of doctrine you end up with perpetual disunity.

Scripture says the Church should have oral tradition - if a church doesn’t, then that church is going against Scripture - no? Please comment.
You’re assuming that this oral tradition is in existence today. God breathed the statement “hold fast to the traditions…by word of mouth” what are you proposing I do - ignore it? That is an assumption I reject as false. On what basis and with what authority? Can you prove that from Scripture? Does Scripture state there will be an oral tradition followed by an exclusively written one? Do you know what Paul said to the Thessalonians? What I know is that he didn’t say nothing. And he told us to hold fast to our traditions because we know who we learned them from. And God didn’t put this into Scripture to confuse us, and He never would have had it written down if it wasn’t meant to apply beyond a theoretical, temporally-limited oral tradition. Do you know what John left out of his written Gospel? No one has access to those records. How can anyone be expected to follow them?

If you’re going to appeal to the practice and tradition of the church, as asked before, how can I test such claims since only the Catholic Church can indicate when that material has been faithfully passed on? See above regarding Church, Scripture and history And Catholicism isn’t the only church that claims to have an oral tradition. How do Protestants arbitrate between groups like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism when it comes to knowing which is following the oral tradition? Given your responses, they can’t. Perhaps not (that’s another thread), but for now I’d be happy to hear that you realize that it’s either the Orthodox or Roman Church that deserves your attention. And know that these Churches realize just how much faithful Protestants can help build up the Church. You in?! :yup:

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Ahimsaman,

St. Paul was referring to all Christians when he spoke against divisions. See this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=220985&postcount=196

 

[fulloftruth]

Can any Protestant answer where the church promised by Christ is. The Church which he promised to lead into all truth. It can’t be any protestant church because they contradict eachother, and God has never contradicted himself and led himself in different directions. I don’t even know how any protestant can have any credibility in exegesis, they have no way of knowing for sure, what the intended meaning of any scripture is and are lead around by preachers and pastors who do thier best to interpret scripture but could never know what God intended for this generation to know about Scripture. They do not have the promise of any charism and worse yet they have thrown off most reliable traditional interpretations in order to justify thier split. If any protestant could be honest with himself and realize they have been following a lie and compromising the truth to save face. The split was amistake but because of pride it could not be undone. It is this same pride that causes a protestant to hear the words of Christ about using Peter to build his church and giving him the keys, which they have to minimize to support thier position when if they were honest they would see the utter significance of Christs action. And how He, as the son of David and Heir to the throne was reinstituting the old kingdom of David, mWith Peter and his successors as the Prime Minister, And Mary the Queen Mother like Bathsheeba. They say “I don’t see the corilation.” You’d have to dumb and blind not to see the connection. Thats what Christ came to do and all of Scripture points twords that end. The new heavenly Jerusalem, which was where the Termple was, Christ said he was going to destroy that temple and rebuild it in 3days and he did, his body, the Church, the new Jerusalem. And just like in Isaiah 22:20-24, the Prime Minister is a Father the the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and had a throne of Honor. The word Pope means Papa in Italian, and his role from Peter to today is the Father of the inhabitants of the new Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, tending and feeding the sheep, us. He also has the Keys to the House of David which coincidentally is the Kingdom of Heaven. Remember when that guy wanted to have a request granted by Solomon and he went to Bathsheeba, and said surley the King will not refuse you. And when she went into the Kings Chamber the King arose and bowed down to her in deference, and she sat at His right hand in her throne of honor. That is what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, nothing less. We Honor her as the Mother of God. Look at what they have to do to that great honor that she holds in order to maintain the Position of Christ only and no other part of his redemptive act has any meaning. Such a cold and empty view, no history, no family, no glory, no bells, smells, and most of all, no Altar.

 

[ahimsaman72]

fulloftruth:

Can any Protestant answer where the church promised by Christ is. The Church which he promised to lead into all truth. It can’t be any protestant church because they contradict eachother, and God has never contradicted himself and led himself in different directions. I don’t even know how any protestant can have any credibility in exegesis, they have no way of knowing for sure, what the intended meaning of any scripture is and are lead around by preachers and pastors who do thier best to interpret scripture but could never know what God intended for this generation to know about Scripture.

Such a cold and empty view, no history, no family, no glory, no bells, smells, and most of all, no Altar.

The church promised by Christ is sitting in a living room right now - maybe watching tv - maybe witnessing to a friend instead. You’ll see the church sunday morning sitting in the pews listening to a sermon or celebrating mass. You’ll see the church monday morning at the factory or in the office. You’ll see it everywhere if you look.

“They all contradict each other” - this is an all too famous expression. It’s also false. There are more commonly held beliefs amongst protestant churches than you think or preach. The expression, “major on the major and minor on the minors” comes to my mind right now. The majors are agreed upon. The minors are simply that. People sometimes let minor doctrines get in the way and cloud their judgement.

I would ask you to tell me why you feel people can’t interpret the Bible. “They have no way of knowing what the intended meaning is” is a ludicrous statement. The Bible has been translated into very common language. Even a child can understand the bulk of the Bible. You have a brain that God gave you - you have reasoning capabilities to take what you read and interpret. You also have a conscience and the Holy Spirit living inside you.

I’m sick to death of hearing this statement about interpretation and contradictions and the inability of the complex, highly intelligent being called human - made in God’s image, that in your mind doesn’t have the capability to add 2+2 and get the answer of 4. If you don’t want to study the Bible and get your own answers, so be it. It’s called laziness.

By the way, I don’t need an altar because I don’t need to make any more sacrifices to atone for sin. I don’t need bells or whistles or guitars to worship God. The family I have is the family of all believers dead and living who profess faith in the living Christ. The history I have is one of faith and doctrine spoken of plainly and clearly in the Scriptures and passed on to every generation since the beginning of the early church. And the history continues as I teach my children the values of a relationship with Jesus Christ - the rewards of being faithful and the punishments which come with sin, of loving God above all and loving your neighbor as yourself. Anything else is secondary.

Get real.

 

[p90]

Philthy:

Not really Matt. You can test them along with Scripture, along with the ECFs who learned them from the Apostles (or their successors) and you can view them in the context of history.

How can I test them against Scripture when you just said that the method for testing them involves knowing that they will never contradict Scripture?

What about the early church fathers? Earlier you wrote that only the church can tell when the oral tradition has been faithfully passed on. Why would you ask me to test the oral tradition if only the church can determine when it’s been passed on? You’re being inconsistent.

What I know is that he didn’t say nothing. And he told us to hold fast to our traditions because we know who we learned them from.

You can’t produce the oral tradition to be followed; you can only refer to its existence. If it’s impossible to know what it is, only that it exists somewhere, how do we follow it?

He never would have had it written down if it wasn’t meant to apply beyond a theoretical, temporally-limited oral tradition.

You’re begging the question. If I argued that God would have never written that down if he didn’t mean for it to cease, would you accept or reject my reasoning?

~Matt

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

He needed validation from Peter and the others? No, and there are no clear verses you can show that would substantiate those claims.

Paul did not preach in isolation, and I have shown that Scripture supports that.

I’m not debating the building up of the the body of Christ.

Actually, that is what you are doing.

I’m debating the building up of a church built on one apostle.

Mt. 16 and Luke 22. The Catholic position is the scriptural and dominical position that Peter is the, rock, the keeper of the keys, and the one who is to build up his brethren and feed the sheep. We do not believe the Lord would have said these things if he hadn’t meant them. Peter is the pastor of pastors. That means he has somebody to be pastor *to. *Peter doesn’t stand alone either. Ask Paul!

Paul started more churches than anyone and he stated more doctrine than any other apostle and commanded more than any other apostle.

He had no need of validation, consecration or whatever else you think he needed from the other apostles to become exactly what Jesus Christ called him to be.

On the contrary, as has been amply demonstrated, Paul thought that the other Apostles and the unity of the preaching were important enough to mention in an epistle. And however you may devalue the action, Paul did accept the laying on of hands in Antioch. Moreover, Paul died in Rome during the same persecutuion as Peter. There is no indication that there were two churches: a “Petrine” church and a “Pauline” church administered from his place of house arrest. The Catholic Church celebrates their feasts on the same day. The early Church referred to Rome as doubly glorified by the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.

To what purpose does one divide Peter from Paul and, by extension, from the rest of the Church? Only one. For to accept the unity of the Apostolic Church, focused on Our Lord’s commission of Peter – whom Our Lord appoints to strengthen his brethren – is to accept, at the very minimum, the primacy of Rome in the the early Church.

Of course, if one accepts that, then one must deal with the upalatable fact that the Catholic Church is in organic succession and union with that Church. So, if the Catholic Church is that Church, then her moral as well as her doctrinal authority must be reckoned with. (These days sexual morality is usually at the top of the list of reasons people reject the Church’s authority – though the intellectual rationalizations usually spin out over other issues.) But whatever the reasons one may construct for denying the Church, rejecting the historical and scriptural primacy of Rome (or at least of Apostolic Succession) leads to an idiocentric “me and Jesus” view that scorns a Christ-commissioned Church whose physical Body here on earth witnesses the overarching Mystical Body. For Catholics, one has no meaning or existence without the other.

 

[Philthy]

p90:

How can I test them against Scripture when you just said that the method for testing them involves knowing that they will never contradict Scripture?

Because other churches hold views that contradict Scripture - like the symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When you test the oral traditions of any church, they should not contradict Scripture. Those professed by the RCC, when you examine them against Scripture, do not contradict Scripture, Tradition or history.

What about the early church fathers? Earlier you wrote that only the church can tell when the oral tradition has been faithfully passed on. Why would you ask me to test the oral tradition if only the church can determine when it’s been passed on? You’re being inconsistent.

Sorry if Im not being clear. In recommending that you test tradition I was attempting to respond to your desire to “test” oral tradition. A means of doing it is to compare it to what the ECFs had to say. This is a means of you appreciating the soundness of it beyond just accepting that “the Church says so”. It does not, however, empower you to declare doctrine - that’s the magisteriums function. It’s a way of coming to appreciate that things you don’t understand are in fact Scriptural, Traditional and reasonable.

You can’t produce the oral tradition to be followed; you can only refer to its existence. If it’s impossible to know what it is, only that it exists somewhere, how do we follow it?

Again, I did give you some oral tradition - the Real Presence in the Eucharist. there is more. You keep saying it’s “impossible to know what it is” despite my giving you an example. Technically speaking, the oral tradition is all that is in the Catechism which is not explicitly stated in Scripture - there, that’s what it is. Now whats your complaint?,

You’re begging the question. If I argued that God would have never written that down if he didn’t mean for it to cease, would you accept or reject my reasoning?

I would reject it. If oral tradition was to cease, why record that it existed at all? Toward what purpose? But if it was meant to continue, then recording it serves the purpose of perpetuating it. ~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Paul did not preach in isolation, and I have shown that Scripture supports that.

Actually, that is what you are doing.

Mt. 16 and Luke 22. The Catholic position is the scriptural and dominical position that Peter is the, rock, the keeper of the keys, and the one who is to build up his brethren and feed the sheep. We do not believe the Lord would have said these things if he hadn’t meant them. Peter is the pastor of pastors. That means he has somebody to be pastor *to. *Peter doesn’t stand alone either. Ask Paul!

On the contrary, as has been amply demonstrated, Paul thought that the other Apostles and the unity of the preaching were important enough to mention in an epistle. And however you may devalue the action, Paul did accept the laying on of hands in Antioch. Moreover, Paul died in Rome during the same persecutuion as Peter. There is no indication that there were two churches: a “Petrine” church and a “Pauline” church administered from his place of house arrest. The Catholic Church celebrates their feasts on the same day. The early Church referred to Rome as doubly glorified by the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.

To what purpose does one divide Peter from Paul and, by extension, from the rest of the Church? Only one. For to accept the unity of the Apostolic Church, focused on Our Lord’s commission of Peter – whom Our Lord appoints to strengthen his brethren – is to accept, at the very minimum, the primacy of Rome in the the early Church.

Of course, if one accepts that, then one must deal with the upalatable fact that the Catholic Church is in organic succession and union with that Church. So, if the Catholic Church is that Church, then her moral as well as her doctrinal authority must be reckoned with. (These days sexual morality is usually at the top of the list of reasons people reject the Church’s authority – though the intellectual rationalizations usually spin out over other issues.) But whatever the reasons one may construct for denying the Church, rejecting the historical and scriptural primacy of Rome (or at least of Apostolic Succession) leads to an idiocentric “me and Jesus” view that scorns a Christ-commissioned Church whose physical Body here on earth witnesses the overarching Mystical Body. For Catholics, one has no meaning or existence without the other.

This is going nowhere as I have already stated my case and you ignore my facts or explain them away to mean something else. I bid you farewell.

By the way, you have shown own great point above - there was no Petrine church or Pauline church. There was one and it belongs to Christ himself. You have stated the falsity of the primacy of Peter and papal succession. Thanks.

This has been a long thread and I have exhausted myself in it. On the contrary you have just come in late and have missed out on what I have said previously on these matters.

God bless you…

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Ahimsaman,

ahimsaman72:

…it belongs to Christ himself.

ahimsaman72:

The first verse above is written by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church…If you want to broaden this verse and take it out of context then you can say that this involves the whole Christian church…This is why it is so important to look at all the Scriptures in context and get the real meaning.

The context shows that St. Paul is addressing all Christians. St. Paul refers to ***all those everywhere ***who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Corinthians 1:2 …to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,** their Lord and ours.**

St. Paul makes it clear that there are to be no divisions among Christians:

**1 Corinthians 1:10 **I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,

The fact that St. Paul refers to Christ Himself in relation to division is even further confirmation that his statement about divisions applies to all Christians:

**1 Corinthians 1:13 **Is Christ divided?

Therefore the context indeed shows that St. Paul refers to all Christians.

Greg

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,

I read some of the other conversations, one on the Real Presence. Like they said, although we can both form an interpretation from Scripture, here is what the one said in 110ad:

** Ignatius of Antioch**

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus*” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

The teaching of the Real Presence is backed by Scripture and Church Fathers very early. Is this not evidence?

The Rest of the article here: catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

God Bless,
Maria

 

[p90]

Philthy:

Again, I did give you some oral tradition - the Real Presence in the Eucharist. there is more. You keep saying it’s “impossible to know what it is” despite my giving you an example. Technically speaking, the oral tradition is all that is in the Catechism which is not explicitly stated in Scripture - there, that’s what it is. Now whats your complaint?,

MariaG:

The teaching of the Real Presence is backed by Scripture and Church Fathers very early. Is this not evidence?

Is this evidence of an oral tradition traceable to the apostles? Not as it currently stands. How do we know that these fathers are quoting the very words of the apostles and not simply summing their understanding of the written word? And the Catechism? How would you show a skeptic of oral tradition that the information “not explicitly stated in Scripture” came directly from the apostles’ oral teaching?

Please remember that I’m looking for oral traditions that are independent of the Scriptures. Providing traditions that are found in the Scriptures misses the point of our discussion in finding the extra-Scriptural word of God that Protestants fail to follow.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

The problem is Matt, that I honestly can’t think of a Tradition of the Church that does not have some basis in Scripture. It is through Tradition, that we have a correct interpretation, in my opinion. For example: Purgatory is in Scripture and Tradition, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is in Scripture and Tradition, Real Presence of Christ is in Scripture and Tradition. Even the “new rules” that the Church imposes like lenten fasting is based on Scripture.

I’ll keep looking, but I do not know if I can meet your needs. The church fathers were speaking in 110 ad. Was the Catholic Church teaching “false” teachings already? I guess ultimately it comes down to this: Do you think Christ was able to keep the only church that Christians were in for 1500 years safe from wrong teachings or was He not able to do so?

But I will keep looking.
God Bless,
Maria

 

[JGC]

MariaG:

The problem is Matt, that I honestly can’t think of a Tradition of the Church that does not have some basis in Scripture. It is through Tradition, that we have a correct interpretation, in my opinion. For example: Purgatory is in Scripture and Tradition, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is in Scripture and Tradition, Real Presence of Christ is in Scripture and Tradition. Even the “new rules” that the Church imposes like lenten fasting is based on Scripture.

CCC

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

The problem with protestantism is that it does not accept Holy Tradition as valid. Read the Church fathers and see if they hold protestant positions…