P
Philthy
Guest
there was no “assumed succession” it was actual and is historical fact.
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
Matt - when you look at 2 Thes 2:15 again:
stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word of mouth (or in writing)…
*The only logical way to still argue for Sola Scriptura would be to say that all of the oral teachings ended up in Scripture anyway. This supposition, of course, is completely unfounded and, I think , logically flawed. My reasoning is this: God did author Scripture. He doesn’t make mistakes. For him to include a redundancy like this ( assuming oral teaching and written word are equal) would be unnecessary and potentially confusing for the believers He knew were to read it. God would have known that all of the Oral teaching would be contained in the written Scripture (assuming it was) and therefore would not have needed to create this distinction (between oral and written teaching). the fact that he DID articulate this distinction between oral and written teaching clearly demonstrates the obvious message that anyone reading the statement would conclude: Oral AND Written teaching are **distinct *and both are binding.
P
Philthy
Guest
The problem is summarized in this question, **How do you determine when the oral word of God was faithfully passed on and when it wasn’t?
**
~Matt
Well Matt this is where Catholics will say - and we’re starting to go in circles - that the Church functions to do this. That Christ established a Church, told us it would be the “pillar and foundation of Truth”, and told us that “the gates of hades” would not prevail against it. And we would say that this is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years. Of course there would never be any purely human means for determining this - that is the “Achilles Heel” of Protestantism. Namely that an appeal to “Scripture alone” is, in reality an appeal to the intellect of man in interpreting Scripture. I believe the appeal is genuine, but misguided. And history - even within our own lives - reveals clearly how leaving the interpretation of Scripture to individuals simply and exclusively results in individual interpretations of Scripture.
**
~Matt
Well Matt this is where Catholics will say - and we’re starting to go in circles - that the Church functions to do this. That Christ established a Church, told us it would be the “pillar and foundation of Truth”, and told us that “the gates of hades” would not prevail against it. And we would say that this is exactly what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years. Of course there would never be any purely human means for determining this - that is the “Achilles Heel” of Protestantism. Namely that an appeal to “Scripture alone” is, in reality an appeal to the intellect of man in interpreting Scripture. I believe the appeal is genuine, but misguided. And history - even within our own lives - reveals clearly how leaving the interpretation of Scripture to individuals simply and exclusively results in individual interpretations of Scripture.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Attend a mass.
Greg
C
c0achmcguirk
Guest
Daddy, what’s an ipse dixit?
R
RBushlow
Guest
Sorry, it’s good, but not perfect. I’ve already been shot down with this one. Their answer is that the Bible is “a fallible collection of infallible books”, or something to that effect.
R
RBushlow
Guest
Until this oral tradition can be produced instead of referred to
~MattSo Matt, it seems that you doubt the Truth of 2 Tim. I find that hard to believe. The Bible states it, so it is True.
P
Philthy
Guest
"However, have you considered that the Old Testament Scriptures were sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation (2 Timothy 3:15)? Without even mentioning other passages that suggest or demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in containing the full message of salvation, how much more would the New Testament Scriptures be sufficient if the Old Testament was? "
Matt- You’ve overstated (bolded above), the implications of this verse and in the process have essentially proposed that the NT is just a redundancy on God’s part. Outrageous! Paul doesn’t say that Scripture alone was sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation at all. Paul says that “…from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ…” Being capable of giving you wisdom for salvation doesn’t imply that that is all you need. And it doesn’t even say that the wisdom you do get from Scripture is complete. It is open ended whether or not additional wisdom is necessary. And Im afraid the analysis doesnt end here. this verse has also been taken out of the context of all of the letters Paul wrote to Timothy. When you back up and look at 1 Tim 3:14-16 a different picture emerges. “I am writing these letters (so that)… if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” So Paul, who knows that Timothy knows Scripture intimately, feels the need to write to him anyhow to tell him what appropriate Christian conduct is! It seems Pauls confidence is not in Scripture alone and the combination of these two letters proves it. This is a classic example of pulling a verse out of context, genuinely intending to understand it and failing…
Matt- You’ve overstated (bolded above), the implications of this verse and in the process have essentially proposed that the NT is just a redundancy on God’s part. Outrageous! Paul doesn’t say that Scripture alone was sufficient to bring Timothy to salvation at all. Paul says that “…from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ…” Being capable of giving you wisdom for salvation doesn’t imply that that is all you need. And it doesn’t even say that the wisdom you do get from Scripture is complete. It is open ended whether or not additional wisdom is necessary. And Im afraid the analysis doesnt end here. this verse has also been taken out of the context of all of the letters Paul wrote to Timothy. When you back up and look at 1 Tim 3:14-16 a different picture emerges. “I am writing these letters (so that)… if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” So Paul, who knows that Timothy knows Scripture intimately, feels the need to write to him anyhow to tell him what appropriate Christian conduct is! It seems Pauls confidence is not in Scripture alone and the combination of these two letters proves it. This is a classic example of pulling a verse out of context, genuinely intending to understand it and failing…
P
Philthy
Guest
what’s this mean??? Over my head…
F
fulloftruth
Guest
p90
I can see your point of sufficiency in the OT, but my question is two-fold. One, sufficient for what, the preparation for the Christ. Christ was not too happy with ths state of the OT family of God, The OT Scriptures were sufficient for a minimum understanding of who God was and what was minimaly expected of you prior to being redeemed. Remember at the time there was no possibility of Salvation, only a hope of a future Savior. Christ came to perfect and fullfill the old law not do away with it. Now that he has come, and he has set up the Heavenly Jerusalem and theb KIngdom of God isn a reality not a hope, sufficiency is no longer our demise. We have been given the gift of not only God Breathed Scripture, but the authority that can interpret that Scripture in the way that God wants that Scripture understood in each and every generation. Peter and his successors, and I believe that Scripture has proven that the Apostles had successors(Acts 1:20), and that Peter especially, as the successor to Eliacim in the houshold of David, in the Heavenly household of the Son of David, has Successors that carry on his authority to lead us into all truth. Your process of elimination Idea I believe has just been disproven. You have been shown that Scripture, while it maybe sufficient to lead the non believer to Christ, it is not sufficient in and of itself to interpret itself and to lead the New believer into all truth precisley because context is so important, and without a church, and just like in the protestant churches your Pastor thinks he is interpreting scripture correctly, but he has no gaurantee and he does not have the knowledge of 2000 years of faithful exegesis, or the guide of the Holy Spirit the way the Pope has, without a church to guide and say this is the way God meant this passage to be interpreted and lived, you cannot be lead into all truth. Sufficiency should not be your goal, Fullness of Truth should be your goal and God can provide that for you in the Catholic Church. You can be sure that you are not living in Heresy in the Catholic Church
M
mayra_hart
Guest
“and the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also qualified to teach others” (2 tim 2:2).thi is a natural extension of jesus command to “go and make disciples”.christianity is a living religion, protected and passed on by people, NOT PAPER. we are not to be merely people of the book but people of god. this are all quotes from mr currie for me he is a very reliable source specially been a former fundamentalist.:bowdown: god bless
P
p90
Guest
That’s a serious misrepresentation of my words. Please read some of my other posts in this thread if you don’t see why.
~Matt
P
p90
Guest
The original argument was being made from Scripture. I’m not the one trying to prove the Papacy from Scripture.
You’re just repeating the comments and arguments of other posters without addressing the issues I’ve previously raised. Instead of repeating what other posters have written, why don’t you address the problems I’ve raised with the Scriptural proof that was used to support the Papacy?
Concerning oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 you write:
You’re appealing to the consequences of a belief as the reason for rejecting it. That’s fallacious. I don’t like the fact that nuclear weapons cause a lot of destruction, but that wouldn’t be legitimate grounds for arguing that they don’t exist.
Concerning my comments on 2 Timothy 3:15 you write:
Yes, it is outrageous that you would read too much into my words. The point in question was whether or not the Old Testament Scriptures contained all that is needed, knowledge wise, about how to obtain salvation. i.e. Was the Old Testament sufficient to relate to a Jew the knowledge of salvation 100 years before Christ?
Would you have another source to offer? Your answer to this question might put us back on the subject of oral tradition.
~Matt
P
p90
Guest
The point wasn’t to show that it can lead the believer into “all truth.” Classical Protestantism never taught such through Sola Scriptura. My purpose was to demonstrate that the Scriptures are sufficient to bring someone to Christ, and since we agree on that, there is no need to belabor the point.
~Matt
E
Erich
Guest
It means “He, himself, said it” (as in, “He said it, so it must be true”)
F
fulloftruth
Guest
Matt , your ability to not see what is in front of you is amazing. I guess we are all a little guilty of seeing only what we want to see. But just as in the Old testament, when a Prime Minister died or needed to be replaced, a new Prime Minister was appointed to that position and was given the same power, why wouldn’t he. It is like the presidency of the United States, the power does not die out with each individual who holds that office, it lives on with each successor, as it logically should if the country is going to exist into the future. And so it is with the Church that Christ founded, it is not logical that all of the powers given to the Apostles died when they died. Some of them did, but not all of them. Those needed to lead the Church into the future were retained with the help of thr Spirit, and handed down to sometimes very sinful men, which does not preclude them from being used to transmit infallible doctrine, as proven with the Apsotles and writers of the New Testament, all of whom were sinners. This argument was born out of a need to prove the Catholic Church wrong, and began with the premise that “we know they are wrong, but how can we prove it.” But logic does not lead you to believe that the Apostles were to make disciples of all nations, and that the power that Christ knew they needed to do that was taken away when they died. There was still much work to be done, like the compilation of Sacred Scripture, and the de-featng of many heresies, and as proven with Protestantism, heresy cannot be exposed and defeated without an Authority that can say this is what is meant by this verse and after that, everyone can rest assured because of the seat of Peter and the Power of Binding and loosing in heaven and on earth. In Protestantism no one even claims to wield such power and therefore we have the tragic splintering in order to maintain faithfull adherence to tradition. Open your eyes and forget all of the lies you have been told by anti Catholics.
P
p90
Guest
I would prefer that you provided a substantial response to the issues I’ve raised with proving the Papacy from Scripture. Instead of doing that, you’ve written about how blind and biased I am and simply reasserted your case without providing any additional evidence.
I’m not interested in my shortcomings; you should start another thread for that since it’s off-topic. I am interested in discussing the passage from Matthew you raised and in your defense of the parallel between the Old Testament rulers and the New Testament Papacy.
~Matt
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hi Matt,
p90:
I have faith that Jesus would not leave us orphaned. From my knowledge of Jesus and His teachings, I have faith that He desires us to learn to accept ministry from our fellow humans in humility. Our faith in His Church is evidence of our faith in Him.
It can be difficult sometimes because as a Catholic, I sometimes have trouble separating the failings of men (scandals, etc.) from the truth and love of Jesus. The Church brings the healing love of Jesus in confession and communion. Your relationship is with Jesus. Despite the humanity of the Church, I have experienced wisdom, love, and kindness from many, many, priests and I see wisdom in the Pope’s teachings.
I also consider my own sinfulness in my life and how the Church has readily forgiven me in confession. It’s natural to want to discuss a serious sin and “get it off your chest” - Protestants do that - they don’t have a formal sacrament. Many Protestants feel the need to discuss something with their minister - true?
These are some thoughts about Jesus’ establishment of the Church. It’s a matter of faith (and Scripture) that Jesus left a Church with authority. Scriptures themselves are examples of Church authority. St. Pauls letters are authoritative letters from a Church pastor (St. Paul) to local Churches. Jesus, is the head of the Church. We are His body.
Greg
Jesus does give Peter the authority to bind and loose just after He said that Peter was rock.
I have faith that Jesus would not leave us orphaned. From my knowledge of Jesus and His teachings, I have faith that He desires us to learn to accept ministry from our fellow humans in humility. Our faith in His Church is evidence of our faith in Him.
It can be difficult sometimes because as a Catholic, I sometimes have trouble separating the failings of men (scandals, etc.) from the truth and love of Jesus. The Church brings the healing love of Jesus in confession and communion. Your relationship is with Jesus. Despite the humanity of the Church, I have experienced wisdom, love, and kindness from many, many, priests and I see wisdom in the Pope’s teachings.
I also consider my own sinfulness in my life and how the Church has readily forgiven me in confession. It’s natural to want to discuss a serious sin and “get it off your chest” - Protestants do that - they don’t have a formal sacrament. Many Protestants feel the need to discuss something with their minister - true?
These are some thoughts about Jesus’ establishment of the Church. It’s a matter of faith (and Scripture) that Jesus left a Church with authority. Scriptures themselves are examples of Church authority. St. Pauls letters are authoritative letters from a Church pastor (St. Paul) to local Churches. Jesus, is the head of the Church. We are His body.
Greg
F
fulloftruth
Guest
Matt, No insult intended. I still haven’t heard from you on the connection between Matt 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22. Christ as the Son of David, re-estabolishing the Kingdom of David, and doing it under the guise of a Church. The parallels are glaring. Not only the Scripture quotes but the actual Job that Peter and Eliacim held. Being called a Father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which is what we call the successor to Peter(its what the word Pope means), and we as members of the Church are the inhabitants of the new Heavenly Jerusalem. Peter having a throne of honor in his Fathers House, which is what the Pope has in the Catholic Church and from the world, and in heaven. Being the bearer of the keys to the Kingdom, having the authority of the King in a limited sense. It in no way threatens the Kings sovereignty. The power was handed down to successors, as with the Pope. Acts 1:20 shows that th Apostles had successors, and Matt 18 shows us that they had the power of infallibility since they could not bind anything on earth that did not meet the requirements of being in heaven"(nothing imperfect shall enter heaven)" since it would apply to both.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
it goes against the bible: the doctrine of sola scriptura is not found in the scripture. in fact, the bible tells us that we need more than just the bible alone. the bible confirms that not everything jesus said and did is recorded in scripture(john21:25) and that we must also hold fast to oral tradition,the preached word of god(1 cor11:2;1pet1:25).
- Status