This is not what I asked you for. I asked you for a simple yes or no.People always get so personal. Calm down. Be less emotional.
So Paul teased his audience in the epistle with some kind of oral tradition they did not know? No Paul says to not go beyond what was written.
Big opportunity? Anyway, yes the verse shows that Paul taught the traditions orally and they were in his epistles. Its right there in the verse. We just disagree with interpretation. So…stay Catholic and enjoy!This is not what I asked you for. I asked you for a simple yes or no.
I will ask it one more time. If you can’t answer with a yes or no, this discussion is over, and you will have lost your big opportunity to prove to me that Protestantism is right.
Is your claim that “Paul is not speaking about two seperate things” in the Bible? Yes or no?
Which verse are you referring to? (Just want to be certain.)Big opportunity? Anyway, yes the verse shows that Paul taught the traditions orally and they were in his epistles. Its right there in the verse. We just disagree with interpretation. So…stay Catholic and enjoy!
If this theory is true, to deny Oral Tradition and the true role of Tradition, then why would God stand by and watch His Church fail His intentions for so long? At all? The role of Tradition has always been an integral part of His Church.Matthew 16:13 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
This question is fair enough. I think we can show some. Actually, Protestants and Fundamentalists hold to extra-biblical traditions even if they do not credit them as such.No one has shown its referring to two seperate things. Have they? Where are the extra biblical traditions shown to come from Paul?
John also makes a distinction, 1John 2:24: As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and the Father.No one has shown its referring to two seperate things. Have they? Where are the extra biblical traditions shown to come from Paul?
For what it is worth, I have stated for years that the practice of some fundamentalists to mimic the Catholic tradition of a Eucharist celebration is extrabiblical. That is why we celebrate in a meal setting. That is the setting of Christ and certainly what Paul is discussing in Corinthians as well.This question is fair enough. I think we can show some. Actually, Protestants and Fundamentalists hold to extra-biblical traditions even if they do not credit them as such.
An obvious example is Sunday worship. I don’t know of anyplace in the bible that tells Christians to worship on Sunday. But we all do. The Puritans even made it mandatory for people to go to church on Sunday, and going so far as to call it the Sabbath, even though the bible does not.
Now, there are vague allusions in Acts to Christian gatherings on the “first day of the week,” such taking collections on the first day of the week. And it was the first day of the week when Paul was preaching. Why do we think these are allusions to worship? Because we already have the oral tradition of worship on Sunday. Otherwise we wouldn’t recognize them as such at all. Seventh Day Adventists don’t.
In Revelation John was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” We believe that to be Sunday, because it is an oral tradition that Sunday is also called the Lord’s Day.
Acts 2:42 says that “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayer.” Oral tradition says this refers to the Eurcharist (breaking of bread), but otherwise it could thought of as “taking a meal.” As the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT puts it! Which is why they celebrate the Last Supper only once a year. But if you already know that breaking of bread refers to the Eurcharist, you also know that the early Chrtistians continually celebrated it.
So, it is difficult to see how the assumption that the written tradition is coterminus with the oral tradition is safe to make. I guess it is an assumption a person makes one way or another. As for proof, I don’t know how it can be proved, nor do I know how it can be disproved. What can be done is present evidence and reason for one position or another.
So whether or not scripture is materially sufficient (containing all that is needed for salvation) I do not think it is formally sufficient (in a form easily understood), or “perspicuous.”
I think Peter is explicity denying the perspicuity of scripture at 2Peter 3:16: Our beloved brother Paul…wrote to you as also in all his letters…in which there are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Examples already given are the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
A person may think they understand the Scriptures, but do they?
Well, I reckon you’re right. It is extra-biblical.For what it is worth, I have stated for years that the practice of some fundamentalists to mimic the Catholic tradition of a Eucharist celebration is extrabiblical. That is why we celebrate in a meal setting. That is the setting of Christ and certainly what Paul is discussing in Corinthians as well.
As far as Sunday, we have services on Saturday or Sunday. In fact, so do you guys! Its a good trend and certainly, as you succinctly state, there is no good reason from scripture not to.
Which verse are you referring to? (Just want to be certain.)