Wow! The written epistle doesn't cover everything the church is to hold to!>

It says those things were to be held to, not that they were "inspired". In any case, if those traditions weren't written down, we can't know what they were. Aside from the people who heard it, nobody else was an eyewitness. I won't belabor this as it seems so obvious to me I think it stands by itself.

<So yes, canonical written scripture tells the church to hold onto not just written epistles, but the oral teaching and even tradition taught by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy.>

Well, yeah, if they were around today to verify that the words put in their mouth were in fact their words, this would work. They're not, and it doesn't.

<That's good enough for me. Sorry, Ohio, you won't ever be getting a concession post from me on the topic of sola scriptura. >

Okay.

<It is bunk.>

I assuredly think your position is, so okay.

<As the Orthodox Church explains it in a footnote,> <In the NT we read of two types of traditions. (1) The tradition of men is soundly condemned. Jesus describes this as <<<teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:9)>>>.

(2) The tradition of the apostles, or "Holy Tradition", by contrast, is to be preserved by the Church, for God is its source. Holy Tradition is that which Jesus taught to the apostles, and which they in turn taught the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in (a) their instructions as they visited the churches and (b) their writings. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we adhere to Holy Tradition.>

Isn't it nice a group of men tell us they somehow know those mystery words not spoken? How do we know those men know those words? Those men tell us so. Oh. I'll point out here that "scoff" isn't a strong enough word to describe my response to your claims of miraculous resurrections.

<And the author goes on to point out this is exactly what Jesus promised to do, in John 16:12-15. Namely, after the apostles received the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost, IIRC) "He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.>

<OCF: I don't understand this. You get to discuss what you want to discuss, but I don't? We will discuss that next, or we'll be done.>

It appears our previous point is completed. Then my first point to discuss. I will post a previous question and response, and a follow up question:

<OCF: I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.>

<tga: Your request for a yes or no answer diminishes Christianity from its fullness, so I will expound on my answer to your question, which is:

Yes.>

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. You've been calling for the supremacy of the history of the church, mocking what you perceive of my ignorance of such, expostulated on the necessity of the church as a source of truth, affirm as a requirement that there be an unbroken succession to confirm doctrine, but then admit knowing that history isn't necessary to be saved. This isn't one bit snarky, but I really can't believe you just said that.

The context to which I was responding was the council in 382 that you said established the canon.

Here is the verse:

<"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.">

There is nothing in this verse that says the believer should add to the words already given. That is, this does not say to add to the bible or the scriptures.

After the resurrection, people told the story to one another and passed it along. That is called an oral tradition. When this oral tradition was written, it became an epistle to the churches. The content of these oral traditions and epistles have been recorded in the bible.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that there is another source for scripture besides God's word that is of equal authority to God's word.

Paul's gospel of grace to the Gentiles is clear: we are saved by grace alone and not by any works whatsoever. He warns that if anyone adds to that and preaches therefore a different gospel, he is to be cursed.

So when the Catholics say that you need to do certain works, whether it be taking the sacrament, or baptizing in water, or confessing to a priest for your salvation, or suffering in purgatory, it is a false gospel according to Paul, because things have been added to grace.

<Galatians 1:9, KJV: "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.">

Saved by grace + nothing.

<For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.> Eph 2:8-9

Paul does not consider faith to be a work, and it's not. Neither is it work to accept the gift from God. Can you imagine if someone were to give you a million dollars and you said, "I worked for it because I accepted it. That was work."

The Catholics added things to this gospel. They likely got it from the Judiazers who only wanted to add circumcision, but the Catholics have added so much more. This heresy of adding to the gospel of grace has been around since the gospel of grace was first preached by Paul.

The pride of man makes him believe that he has to do something to at least partially earn his salvation, like he must repent first or he must be baptized first, or he must take the sacrament every week, or he must attend mass and never miss it, or he must fast, or he must confess his sins to a priest.

That is false gospel. This is why the road to destruction is wide and many are on it and, hardly anyone is on the narrow path.

This is why Catholics have a different bible, a different Jesus and a different gospel.

Catholics state that the Bible is the Word of God, but holds tradition and laws passed down by the Pope above the Word of God.

The RCC, on the other hand, maintains that justification by faith without works is heresy. “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 6, Decree on Justification, canon 12

Read that again.

<Paul's gospel of grace to the Gentiles is clear: we are saved by grace alone and not by any works whatsoever.>

It says those things were to be held to, not that they were "inspired".>

Then Epistles are not inspired? Because Tradition, word and scripture were all lumped together in that verse.

And why hold to them, if they were not inspired?

Just those men? No. Paul wrote to them to tell them to hold to those words. Paul knew the words as well, since he spoke them to the church. You're omitting that part.

<OCF:

<<<tga: And the author goes on to point out this is exactly what Jesus promised to do, in John 16:12-15. Namely, after the apostles received the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost, IIRC) "He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.>>>

I would understand "you" to mean the apostles.>

I will admit I was a bit surprised by this. You've been calling for the supremacy of the history of the church,>

NO! I have not done any such thing! Do not confuse me with your church leadership in the RCC from 40 years ago! Please do not project onto me, what you saw in them!

<mocking what you perceive of my ignorance of such,>

It is not, and never was, my intention to mock you. Rather, I was trying to get you to engage in serious debate. Replace "mocking" with "motivating you to engage" and I would agree.

<expostulated on the necessity of the church as a source of truth, affirm as a requirement that there be an unbroken succession to confirm doctrine, but then admit knowing that history isn't necessary to be saved. This isn't one bit snarky, but I really can't believe you just said that.

That was my primary objection to your position. I sort of don't know what to think now.>

Quite simply, 2 things: 1) repentance of sin and placing your faith in Jesus Christ is not the END of a Christian life. It is nothing more than the beginning.

The NT was complete long before that.>

There is nothing in this verse that says the believer should add to the words already given. That is, this does not say to add to the bible or the scriptures.>

Although I intend to read the entirety of your reply, I have not yet done so. I stopped here, because the verse clearly contradicts you <and> you are using a strawman argument.

In my previous post I was not referring to your claim about adding to the words already given. I am talking about words <previously> given. Paul taught at the church in Thessoloniki for about a year. BEFORE he wrote this epistle! Not after. So the words already given consist of a few pages of 2 epistles, AND a year's worth of oral teaching, some of which may be recorded in the epistles as reminders. Thus, my strawman rebuttal.

You claim <That is, this does not say to add to the bible or the scriptures.>

But it explicitly states exactly that!

<brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word,>

"By word" clearly refers to spoken teaching, and we can be certain of this because Paul adds

<or our epistle.">

<or> seals the deal. <or> means something distinctly different from "by word" - it means something written, because the "or" is an epistle.

<Big Pawn: ...> ("..." signifies the part I already answered)

<Nowhere in the bible does it say that there is another source for scripture besides God's word that is of equal authority to God's word.>

2 Thes. 2:15 says that an apostle delivered God's word in more than written form.

<Paul's gospel of grace to the Gentiles is clear: we are saved by grace alone>

Actually, the word "alone" is not present in the original text. Which is why two of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, Luther and Melanchthon, though close friends, had a big dispute about this very thing. Luther wanted to include "alone" in his NT translation, and Melanchthon argued against it, because it is NOT in the original text!

(Benefit of studying church history coming into play here.)

<and not by any works whatsoever. He warns that if anyone adds to that and preaches therefore a different gospel, he is to be cursed.>

Repentance and faith in Christ comes first, and is followed by works. Works are evidence of salvation, not the other way around.

<So when the Catholics say...>

Why are you criticizing the Roman Catholics? No one in this discussion is holding up the Roman Catholics as an example. In fact, I have criticized them for heresy multiple times in this very forum!

And if you are equating the Orthodox to Roman Catholics, then it only demonstrates ignorance of Orthodoxy! The OC repudiated the RCC about a millennium before you ever got to that realization.

<Saved by grace + nothing.> Again, the original text is "saved by grace", not "saved by grace + nothing". You are adding words to scripture that aren't there, after accusing me of the same, even though I added nothing.

<<For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.> Eph 2:8-9>

Thanks. Ephesians was always my favorite book of the Bible. Read it countless times, and just checked it again. I didn't see "+ nothing" in there.

<Paul does not consider faith to be a work, and it's not. Neither is it work to accept the gift from God.>

I agree. The person you need to convince is Ohio.

<The Catholics added things to this gospel.>

I'll take your word for it, because even if you're wrong, the Roman Catholics have been adding stuff for over 1.5 millennia. I don't trust 'em. Neither should you.

<...but the Catholics have added so much more.>

IKR! They added the immaculate conception of Mary as recent as the 1800s! They added the ascension of Mary in the 1950s! Not to mention the filioque in the late 800s, a most abominable heresy. Plus indulgences, etc. We are in agreement here - can't trust the RCC.

<The pride of man makes him believe that he has to do something to at least partially earn his salvation...>

Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins we must guard against.

<or he must confess his sins to a priest.>

Confession of sins is Biblical. I don't know of any Christian church that discourages confession of sins.

<That is false gospel. This is why the road to destruction is wide and many are on it and, hardly anyone is on the narrow path.>

Yeah. There are about 4 (or is it 7?) times as many Catholics in the world today, as Orthodox. And Protestantism in the US outnumbers the RCC numbers, IIRC.

<People join a religion and then shoehorn the scriptures, if they can, in ad hoc fashion to fit with their religion.>

Catholic teaching opposes the doctrine most essential to the Christian faith, the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The RCC not only denies this doctrine but also condemns anyone who believes it.>

Preach it, brother!

I don't know if everything you wrote is true, but just the heresies that I know of in RCC are enough to convince me they got a lot of stuff wrong. And I don't even know much about the RCC!

I would be much more closely aligned with <tga> and <Opt> than you in most of that issue. But we can debate that in the future.>

As you've obviously put a lot of thought into your religious viewpoints in the last half century or so, I am very interested in reading what you have to say on the topic!

It's even nicer to know that an apostle instructed the church to stand fast and hold to words not written, and traditions.

Mark 16:15:

And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who believes <and is baptized> will be saved;"

Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you <be baptized> in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;"

Matthew 28:18-19:

And <Jesus> came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven an on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, <baptizing> them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Baptizing is not a work, nor it is a false teaching of man. It is a sacred sacrament, commanded by Christ.

Mark was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, to the Jews, as did Jesus, as this was a continuation of the prophecies for Israel of the old testament.

Same with Mathew.

Acts is not a book to get doctrine from as it's a transition book, detailing the transition from the gospel of the kingdom (to the Jews) and the gospel of grace to the Gentiles, the mystery which was hidden in God since the beginning but revealed to Paul later in Acts.

< To Whom it May Concern:

The Gospel given to the gentiles by Christ through the apostle Paul was the foundation of the churches Paul established. Right from the very beginning, those churches were corrupted by judaizers who came to the churches once Paul left and went on his way, far away, to plant another church.

They would teach the members of those churches a different gospel. They would tell them that they need to keep the law and that even Paul himself circumcised Timothy. The judaizers told the churches at Corinth and others that in order to be real Christians and to know the deep knowledge of the faith, one had to go all the way and follow the law, but Paul just didn't think that these new members could handle all of that, so he gave them just a little bit to do, which is just to have faith (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Consequently, when he heard that his churches were confused by all this, Paul had to write to the churches he planted and correct them. That's why there were second letters written to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica. He had to correct their theology almost immediately.

The judaizers were very persuasive. They told the churches that Paul planted, "Look, we've heard from the 12 apostles themselves, the people who were with Jesus for 3 years and heard everything he said and saw every miracle he performed, we've heard them say themselves that you need to keep the law. They themselves follow the law and said that Jesus himself came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it and that Jesus himself never preached a gospel of grace. Jesus followed the law and he taught everyone he encountered to follow the law. You must follow the law too."

Thus Paul had to write to his churches and straighten them out so they wouldn't be confused by the judaizers and yoked to the law.

When the Catholic church claims to be the original church, as in, the churches from Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth and others, it means nothing because those churches were in some confusion.

What to believe then?

Look at the letters Paul wrote to the churches! Paul's message to the gentiles from Christ was the gospel of grace. Christs' message to the children of Israel through the apostles was of the covenant, the law and he, Jesus, being the promised Messiah.

These are two different gospels.

It is for this reason that Paul had to meet with Peter and James. In the end, Peter, James and the apostles agreed that Paul's gospel was from Christ himself and that he, Paul, should go to the gentiles (at first, the apostles were commissioned to go to all the world with their gospel) and preach the gospel of grace, and they would now preach their gospel, a gospel of both faith and works, to the Jews.

Therefore, it is not enough to say, "The NT says..." because there are different writers and different intended audiences and two different gospels for two distinct people groups, the Jew and non-Jews. When James says, "Faith without works is dead" he is speaking to the Jews, as agreed. It is a gospel of the law and Christ, the promised Messiah. One had to believe Christ came as the Messiah <and> follow the law. It is Israel's covenant.

The gospel to the gentiles is a much lighter burden. In fact, it's no burden at all. It is simply to believe that Christ was killed, buried and rose again, atoning for your sins.

Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom and instructed his disciples <not> to preach to the Gentiles. Was this just because Israel was God's chosen people and the Gentiles simply got the short end of the stick?

No.

God had a plan for the Gentiles but it was a secret, a mystery. The mystery that God revealed to Paul was the gospel of grace to the Gentiles! Jesus didn't want his disciples preaching the gospel of the kingdom (the gospel specially for the Jews) to the Gentiles because it <wasn't meant to be their gospel>.

Jesus never spoke about grace. Jesus' gospel that he preached on earth during his ministry was not a gospel of grace. It was the gospel of the kingdom and it was based on The Law.

After the resurrection, Jesus revealed to Paul that The Law was nailed to the cross and that the Gentiles were <not under the law>, but were saved by grace.

The message Jesus gave to Paul to give to us was not one of baptism, but of salvation by grace through faith alone and nothing else.

Protestant: YOU Catholics say that you have to do good works to get to heaven!

Catholic: Uh ... no ... that's not right. In actual fact the Catholic Church says that we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is clearly stated in the Catechism, under the section "Grace and Justification", reflecting the explicit message of the New Testament.

Protestant: Don't try to double-talk me with your Jesuit sophistry. I know you Catholics have twisted the Bible to suit your own heresy. You're always going on about doing good deeds.

Catholic: Good works are not a prerequisite for salvation, but flow naturally from the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Just as an apple tree produces apples, not by an act of parliament, but simply because it is in its nature to do so, in the same way, a Christian does not produce good works by following the law, but simply because it is in the nature of a Christian to do so.

Protestant: Don't try to befuddle me with your popery. I know you Catholics think you can work your way into heaven which is totally against the Bible.

Catholic: Trying to "work your way into heaven" is indeed contrary to the saving message of the Gospel, which is why the Catholic Church condemned the Pelagian heresy back in the fifth century. The Church has always maintained salvation is through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Protestant: YOU Catholics worship Mary!

Catholic: Uh ... no ... that's not right. In actual fact the Catholic Church says that we admire and respect Mary as the mother of our Lord Jesus, but worship is reserved for God alone. This is clearly stated in the Catechism, under the section "Mary's Motherhood with Regard to the Church", and in no way contravenes the Scriptural imperative pertaining to the first commandment.

Protestant: Don't try to double-talk me with your Jesuit sophistry. I know you Catholics have twisted the Bible to suit your own heresy. You're always saying prayers to Mary like a goddess.

Catholic: The "Hail Mary" is entirely Scriptural, taken verbatim from the opening chapters of Luke's Gospel, with the emphasis on Jesus at the centre of the prayer.

Protestant: Don't try to befuddle me with your popery. I know you Catholics think that by praying to Mary you can get to heaven.

Catholic: All prayers are directed to God, but asking Mary or the communion of saints for prayers on our behalf is essentially no different than one Christian asking another Christian to pray for him.

Protestant: YOU Catholics say there's a place called Purgatory which is totally not in the Bible because you don't think your sins are forgiven by Christ!

Catholic: Uh ... no ... that's not right. In actual fact the Catholic Church says that a believing Christian is indeed forgiven by Christ, but undergoes a purification or purgation before entering into heaven. This is clearly stated in the Catechism, under the section "The Final Purification, or Purgatory", and is in accordance with Scripture.

Protestant: Don't try to double-talk me with your Jesuit sophistry. I know you Catholics have twisted the Bible to suit your own heresy. Your so-called Purgatory is nowhere in the Bible.

Catholic: The theological concept of Purgatory in no way contravenes Scripture, and is in fact revealed through various passages in the Bible, e.g. Matthew 18:34, Luke 12:47, Mark 9:49, 1 Peter 3:19, Ephesians 4:9, 1 Corinthians 3:13, Matthew 12:32, Luke 16:25-26 as well as 2 Maccabees 12:41–46 if you have a complete Bible.

Protestant: Don't try to befuddle me with your popery. I know you Catholics just make up stuff like Purgatory.

Catholic: As explained in Revelation 21:27 nothing impure can enter heaven, so Purgatory is like a detox to expunge the effects of sin.