My Response to Catholic Apologist Tom Nash of Catholic Answers Part 1

Brian Culliton

An article recently appeared on the Catholic.com website that responds to my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence.” The article was written by Catholic apologist, Tom Nash, who posted it in the website’s online magazine section. Here is a link to the article: The Early Church Believed in the Eucharist

My article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence” is a contextual approach to the early church writings. The article was written in 2009. I am currently working on a new revision to the article that will provide more background on the writers, an even more comprehensive look at what they believed about the eucharist, and a couple additional works that lend well to the topic, but carry with them a level uncertainty as to their dates, which of course will be fully disclosed.

It is my opinion that Mr. Nash did an inadequate job of refuting the conclusions of my article since he failed on every point to incorporate any context. Essentially, Mr. Nash relied on isolated quotes to suggest to his readers that what these quotes say sounds very Catholic. On that point I agree. It’s the reason why Catholic Answers lists strings of them without contextual support. But to me context is everything, and I am certain that every other fair-minded individual out there would agree.

There are four things that are vitally important about early church study. The first thing is to read the works. Sounds kind of obvious, but a lot folks think they understand these writings simply because they have seen quotes. The second thing is to learn all you can about the authors. Get to know their style, passions, and influences. Much of this can be ascertained from reading their works. Third, learn about the period in which they lived and wrote, and most importantly, learn about the heresies they were addressing. This goes a long way in understanding what they are trying to convey. Finally, develop a strong biblical foundation and keep an open mind. The early ecclesiastical writers wrote for various reasons, but none wrote Scripture and none were infallible.

It didn’t take long for Mr. Nash to completely mischaracterize my view of the early church works. He stated that I argue Ignatius and other church fathers held a “merely symbolic view of the eucharist and that their words should be understood figuratively.” What I actually said was, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.

I simply told my readers what they should expect to find in my article. I never imposed a symbolical view onto any of the authors, much less all of them. The idea of the article was to let the evidence speak for itself. I don’t offer a great deal of commentary and I only used the word symbolical or symbolically three times. Every time I used it was to simply reiterate what the evidence itself was revealing.

My article is broken into sections, one for each of the ecclesiastical writers. Mr. Nash chose to respond to the three closest to the time of the apostles: Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus. This response will address his commentary on Ignatius of Antioch. I will follow with responses on Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the weeks to come.

Regarding Ignatius, Mr. Nash provides the all-important crème de la crème of early church quotes as far as most Catholics are concerned.

They [the Docetists, early Christological heretics] 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]).

Mr. Nash remarks that my opinion is at odds with the plain meaning of Ignatius’ words. I don’t know what opinion he is referring to since I never offered one. What I offered was context and facts. However Mr. Nash seems to think that Ignatius accused the Docetists of abstaining from the Eucharist because they denied that the flesh of Christ was truly present in the “elements” of the Eucharist.

Eucharist is a word that means thanksgiving. The bread and cup are the food of the eucharist and often referred to as the Eucharist, much like the our November feast is referred to as Thanksgiving.

The Ignatius quote I provide above is from Mr. Nash’s article and it includes a bracketed comment that identifies who Ignatius is referring to and it says, “the Docetists, early Christological heretics.” I wonder how many of his readers understand the significance of that insertion and how it being there actually invalidates his opinion of the quote. Put simply, people who did not believe that Jesus suffered and died in the flesh would not abstain from the Eucharist because they objected to the idea He was truly present, they abstained because the whole idea of it was ridiculous to them. They didn’t believe the bread was the body of Christ and the cup His blood, because they objected to the idea that Jesus possessed a body; that’s what Ignatius meant when he said they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ.

Ignatius went on to say that the flesh they deny is “our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” The next thing he says is crucial to understanding what he meant, “They who deny this gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

Ignatius’ criticism of the Docetists culminates in these words, “They who deny this gift of God.” We agree on who they are, the Docetists, what we disagree on is what they denied. We know from the quote that they denied the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. What we do not get from the quote is whether Ignatius was referring to a denial of real presence or a denial of Christ’s physical existence. But if we read the whole letter we will discover that Ignatius himself provides the clear answer.

In chapter two of the letter, Ignatius said this:

He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians.

And in chapter five he said this:

For what does anyone profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.

Then, finally, in the sixth chapter:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

There are no references to Ignatius criticizing the Docetists for not believing in real presence because such criticism would not make sense. The misunderstanding of Ignatius by many Catholics stems from an improper notion of the Eucharist. Any reference to the bread and cup as the body and blood of Christ triggers a conditioned response to interpret it as a literal true presence. It’s unfortunate that some are so limited and narrow-minded in their thinking. Mr. Nash gives a prime example in a second Ignatius quote. Here is how he presented it:

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], emphasis his).

Mr. Nash emphasized certain phrases that seem to tell him everything he needs to know. All he hears is that Ignatius desired the flesh of Christ and to drink His blood. Damn the context I guess. What did Ignatius mean? Here is how the quote is presented in my article:

For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. (To the Romans, Chapter 7)

Expanding the quote just a little gives us a better picture of the circumstance. From this quote we can see that Ignatius had something much more profound in mind than the eucharist. The larger context is that Ignatius was a prisoner of the Romans and was being transported to Rome to be placed in the arena, which meant that he would suffer death by being exposed to wild beasts. The purpose of his letter to the church in Rome was to ensure that they did not intercede in his martyrdom. He praised them for their love, but did not want that love to prevent his end goal.

If we go to chapter (paragraph) six, the one just prior to the quote above, we see a key statement. Ignatius said, “Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.” Add to this a quote of his found in the writings of Irenaeus, “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” The context make abundantly clear the motivation and desire of Ignatius. It was not the eucharist he was after, rather it was to be an imitator of our Lord and to go to Him in the most profound way.

Taking words from quotes and drawing ideological conclusions not only dishonors the works, it dishonors the author of the works.

Next time I will address Mr. Nash’s response to my article’s section on Justin Martyr.

Advertisements

97 Responses to My Response to Catholic Apologist Tom Nash of Catholic Answers Part 1

  1. You said, ” So what do you think your Roman catechism is doing to 1 Tim. 2:5 above Rex?”

    I don’t want to ignore your question. It’s a fair question. Let me just say what the Church is NOT saying. The Church is not saying that Mary is another redeemer, or “that she can do anything of eternal value apart from Christ.”

    I don’t mean to take the easy way out, but I will leave you an article to help explain. I’m getting ready to leave for the weekend with my wife to celebrate our 24th anniversary. So, I apologize.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/making-peace-with-the-mediatrix

    Like

  2. Mike says:

    Rex –

    I read it carefully and it seems pretty straightforward to me. St. Paul exhorts the believers in Thessalonica to (1) Stand firm and (2) hold fast to the teachings. How were those teaching transmitted or passed on to them? Let Scripture speak for itself,

    “…whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

    Again, I just can’t understand why people must cherry-pick quotations from Scripture just to make their point. Not only is that dangerous, it’s insulting. Let’s agree to accurately quote entire passages from now on shall we Rex?

    The actual verse is this:

    With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter.

    2 Thess. 2:15 NLT

    If you read it carefully, Paul is careful to note that the teachings were passed on in person and by letter. What teachings? The teachings “we” passed on… They were fully communicated, and it doesn’t matter if they were oral or written, because the Holy Spirit ensured that the oral and written teachings were eventually codified in the collection of Scriptures we have today. The days of reveling into Scripture and doctrine are over and have been over for more than 2000 years.

    Paul’s statement did not include any willy-nilly tradition teaching that might develop in the future, like the alleged immaculate conception of Mary, or new doctrines like the imagined purgatory. With this Paul is speaking against any idea of apostolic succession being able to form new doctrine. He goes even further here:

    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

    Gal. 1:8

    This is further testimony that the gospel was fully revealed by Paul and the apostles. The Roman Catholic church has another gospel – one other than Paul and the apostles preached. There is no co-Mediatrix Mary in Paul’s gospel. There is no purgatory, or praying to saints, or many of the other false doctrines we find foundational to Roman Catholicism today.

    You say:

    We can talk about Mary or development of doctrine, but I think we need to see, firstly, that Scripture alone is not in the bible, In fact, the bible teaches “…whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Written and orally the faith can be handed down.

    I disagree. We see the fruits of your position in churches like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who will tell you that their “truth” was orally revealed to them through Charles Taze Russell and they alone have the truth. Who are you to say otherwise, since you say new revelation can be handed down orally and new doctrine is allowed to be developed. Same with the Mormons. Who are you to say that Joseph Smith did not receive the oral truth from the angel?

    You see Rex, when you let go of the anchor of Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, you open yourself up to all kinds of heresy and false practices, whether they come about today, or whether they came about 300 years after Christ instituted the true Church.

    Like

  3. You said, “Again, I just can’t understand why people must cherry-pick quotations from Scripture just to make their point. Not only is that dangerous, it’s insulting. Let’s agree to accurately quote entire passages from now on shall we Rex?”

    The text had already been shown. I was merely highlighting or pointing to the critical phrase of “…whether by word of mouth or letter.”

    You also said, “If you read it carefully, Paul is careful to note that the teachings were passed on in person and by letter. What teachings? The teachings “we” passed on… They were fully communicated, and it doesn’t matter if they were oral or written, because the Holy Spirit ensured that the oral and written teachings were eventually codified in the collection of Scriptures we have today. The days of reveling into Scripture and doctrine are over and have been over for more than 2000 years.”

    The problem is that it does matter if the traditions were communicated by word of mouth or written, because that would sever the legs that Sola Scriptura hoped to stand on. If this verse would have said, the teachings we passed on in only written form are authentic and valid, you may have something, but it simply doesn’t.

    So we have verses that the apostolic traditions are transmitted by word of mouth AND written form. Not one verse, have you produced that shows Scripture alone as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice.”

    Furthermore, we have not even looked at the historical evidence that supports Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Here is Iraneaus of Lyons. Here we see already the normative teaching of the Church as early as 175 A.D.:

    [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

    If we’re honest, the issue is not IF tradition is exercised, but WHICH tradition will we embrace. Will it be Luther’s? Will it be Wesley’s? Maybe Calvin’s? Or the local non-denominational bible church? They all have traditions that are used in their particular faith community that influences interpretation of Scripture, conduct, worship, liturgy, etc. Even the tradition of bible alone is just that, a tradition.

    You said, “We see the fruits of your position in churches like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who will tell you that their ‘truth’ was orally revealed to them through Charles Taze Russell and they alone have the truth. Who are you to say otherwise, since you say new revelation can be handed down orally and new doctrine is allowed to be developed. Same with the Mormons. Who are you to say that Joseph Smith did not receive the oral truth from the angel?”

    This is a misunderstanding of tradition at best; a straw man fallacy at worst– I’m not sure which. Historical biblical scholarship “protects us against irrational notions of inspiration. These usually originate from some version of dictation theory, wherein a book is said to be composed immediately by God or an angel, without a human author. In this case the language and concepts of the book inevitably are said to have no human historical origin or sociological context. Therefore, the text can not be analyzed historically if this means examining the human authorship and cultural context. Such dictation theories are prevalent in both Islam and Mormonism, as well as certain forms of Christianity: they present us with a kind of fundamentalism that forbids rational study of the text on theological grounds, forbidding us to consider the human authors, the historical setting or the literary genera.” ~Thomas J. White, The Light of Christ

    Like

  4. Mike says:

    Rex:

    The faith was first delivered to the Church orally, not in writing. Scholars unanimously agree that the first books of the New Testament (1 and 2 Thessalonians) were not written until the middle of the first century, around A.D. 50-52. Yet, even without these books, the revelation of Jesus Christ was being spread through the oral teaching of the apostles and their successors.

    Let’s get on the same track. First, we have to distinguish between oral “tradition” and oral “transmission.” When you use the term tradition, it implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence. This has been shown here time and again. Transmission on the other hand is a method of conveying information. The content of the Bible was, in some cases, first relayed through oral “transmission,” but not as the result of “tradition.” What was being transmitted was a direct explanation of specific facts regarding certain people, places, and times. In most cases, the biblical text was put into written form at the time of, or soon after, the events described.

    We see a great example of this with the book of Luke, which explicitly and succinctly states its origins in chapter 1. We see Luke putting the results of his investigation and his observations into written form. What he does is he expresses his experiences and he relates the facts of actual eyewitnesses. Historians have found Luke to be a dependable and extremely accurate source. Parts of this Gospel could be considered “oral transmission” prior to his authorship, but many of the same facts are found in the earlier Gospel of Mark. If you look even closer, the Book of Mark is believed to have been written around AD 55. This is much too soon after the events described for it to fall into the “oral tradition” category.

    Many people often forget (or fail to mention) that the Gospels are not the earliest Christian writings nor the original sources of their contents. For instance, Paul’s letters were almost all written prior to the Gospels. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives information for the basic outlines of the Christian belief. He says these points are those he was taught at his conversion, which occurred just a few years after the resurrection.

    I think one of the strongest arguments against oral tradition the way Roman Catholics present it comes from non other than Jesus Christ Himself. We read where the Pharisees had used oral traditions as a means to interpret the Law of Moses. I’ve pointed out where Jesus spoke highly of the Scriptures, and He roundly condemned the reliance on oral tradition for its tendency to reflect the desires of the traditionalists, rather than the will of God (see Mark 7:6–9).

    I can see nothing in what you give above as support for tradition where we are to take tradition on par with Scripture. According to internal and external evidence, the words of the Bible were preserved in written form extremely early as records of fact, not oral traditions, with records of fact being much more reliable. The quotes you give from Paul regarding oral transmission (not tradition) are not convincing.

    Like

  5. You said, “When you use the term tradition, it implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.”

    The Greek lexicon translates it, paradoseis, a handing down or over, a tradition.

    So, Paul’s exhortation the the Thessalonica believers to, “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us,” would translate, according to your definition,
    “stand firm and hold to the ‘implications of a long held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence…'”

    And still not one verse, have you produced that shows Scripture alone as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice.” You’re filibustering.

    Like

  6. “I can see nothing in what you give above as support for tradition where we are to take tradition on par with Scripture. According to internal and external evidence, the words of the Bible were preserved in written form extremely early as records of fact, not oral traditions, with records of fact being much more reliable. The quotes you give from Paul regarding oral transmission (not tradition) are not convincing.”

    Remember when I asked you earlier if what you believed were wrong would you want to know it? You’re answering that loud and clear now. You don’t want to see.

    There was no canon of Scripture until the 4th century (logical evidence). There is scriptural evidence. Historical evidence.

    Like

  7. Mike says:

    Rex:

    You said, “When you use the term tradition, it implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.” The Greek lexicon translates it, paradoseis, a handing down or over, a tradition.

    That doesn’t change my point. A handing down of a tradition doesn’t necessarily mean that tradition is connected to any facts or evidence. How do you tell if your tradition is based on facts, or just the opinions of the traditionalist?

    Rex:

    So, Paul’s exhortation the the Thessalonica believers to, “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us,” would translate, according to your definition,
    “stand firm and hold to the ‘implications of a long held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence…’”

    Paul did not make any claim on the veracity of his statement. He assumed those listening to him already believed, and they knew his credentials, so there was no question. Further, he was speaking about the teachings he and the apostles had already directly taught, not teachings that would come later through the Church by way of traditions. Further, Paul went on to warn about any teachings that might come later teaching differently than what he had already taught. This speaks against the traditions based doctrine of your church that came later such as the teachings on Mary, praying to the Saints, etc,. – teachings where there is no record or evidence they were taught by Jesus or the apostles. It’s odd that you keep referencing Paul as if he supports your position, given that the passage you give works against it. I suspect you don’t really understand what Paul was saying.

    My statement was only to point out that there’s no way you can show that Roman Catholic tradition is necessarily tied to any facts or evidence. So, if you’re following a tradition that isn’t connected to one of the teachings that Paul or the other apostles outlined in Scripture, it is those traditions that cannot be tied to any facts or evidence, and they are suspect. They are not the same as Paul’s or the apostle’s teachings of record. For instance, if you can show that the alleged immaculate conception of Mary was one of the teachings Paul communicated by word of mouth or by letter, then you’d have something, but you can’t, so there is no foundation for that teaching in facts or evidence related to the teachings of Paul or the apostles. For you to use that Scripture as support for teachings of the Roman church misses the mark and is misleading.

    Rex:

    And still not one verse, have you produced that shows Scripture alone as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice.” You’re filibustering.

    There is no Scripture that says that, and you know it. However there is Scripture that tells us Scripture is: “…the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Heb. 4:12

    Can you give any Scripture that comes even close to making this or a similar statement about tradition? If so, please provide it, so that we can learn how we are to look at tradition. I suspect you won’t find it, because Scripture doesn’t view tradition that way. It’s funny how many Roman Catholics will make the claim that there’s not any Scripture saying the Scripture is the infallible rule of faith and practice, but then there’s no Scripture that says the church is infallible either, yet the claim is made by Roman Catholics that it holds the power of infallible interpretation. The double standard is staggering. It’s not good practice to develop standards for others that you yourself are not willing to hold to.

    You say:

    There was no canon of Scripture until the 4th century (logical evidence). There is scriptural evidence. Historical evidence.

    There was the Jewish cannon, which the Christian canon (in part) is based on. There were also canonization methods and practices handed down from the Jewish canon that the true Christian Church followed, but that the Roman church took liberties with during the gradual process of canonization. For instance, the Roman church included books that did not pass the rigorous process used by the creators of the Jewish canon to approve writings. What you mean to say is there was no Roman Catholic version of the canon in place until the 4th century. That is correct. In fact, the Roman Catholic church did not even come into the picture until some 300 years after the true Christian Church was instituted by Christ. It really makes you wonder how they all got along before Romanism decided to make an appearance and tell us all how necessary it is for our salvation doesn’t it?

    Like

  8. Mike says:

    Happy anniversary to you and your wife Rex!

    You said:

    You said, ” So what do you think your Roman catechism is doing to 1 Tim. 2:5 above Rex?”

    I don’t want to ignore your question. It’s a fair question. Let me just say what the Church is NOT saying. The Church is not saying that Mary is another redeemer, or “that she can do anything of eternal value apart from Christ.”

    I read the article, and to be frank, it’s full of conjecture and fanciful conclusions none of which answer the question I posed to you, and none of which in my opinon communicate as you suggest that your church is not saying that Mary can do anything of eternal value apart from Christ.

    Let me just say that none of us can do anything of eternal value apart from Christ. However, the Roman Catholic church elevates Mary far above anyone else, even to the level of Christ, even if you say that’s not the case.

    The Roman church has elevated Mary to being sinless, a trait reserved for Christ alone, so in that respect you’re wrong in that Mary is sinless according to your church apart from Christ. Even though your church teaches that Mary was made sinless by Christ before she was born, sensible people know that would not be possible since the incarnate Christ had not yet been born.

    Your church calls Mary a co-mediator with Christ, and the Bible says there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. It just can’t get any clearer than that. No article that makes up statements and opinions to try and explain away the contradiction between 1 Tim. 2:5 and your church’s teaching will remove that contradiction.

    To illustrate how the article you gave uses tricky wording and suggestive evidence to make its point we can look at this statement:

    The idea that Jesus alone can mediate grace actually contradicts Scripture: Ephesians 4:29 tells us that you and I are to “impart grace” to others by our words. As members of the body of Christ, we are called to “impart” (or mediate) grace in a variety of ways, including ministries of healing, teaching, and prayer.

    That statement from your article is nonsensical, since we’ve already noted that the Bible tells us it is Christ Jesus alone who is the Mediator between God and man, yet your article says “The idea that Jesus alone can mediate grace actually contradicts Scripture.” Huh?

    Notice that the point made in Ephesians is that we are to impart “grace” to others in specific ways, but none of those ways are said to be the type of grace that mediates unto salvation, which is the type of grace given to Mary by the Roman Catholic church as it claims she is co-Mediatrix with Christ, and is the type of Grace the Bible says Jesus alone exercises as Mediator between God and man. So, the point made above in the article is at the very least misleading, and at worst, a bold-faced lie. It’s the same type of deceptive writing Brian ran into with Nash and successfully refuted here on One Fold. I would suggest that in the future you use another source for your citations Rex. CA is just not reputable and will usually not provide you with the substance and rigor you’ll need to argue successfully on this blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Thank you, Mike. We had a good time.

    “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2)

    “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

    “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

    So, Sacred Tradition is clearly seen in Scripture.

    I just want to understand you correctly. Are you saying, when Paul says, “maintain the traditions…” and “hold to the traditions…” and “keep away from any brother who is living…not in accord with the tradition,” he is actually saying those traditions may not have any truthfulness or accuracy?

    You said, “Paul did not make any claim on the veracity of his statement. He assumed those listening to him already believed, and they knew his credentials, so there was no question. Further, he was speaking about the teachings he and the apostles had already directly taught, not teachings that would come later through the Church by way of traditions.”

    Did Paul speak about traditions and the handing or maintaining of those traditions? And did he speak about handing those traditions on orally?

    The point is this: you made a claim that Scripture alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice.” You don’t find it ironic that that teaching can not be found in the Scriptures?

    The second point is you asked for Scripture supporting the teaching of Tradition. I gave you three above.

    You also said, “There is no Scripture that says that, and you know it. However there is Scripture that tells us Scripture is: “…the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Heb. 4:12

    The title of this article is Context Matters. Read the following verse. “And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Hebrews 4:13. The Word of God is Jesus Christ and I say amen to that verse. Very similar to the Gospel of John chapter 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    Like

  10. Steven 147 says:

    May I suggest that for more clarity both of you Rex and Mike need to focus on and define what you understand by TRADITION and what activities it covers because there is a very real difference in outlook .

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: