Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

[DeaconDean]

I'm a fundamentalist Catholic. You don't speak for all Fundamentalists...

You may be a "Fundamental Catholic, but your NOT a Fundamentalist!

You do not accept:

"Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

Your allegiance lies in another place.

By all rights, if not on the point of "Sola Scriptura" alone, this discounts you from posting here except in fellowship.

By all the rules in the book, you shouldn't even be debating here.

Sorry, but as said before, none of what you said can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You have your convictions, I have mine.

And mine align with scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Peter, the head, approved of it.

Unless you can show me precisely in scripture where it says that, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Sheer conjecture!

I have provided commentaries and other evidence to back my position.

What have you provided...your opinion.

Remember these two:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

I have provided scripture. namely cf Acts 15:13-23.

In the Greek, we have Acts 15:19:

"διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν,

Source

The word to focus on is " κρίνω "

It means:

"1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose 2) to approve, esteem, to prefer 3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion 4) to determine, resolve, decree 5) to judge 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong 5a1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it 5b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure 5b1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others 6) to rule, govern 6a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment 7) to contend together, of warriors and combatants 7a) to dispute 7b) in a forensic sense 7b1) to go to law, have suit at law"

Source

Of these, we can dismiss points 5a1-7b1.

Which means, if we apply what Fundamentalists say:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so; Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Then scripture agrees with me in that James choose, he approved. he was of the opinion, he determined, resolved, decreed, he judged, it was his opinion that carried the weight.

And to go one step further, kreeno, here in Acts 15:19, according to The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass. 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 249,

"absolute to decide, determine, resolve, Acts 3:13; 15:19; 27:1, et al.

So until you can provide scripture which says Peter approved and signed off on James' proclamation, game over.

Scripture agrees with me, and the Greek agrees with me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nothing of what you said can be proven.

And yet, again, in Acts 15 we do see "denominationalism" forming.

One group comprised of Christian Jews who observed some of the Torah.

And one group of Gentile Christians who only we required to observe two perhaps three things from the Torah.

"III. The Conflict Concerning the Law

b. The Primitive Community

The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.

The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Paul's first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Paul's day, there were a group of people who are commonly called legalists. Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul's gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word important thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord's Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.
[*] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.


[*] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200"

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittle, Editor, Jefforey W. Bromiley, Translator, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Grand Raips, Mi., 1962, Volume V, Nomos, pp. 1062-1063

Sorry friend, but none of what you espouse can be proven definitively.

God Bless

Till all are one.

And yet Christ instituted one Church. Didn't he?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You may be a "Fundamental Catholic, but your NOT a Fundamentalist!

You do not accept:

"Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

What makes you say so?

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

If I did that, it would be unbiblical. Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible.

Your allegiance lies in another place.

No, my allegiance is to Chrst.

By all rights, if not on the point of "Sola Scriptura" alone, this discounts you from posting here except in fellowship.

By all the rules in the book, you shouldn't even be debating here.

Because YOU say I'm not a fundamentalist?

Sorry, but as said before, none of what you said can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You have your convictions, I have mine.

And mine align with scripture.

I disagree.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Unless you can show me precisely in scripture where it says that, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Sheer conjecture!

I have provided commentaries and other evidence to back my position.

And the ECFs provide commentaries, which are much closer in time, to back mine.

What have you provided...your opinion.

Your commentaries are their opinion, aren't they?

]
Remember these two:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

I have provided scripture. namely cf Acts 15:13-23.

And yet Paul admonishes us to keep to the traditions he taught us. Those had not been written when he wrote that.

In the Greek, we have Acts 15:19:

"διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν,

Source

The word to focus on is " κρίνω "

It means:

"1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose 2) to approve, esteem, to prefer 3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion 4) to determine, resolve, decree 5) to judge 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong 5a1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it 5b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure 5b1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others 6) to rule, govern 6a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment 7) to contend together, of warriors and combatants 7a) to dispute 7b) in a forensic sense 7b1) to go to law, have suit at law"

Source

Of these, we can dismiss points 5a1-7b1.

Which means, if we apply what Fundamentalists say:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so; Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Then scripture agrees with me in that James choose, he approved. he was of the opinion, he determined, resolved, decreed, he judged, it was his opinion that carried the weight.

And to go one step further, kreeno, here in Acts 15:19, according to The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass. 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 249,

"absolute to decide, determine, resolve, Acts 3:13; 15:19; 27:1, et al.

So until you can provide scripture which says Peter approved and signed off on James' proclamation, game over.

Scripture agrees with me, and the Greek agrees with me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Such a late interpretation of an ancient text...

 

[JackRT]

And yet Christ instituted one Church. Didn't he?

I do not think that Jesus was about founding a church at all. I am convinced that his aim was the reform of Judaism. Those who followed and wrote had different ideas.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In my opinion it's because fundamentalism exhibits and extraordinary lack of one trait essential to dealing with others, charity. My encounters with Christian fundamentalists have been some of the most fruitless exchanges I've ever engaged in. Not perfect myself, but I at least try to understand someone before I completely dismiss them or even partially dismiss them. Fundamentalists in large part can't seem to do this in my experience or it's very rare.

 

[JackRT]

In my opinion it's because fundamentalism exhibits and extraordinary lack of one trait essential to dealing with others, charity. My encounters with Christian fundamentalists have been some of the most fruitless exchanges I've ever engaged in. Not perfect myself, but I at least try to understand someone before I completely dismiss them or even partially dismiss them. Fundamentalists in large part can't seem to do this in my experience or it's very rare.

You can have very conservative /orthodox theological opinions and not be a fundamentalist. That transition occurs when those opinions come with attitude.

Karen Armstrong wrote --- "If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic and impelled you to express sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God’s name, it was bad theology."

 

[DeaconDean]

And yet Christ instituted one Church. Didn't he?

And He never instituted a "Catholic" church. (Catholic as in your church)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

What makes you say so?If I did that, it would be unbiblical. Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible.

And yet, that is a tenant of this area. So unless you agree to it, you cannot debate here.

No, my allegiance is to Chrst.

And I ain't?

Because YOU say I'm not a fundamentalist?I disagree.

Do you agree to these:

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   a. The doctrine of the Trinity
   b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
8. Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not. For more information, see Fundamentalism.

Link

Unless you agree to these, you are not a Fundamentalist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And yet Paul admonishes us to keep to the traditions he taught us. Those had not been written when he wrote that.

Lets look at what you and all Catholics hold so dear.

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

I have "The New Analytical Greek Lexicon." On page 123, it lists "eite" as a conjunction. (#1535) And the definition this book gives is "whether."

I also have a Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible, by Jay P. Green, and the translation given is this:

""eite dia logou eite di epistolhV hmwn." -2 Thes. 2:15

eite prior to "by word" and eite prior to "by an epistle of us," means the same thing.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, not Strongs Concordance, gives the definition "whether." (p. 123, eite, conj., whether)

Which means, that Paul told the Thessalonian church that they should hold to the tradition they were taught, whether it is in word, (or) whether it was by epistle. Since we do not have Paul's words, what we have to follow is his epistle.

Using the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhard Kittel.

I have this set of books in my personal collection. They were a gift from a friend to further my seminary studies. Well for your own personal information, in Volume II, page 146, Prof. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, writes the passage concerning the Greek word: didaskw.

didaskw
Section 3: The didaskein of Early Christianity:

;In a setting where scripture was not known, didaskein ta peri tou Insou would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the early community and in dealings with the Jews. Thus Paul speaks of didaskein only with reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21)[1] and in the sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile congregations proof from scripture was an indispensable weapon against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the Galatian church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches themselves. When Paul in Rom. 12:7 summons the didaskwn, to serve en th didaskalia of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from scripture directions for Christian living,[2] and h admonishes them to place their better knowledge wholly in the service of the congregation

On page 172, concerning paradosiV" (tradition) Prof. Friedrich Buchsel writes:
paradosiV

In the NT this meanstradition only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Josephus and in Greek generally, though less common than in the other sense.

• In the disputation in Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the paradosiV twn presbutepwn,Mk. 7:3,5 (Mt. 15:2). He also speaks of the paradosiV twn anqrwpwnin Mk. 7:8 or umwn in v. 9, Mt. 15:3,6 The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Even Philo claimed piety for such tradition. The Sadducees rejected it. So did Jesus. He agreed with the Pharisees that the good demanded obedience to Gods commandment. As He saw it, however, men could not add to this commandment, since they were too seriously in conflict with God. Jesus did not argue for freedom in attacking tradition. His service of God, however, was not legalistic, and therefore He would not add to the commands of God. In Gal. 1:14 the paradoseiV are Jewish tradition generally, both written and verbal.

For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-11), and he demands that the churches should keep it, since salvation depends on it (1 Cor. 15:2). He sees no antithesis between pneumatic piety and the high estimation of tradition.[3] The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down (1 Cor. 15:3), and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8). [emphasis mine] It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition and Paul champions it. Pauls tradition agrees with that Jesus rejection, since they both are opposed to human tradition. Pauls use of paradosiV and paradounai rests on the Jewish usage, and agrees with that of the Mysteries to the extent that this agrees with Jewish usage.

[1] The last passage is put here because that edidacqhte and the accompanying hkousate point to a mediation of the knowledge that alhqeia is en tw Insou, this being the basis of the obligation to walk in purity.

[2] The context demands an interpretation of didaskein in relation to the up building of the life of the community rather than its faith.

[3] F. Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 275 ff.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

On the other hand, Paul does not recognize the sacraments as objects of paradounai and paradosiV.[1] In the days of Paul tradition is in the process of acquiring a fixed verbal form.[2] In 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. we have a fairly settled christological formula, as also in 1 Cor. 11:23 ff. The same cannot be said, however, of other passages like the lists of vices. The paradosiV of 1 Cor. 15:3ff. is older than Paul and rests on the Jerusalem tradition, even if it does not originate in Jerusalem. The same is probably true of 1 Cor. 11:23ff.; the apo tou kupiou implies that the Lord’s Supper, its celebration and the appropriate words come from the Lord, not that Paul received the formula in visionary instruction by the ascended Lord.” In Volume III, p. 911-912, Prof. Wilhelm Michaelis writes concering:

kpatew
“…The point in Rev. 2:25; 3:11 is holding on to a possession. The idea of holding a view, of taking ones stand on it, is found in connection with didach in Rev. 2:14f., though with paradosiV at Mk. 7:3-4, 8 and 2 Th. 2:15 the sense is more than that of keeping or following a tradition, cf. Heb. 4:14: kratwmen thV omolgiaV (hold fast), whereas the sense in Heb. 6:18: kpathoai ths prokei,enhV, is more “to grasp.”

In Volume IV, on pages 101-102, Gerhard Kittel writes:

legw

“…Along with negative estimation we should mention the many occurrences in which there is no judgment. The account of something, whether spoken by Jesus, the disciples, or another, refers to “these words” (Mt. 7:28; Ac. 2:22; 16:36). Or collectively “this word” (Mk. 7:29;10:22), or “many words” (Lk. 23:9). Paul distinguishes between a letter and the spoken word (logoV, 2 Th. 2:2, 15; 2 Cor. 10:10; cf. Ac. 15:27), though even in the same sentence (2 Cor. 10:11) he can call a letter the bearer and reproduction of the logoV (2 Th. 3:14; cf. Heb. 5:11; 13:22). An address (Ac. 2:41; 20:7), an account (Ac. 11:22), a rumor (Lk. 5:15; 7:17), can all be called logoV, and the partial record embodied in a book (Ac. 1:1)…It is obvious that the main emphasis of the term is always on saying something. This is why there is such a wide range of possibilities and such a notable vacillation in sense. The word can contain gnwsiV or true sojia (1 Cor. 12:8). It can also be opposed to them(2 Cor. 11:6). Or it can be set along side them (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8:7). In the same way word or act, or word and power, can be mutually exclusive ( 1 Th. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:19 f.), or complementary (Lk. 24:19; Rom. 15:18; 2 Th. 2:17; Col. 3:17). The emphasis of the sentence will decide whether the word intended is empty sound or whether it carries within it a content which impels towards and necessitates action. This multiplicity of possibilities can express anything said or spoken; it may embrace any content of words.

Finally, in Volume VII, pp. 637-638, Gunther Harder, writes:

sthkw

Paul uses the verb mostly in the imperative form sthkete, so that the question arises whether it is for him imperative for esthka ”to stand” as distinct from sthte ”approach.” …Hence Paul can also give the admonition: sthkete en kupiw Phil 4:1. “To stand in faith” is “to stand in the Lord,” for faith looks to

[1] We have only partial knowledge of the use of paradounai and paradosiVin the Mysteries. It can be shown that teleth and muothpion (and therefore things of a sacramental nature) were objects paradounai and paradosiV(cf. Ranft., 181-185). Teaching occurs less frequently, cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 290 f.

[2] A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristeneit (1903); P. Feine, Die Gestalt des apost. Glaubenkensbekenntnisses im NT (1925)

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

Lord and unites with Him. The choice of kurioV shows that the one who stands in Him is determined by Him and receives from Him the standing which is given to him as faith by God’s saving work in Jesus Christ; he now has to listen to the Lord and follow Him. sthkete en kuriw might thus be translated: “Stand in obedience to the Lord” 1 Th. 3:7f. shows plainly that the comforted life and work of Paul and his companions depend on this standing in the Lord…Because the Lord gives freedom from the destructive powers of sin, law, and death, because faith in the promise of the Word grasps and attains this freedom, the Galatians are admonished: eh eleuqeria huaV CpistoV hleuqepwsen: sthkete oun kai palin zugw douleiaV enecesqhte,. All these connections must be taken into account when we read in 2 Th. 2:15: sthkete kai kpateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte,”

In other words:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast (in the faith of the Lord), and hold on to (lay grasp of) the traditions (scriptures) which ye have been taught (through the teaching of Paul), whether by word (again Paul’s spoken teachings (scriptures)), or (whether) by our (written) epistle. –2 Th. 2:15

Paul was admonishing them to stand fast in their faith in the Lord that they had been taught by him whether it is in the words of scripture or in the letter (epistle). It made no difference for both were equal.

There it is, plain and simple. Like it or not, believe it or not. Paul gave the church at Thessalonica the option of standing fast in the faith of the Lord by using either his teaching from scriptures (words) or by using the epistle he wrote. And since we don’t have his words other than what is recorded in the Bible, that is what we are to follow now, his epistle or written word.

And in light of what is said about Paul’s view of the traditions of men and: “A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8) (Kittel’s, Vol. II, p. 172)

For here we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

So I doubt very highly that the tradition Paul thought of and spoke of, and the tradition that you esteem so very much, are one in the same. I have showed you from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, what a word means.

Now I've dissected 2 Th. 2:15 from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. If you don't believe that, then I don't know what else can be said. Seems to me, that your being dogmatic in following after the "paradosiV twn anqrwpwn."

Now I'’ve said my piece and proved my point, accept it or not, believe it or not, it really makes no difference to me. I'’m going to stand fast in the faith of the Lord through His scriptures (words).


All reference work herein are from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” By: Gerhard Kittel, Editor; Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 2006; Volumes II, pp. 146, 172; III, pp.911-912; IV, pp.101-102; VII, pp. 637-638.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And the ECFs provide commentaries, which are much closer in time, to back mine.

What do the scriptures say?

“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.” –Psa. 118:8-9

“Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the Lord for ever.” –Isa. 26:3-4

“Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” –Jer. 17:7

Jesus plainly taught that the traditions of men were not authoritative. (Mk. 7, Mt. 15:3-20)

Paul also said:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” –1 Tim. 1:4

I would rather place my trust and faith in the Lord and his written word as my final authority before any person, or tradition. For as scriptures say:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” –2 Tim. 3: 15-17

Men and tradition become twisted, vain and corrupted, but the word of God stands sure, true, and it will never lead one astray.

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received from your fathers.” –1 Pet. 1:18

“Seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” –Isa. 34:16

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” – Isa. 55:11

“The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?” –Jer. 8:9

And concerning the ECF's, I have been in a two year study on textual criticism.

I found this:

"The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books,27 and different passages are combined.28

It is possible that, in some cases, the writers do not intend to quote, but merely to use the words loosely by way of allusion. But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a single instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted.

Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων.

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting διαμερισμόν "division" for μάχαιραν "a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel passage in Matt. 10:34.29

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1:13, οἳ ἐγεννήθησαν, "which were born." The correct reading, he maintains, is ὃς̀ ἐγεννήθη, "where was born," and the reference is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows.

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3:6, the words, "because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omitting it."

1. For example, see Ignatius, Magn. X, ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μεταβὰλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὅς ἐστιν ̓Ιησοῦς Χριστός, "Put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new leaven which is Jesus Christ." Compare 1 Cor. 5:7. Ignatius to Polycarp, I, πάντων ἀνέχου ἐν ἀγάπῃ, "Suffer all in love." Compare Eph. 4:2. Ignatius to Polycarp, II, φρόνιμος γίνου ὡς ὁ ὄφις ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἀκέραιος εἰσαεὶ ὡς ἡ περιστερά, "Become thou prudent as the serpent in all things, and forever guileless as the dove." Compare Matt. x. 16.
2. Thus Ignatius, Philad. VII, (τὸ πνεῦμα) οἶδεν γὰρ πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει, "It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and searcheth out the hidden things." Here John 3:8 and 1 Cor. 2:10 are blended. Polycarp to the Philippians, I, ὃν ἥγειρεν ὁ θεὸς λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ ᾅδου· εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ εἰς ἢ πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν. The quotation from Acts 2:24 is inexact, "Whom God raisedup, having loosed the pains of Hades." With this are combined a loose quotation from 1 Pet. 1:8, "In whom, not having seen, ye believe with joy unspeakable and full of glory"; also an adaptation of 1 Pet. 1:12, "into which many desire to enter."
3. Tert. Adv. Marc. IV, 2.

A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, Chapter IV, Patristic Quotations

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And He never instituted a "Catholic" church. (Catholic as in your church)

God Bless

Till all are one.

A universal Church, though. Catholic, as in 'embracing all'. Don't go trying to change the meaning of words, eh?

 

[Root of Jesse]

And yet, that is a tenant of this area. So unless you agree to it, you cannot debate here.



And I ain't?



Do you agree to these:

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   a. The doctrine of the Trinity
   b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
8. Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not. For more information, see Fundamentalism.

Link

Unless you agree to these, you are not a Fundamentalist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Who wrote that? Who says that Catholics cannot be fundamentalist? And yes, I agree with all of the 8 items you posted. I disagree that # 3 = "Sola Scriptura", so until "aka-"Sola Scriptura", I agree with # 3.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lets look at what you and all Catholics hold so dear.

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

I have "The New Analytical Greek Lexicon." On page 123, it lists "eite" as a conjunction. (#1535) And the definition this book gives is "whether."

I also have a Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible, by Jay P. Green, and the translation given is this:

""eite dia logou eite di epistolhV hmwn." -2 Thes. 2:15

eite prior to "by word" and eite prior to "by an epistle of us," means the same thing.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, not Strongs Concordance, gives the definition "whether." (p. 123, eite, conj., whether)

Which means, that Paul told the Thessalonian church that they should hold to the tradition they were taught, whether it is in word, (or) whether it was by epistle. Since we do not have Paul's words, what we have to follow is his epistle.

Using the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Gerhard Kittel.

I have this set of books in my personal collection. They were a gift from a friend to further my seminary studies. Well for your own personal information, in Volume II, page 146, Prof. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, writes the passage concerning the Greek word: didaskw.

didaskw
Section 3: The didaskein of Early Christianity:

;In a setting where scripture was not known, didaskein ta peri tou Insou would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the early community and in dealings with the Jews. Thus Paul speaks of didaskein only with reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21)[1] and in the sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile congregations proof from scripture was an indispensable weapon against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the Galatian church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches themselves. When Paul in Rom. 12:7 summons the didaskwn, to serve en th didaskalia of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from scripture directions for Christian living,[2] and h admonishes them to place their better knowledge wholly in the service of the congregation

On page 172, concerning paradosiV" (tradition) Prof. Friedrich Buchsel writes:
paradosiV

In the NT this meanstradition only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Josephus and in Greek generally, though less common than in the other sense.

• In the disputation in Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the paradosiV twn presbutepwn,Mk. 7:3,5 (Mt. 15:2). He also speaks of the paradosiV twn anqrwpwnin Mk. 7:8 or umwn in v. 9, Mt. 15:3,6 The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Even Philo claimed piety for such tradition. The Sadducees rejected it. So did Jesus. He agreed with the Pharisees that the good demanded obedience to Gods commandment. As He saw it, however, men could not add to this commandment, since they were too seriously in conflict with God. Jesus did not argue for freedom in attacking tradition. His service of God, however, was not legalistic, and therefore He would not add to the commands of God. In Gal. 1:14 the paradoseiV are Jewish tradition generally, both written and verbal.

For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-11), and he demands that the churches should keep it, since salvation depends on it (1 Cor. 15:2). He sees no antithesis between pneumatic piety and the high estimation of tradition.[3] The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down (1 Cor. 15:3), and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8). [emphasis mine] It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition and Paul champions it. Pauls tradition agrees with that Jesus rejection, since they both are opposed to human tradition. Pauls use of paradosiV and paradounai rests on the Jewish usage, and agrees with that of the Mysteries to the extent that this agrees with Jewish usage.

[1] The last passage is put here because that edidacqhte and the accompanying hkousate point to a mediation of the knowledge that alhqeia is en tw Insou, this being the basis of the obligation to walk in purity.

[2] The context demands an interpretation of didaskein in relation to the up building of the life of the community rather than its faith.

[3] F. Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 275 ff.

Continued...

tl;dr

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lord and unites with Him. The choice of kurioV shows that the one who stands in Him is determined by Him and receives from Him the standing which is given to him as faith by God’s saving work in Jesus Christ; he now has to listen to the Lord and follow Him. sthkete en kuriw might thus be translated: “Stand in obedience to the Lord” 1 Th. 3:7f. shows plainly that the comforted life and work of Paul and his companions depend on this standing in the Lord…Because the Lord gives freedom from the destructive powers of sin, law, and death, because faith in the promise of the Word grasps and attains this freedom, the Galatians are admonished: eh eleuqeria huaV CpistoV hleuqepwsen: sthkete oun kai palin zugw douleiaV enecesqhte,. All these connections must be taken into account when we read in 2 Th. 2:15: sthkete kai kpateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte,”

In other words:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast (in the faith of the Lord), and hold on to (lay grasp of) the traditions (scriptures) which ye have been taught (through the teaching of Paul), whether by word (again Paul’s spoken teachings (scriptures)), or (whether) by our (written) epistle. –2 Th. 2:15

Paul was admonishing them to stand fast in their faith in the Lord that they had been taught by him whether it is in the words of scripture or in the letter (epistle). It made no difference for both were equal.

There it is, plain and simple. Like it or not, believe it or not. Paul gave the church at Thessalonica the option of standing fast in the faith of the Lord by using either his teaching from scriptures (words) or by using the epistle he wrote. And since we don’t have his words other than what is recorded in the Bible, that is what we are to follow now, his epistle or written word.

And in light of what is said about Paul’s view of the traditions of men and: “A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8) (Kittel’s, Vol. II, p. 172)

For here we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

So I doubt very highly that the tradition Paul thought of and spoke of, and the tradition that you esteem so very much, are one in the same. I have showed you from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, what a word means.

Now I've dissected 2 Th. 2:15 from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. If you don't believe that, then I don't know what else can be said. Seems to me, that your being dogmatic in following after the "paradosiV twn anqrwpwn."

Now I'’ve said my piece and proved my point, accept it or not, believe it or not, it really makes no difference to me. I'’m going to stand fast in the faith of the Lord through His scriptures (words).


All reference work herein are from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” By: Gerhard Kittel, Editor; Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 2006; Volumes II, pp. 146, 172; III, pp.911-912; IV, pp.101-102; VII, pp. 637-638.

God Bless

Till all are one.

tl;dr

 

[Root of Jesse]

What do the scriptures say?

“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.” –Psa. 118:8-9

“Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the Lord for ever.” –Isa. 26:3-4

“Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” –Jer. 17:7

Jesus plainly taught that the traditions of men were not authoritative. (Mk. 7, Mt. 15:3-20)

Paul also said:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” –1 Tim. 1:4

I would rather place my trust and faith in the Lord and his written word as my final authority before any person, or tradition. For as scriptures say:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” –2 Tim. 3: 15-17

Men and tradition become twisted, vain and corrupted, but the word of God stands sure, true, and it will never lead one astray.

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received from your fathers.” –1 Pet. 1:18

“Seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” –Isa. 34:16

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” – Isa. 55:11

“The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?” –Jer. 8:9

And concerning the ECF's, I have been in a two year study on textual criticism.

I found this:

"The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books,27 and different passages are combined.28

It is possible that, in some cases, the writers do not intend to quote, but merely to use the words loosely by way of allusion. But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a single instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted.

Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων.

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting διαμερισμόν "division" for μάχαιραν "a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel passage in Matt. 10:34.29

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1:13, οἳ ἐγεννήθησαν, "which were born." The correct reading, he maintains, is ὃς̀ ἐγεννήθη, "where was born," and the reference is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows.

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3:6, the words, "because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omitting it."

1. For example, see Ignatius, Magn. X, ὑπέρθεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μεταβὰλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην ὅς ἐστιν ̓Ιησοῦς Χριστός, "Put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new leaven which is Jesus Christ." Compare 1 Cor. 5:7. Ignatius to Polycarp, I, πάντων ἀνέχου ἐν ἀγάπῃ, "Suffer all in love." Compare Eph. 4:2. Ignatius to Polycarp, II, φρόνιμος γίνου ὡς ὁ ὄφις ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἀκέραιος εἰσαεὶ ὡς ἡ περιστερά, "Become thou prudent as the serpent in all things, and forever guileless as the dove." Compare Matt. x. 16.
2. Thus Ignatius, Philad. VII, (τὸ πνεῦμα) οἶδεν γὰρ πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει, "It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and searcheth out the hidden things." Here John 3:8 and 1 Cor. 2:10 are blended. Polycarp to the Philippians, I, ὃν ἥγειρεν ὁ θεὸς λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ ᾅδου· εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ εἰς ἢ πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν. The quotation from Acts 2:24 is inexact, "Whom God raisedup, having loosed the pains of Hades." With this are combined a loose quotation from 1 Pet. 1:8, "In whom, not having seen, ye believe with joy unspeakable and full of glory"; also an adaptation of 1 Pet. 1:12, "into which many desire to enter."
3. Tert. Adv. Marc. IV, 2.

A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, Chapter IV, Patristic Quotations

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

tl;dr My commentaries beat your commentaries.

 

[DeaconDean]

Who wrote that? Who says that Catholics cannot be fundamentalist? And yes, I agree with all of the 8 items you posted. I disagree that # 3 = "Sola Scriptura", so until "aka-"Sola Scriptura", I agree with # 3.

Since you do not agree with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", that is a tenant of Fundamentalism, you sir, should not be debating here.

Since Catholicism does not agree on sola scriptura, since its:

"unbiblical. Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible."

A tenant of Catholicism is "Mary Dispenser of Grace" is just as unbiblical.

As a matter of fact, please show me in scripture where the word "trinity" is used.

Yet that is a tenant of Christianity.

Just because something is not mentioned by name, i.e.: sola scriptura, does not mean it isn't taught in scripture, i.e.: trinity.

My commentaries beat your commentaries.

Funny, you haven't offered one single commentary.

I have proven your points wrong.

Your argument here has been defeated.

Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not.

In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against its theology...Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

Link

The link above clearly states that a "Fundamentalist" comes from a number of "Protestant" groups. Catholicism is not a Protestant group.

It also states that you must be member of this Faith group in order to debate here.

Until you agree with "sola scriptura", a tenant of Fundamentalism, I must ask nicely, for you to cease and desist debating here.

Your faith icon clearly shows your Catholic, not Fundamentalist!

God Bless

Till all are one.