So why are they concerned in 6:9 about what's going on on earth, then?
Sure. They are in Heaven, and simply ask God, not anyone else, when judgment will come. You simply cannot get prayer to created beings in Heaven out of this, and it makes you look careless or desperate, which is understandable.
And you only know this because of writers from the 2nd century and later who talked about it, so why are you implicitly citing them but then arguing they're irrelevant when they don't support your position?
"Why?" For the same reason we can invoke the Jews by whom we have out OT texts and yet reject their conclusions on them. Because it is one thing to pass on copies of Scripture, and it is another to not be consistent with it. And have a vast multiplicity of Biblical mss testifying against fabrication.
And as Scripture is the only substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God then that must be the standard, as it became as it was written.
Moreover, Rome judges the so-called early church fathers more than they judge here, and does not concur with all they wrote, nor are they in 100% concord with each others.
Well, Paul does command Christians to hold to the traditions he taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:15,
Another fallacy. A evangelical preacher can also enjoin obedience to his oral preaching, under the premise that it is Scriptural, and the Holy Spirit commends thoser lovers of Truth who subjected his preaching to testing by Scripture.
However, Paul also could preach as wholly inspired of God, and also could provide new revelation, neither of which even Rome claims to do. Thus obedience to Paul is not the same things as obedience to Rome.
In addition, Paul's "traditions" were that of known contemporary preaching, not anything like requiring belief in an even over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was/us so lacking in early testimony (where it ought to be found) that Rome's own scholars were against it being made binding belief.
Furthermore, the evidence that anything called the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written down, and Rome cannot tell us what they traditions were that Paul referred to, while it is because of Scripture that we know he did.
and he also commands obedience to church authorities
And to civil authorities as well, but which in both cases is always conditional upon absence of real conflict with Scripture.
But apart from tradition, there are various references to purgatorial fire and purification in the NT,
Extrapolating Purgatory out of "purgatorial fire" is also desperate, as it does not teach. Go ahead and try if you want.
as well as references to purgatory in the books of the OT that the radical Reformers
Wrong again, there are no references to purgatory in the deuteros 2Mac does not teach it, nor praying to created beings in Heaven.
arbitrarily excluded because they incorrectly assumed the Greek manuscript tradition was less authentic than the Hebrew manuscript tradition (something not even Protestant scholars would maintain today).
Also wrong: it was far from arbitrarily, but had significant Catholic support, and the deuteros was subject to doubts and disagreements early one and right into Tren t. Which provided the first indisputable complete canon of Catholics, after the death of Luther.
In addition, the early LXX did not contain these books, which were a latter addition to it.
Thank you for clarifying where you were disagreeing with me. But where does Scripture say this is an issue? If asking assistance from created beings is an issue, why does Paul urge Timothy that requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for everyone?--was not Timothy a created being? I don't see how being alive or dead changes one's status as a created being.
Sure. They are in Heaven, and simply ask God, not anyone else, when judgment will come.
Why would they ask God this if they weren't already aware of what was going on on earth and concerned about it? How did they become aware of it? And no, I'm not being careless or desperate, I'm trying to get people to read the text and think through the issues more closely.
"Why?" For the same reason we can invoke the Jews by whom we have out OT texts and yet reject their conclusions on them. Because it is one thing to pass on copies of Scripture, and it is another to not be consistent with it. And have a vast multiplicity of Biblical mss testifying against fabrication.
And as Scripture is the only substantive body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God then that must be the standard, as it became as it was written.
Moreover, Rome judges the so-called early church fathers more than they judge here, and does not concur with all they wrote, nor are they in 100% concord with each others.
Nobody has pointed out any inconsistencies between Catholicism and Scripture so far in the posts I've read. Quite the opposite, it was conceded earlier that there is no Scriptural prohibition against asking the faithful departed to pray for us. The arguments have been over how to interpet what Scripture says, not over any specific prohibition. And here you are conceding that we are dependent on the Church Fathers for our NT manuscripts and our knowledge of the 1st century. I agree that the Church Fathers don't have the 100% accuracy of Scripture, but the point is, you don't even have Scripture without them, so Sola Scriptura isn't a consistent position.
Another fallacy. A evangelical preacher can also enjoin obedience to his oral preaching, under the premise that it is Scriptural, and the Holy Spirit commends thoser lovers of Truth who subjected his preaching to testing by Scripture.
However, Paul also could preach as wholly inspired of God, and also could provide new revelation, neither of which even Rome claims to do. Thus obedience to Paul is not the same things as obedience to Rome.
In addition, Paul's "traditions" were that of known contemporary preaching, not anything like requiring belief in an even over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, and which was/us so lacking in early testimony (where it ought to be found) that Rome's own scholars were against it being made binding belief.
Furthermore, the evidence that anything called the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written down, and Rome cannot tell us what they traditions were that Paul referred to, while it is because of Scripture that we know he did.
The traditions Paul was referring to were written down by the post-NT writers. Some were recorded even within the NT, as with the early Christian creeds Paul occasionally quotes. I do agree that we must test traditions against Scripture and that Rome is not free to make up new revelations which do not have early and widespread historical attestation.
And to civil authorities as well, but which in both cases is always conditional upon absence of real conflict with Scripture.
We agree on this.
Extrapolating Purgatory out of "purgatorial fire" is also desperate, as it does not teach. Go ahead and try if you want.
Okay, I'll cite two verses in the NT. What does Paul mean by "one escaping through the flames" on the day of judgement in 1 Corinthians 3:15? And who are the "spirits of righteous men made perfect" in Hebrews 12:23?
Wrong again, there are no references to purgatory in the deuteros 2Mac does not teach it, nor praying to created beings in Heaven.
Why would you bother praying for the dead--which 2Mac does mention--if there were no purgatory?
On the canon, no, the Council of Trent was preceded by over 1,000 years--by the Synod of Hippo, for instance. And the books of the Apocrypha are found in the oldest surviving copies of the LXX. The theory that these were a later addition is not supported by the manuscripts we now have.
I think I've spent about half the day on this thread now, so I will need to pick this up another day if you're inclined. Thank you for the discussion.