Does Luke 1:34 prove the Perpetual Virginity?

A part of an article from Catholic Answers gives this interpretation:

In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

My initial response is, it does not necessarily follow. Why? If Mary had vowed lifelong virginity she would not have married Joseph in the first place. After all, their marriage will only raise the risk of breaking that vow (that is if Mary did make a vow). Unless either spouse is barren (as in the case of Elizabeth in verse 7) no Jewish couple would marry just for companionship or financial stability. Before Gabriel spoke to either couple, neither of them knew that Mary would bear the Messiah. Therefore, Luke 1:34 should be understood in a way that is different from the Roman Catholic interpretation.

The word "know" means sexual relation in this context. Its Greek word, ginosko, is a verb and is in the present tense. Another rendition of the verse is "I am not knowing a man". So presently, Mary is not having any sexual relations with a man. If it were to support the Roman Catholics it should have said, "I will not know a man", rather than "I know not a man." Such has to be clearly written in relation to the prophecy in the Old Testament that a virgin shall be with child. The account of Luke limits itself on this prophecy and does not make any implication about Mary.

Furthermore, although Gabriel's message is in the future tense (1:31, you will be with child), the conception was immediate. Elizabeth is six months pregnant when Gabriel appeared to Mary (Luke 1:36). Mary rushed to Elizabeth in Judea (1:39), stayed with her for 3 months (1:56), and left just before the birth of John the Baptist (1:57). So if the time lapsed between Gabriel's appearance to Mary and the birth of John the Baptist is 3 months, we can conclude that Mary's question (how can this be...?) is an indication that the conception is immediate and not that she made a vow of virginity.

Just like Zechariah who asked how can Elizabeth become pregnant when they are both old (1:18), Mary's question comes from a normal biological means of conception in which a man and a woman should have sexual relations for the woman to bear a child. Therefore, Mary's question in Luke 1:34 is not coming from an idea that she made a vow of virginity.

A Very Disturbing Exaltation of Mary

Roman Catholics assert with all sincerity that they do not worship Mary. Despite of the contents of the prayers, titles (Mother of God, Queen of Heaven), and teachings, Roman Catholics still deny that they are treating Mary like a god.

In my previous article, "The Veneration of Saints Controversy", we noted two prayers from Roman Catholic saints that exalts Mary beyond the claim that it is only veneration. Now in this article we will present a "veneration" of Mary that is... well... uhm... Why don't you just read it for yourself by clicking here.

It is a writing of St. Bonaventure titled The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We won't discuss every paragraph but we will show here some which I find disturbing:

PSALM 31
Blessed are they whose hearts love thee, O Virgin Mary: their sins will be mercifully washed away by thee. Holy, chaste, and flowering are thy breasts: which blossomed into the flower of eternal greenness. The beauty of thy grace will never see corruption: and the grace of thy countenance will never fade. Blessed art thou, O sublime Rod of Jesse: for thou hast raised thyself unto Him who sits in the highest. O Virgin Queen, thou thyself art the way by which salvation from on high hath visited us. Glory be to the Father, etc.

Notice the highlighted portion. Mary will wash away our sins? I don't think I even need to quote from the Bible to convince you that only Christ can wash away our sins.

PSALM 42
Judge me, O Lady, and discern my cause from the perverse nation: from the malignant serpent and the pestiferous dragon deliver me. Let thy holy fecundity scatter him: let thy blessed virginity bruise his head. Let thy holy prayers strengthen us against him: let thy merits put to nought his strength. Send the persecutor of my soul into the abyss: let the infernal pit swallow him alive. But I and my soul will bless thy name in the land of my captivity: and I will glorify thee forever and ever. Glory be to the Father, etc.

I thought God will punish the wicked.

PSALM 46 All ye nations, clap your hands: sing in jubilee to the glorious Virgin. For she is the gate of life, the door of salvation, and the way of our reconciliation. The hope of the penitent: the comfort of those that weep: the blessed peace of hearts, and their salvation. Have mercy on me, O Lady, have mercy on me: for thou art the light and the hope of all who trust in thee. By thy salutary fecundity let it please thee: that pardon of my sins may be granted unto me. Glory be to the Father, etc.

Doesn't the highlighted ones belongs to Christ?

PSALM 109 The Lord said to Our Lady: Sit at my right hand, O my Mother! Goodness and sanctity have pleased thee: therefore thou shalt reign with me forever. The crown of immortality is on thy holy head: whose brightness and glory shall not be extinguished. Have mercy on us, O Lady, mother of light and splendor: enlighten us, O Lady of truth and virtue. From thy treasures pour into us the wisdom of God: and the understanding of prudence, and the model of discipline. Glory be to the Father, etc.

Do we even need to discuss the highlighted?

PSALM 118F
How have I loved thy law, O Lady: it is forever in my sight. The abundance of thy sweetnesses has drawn my heart out of me: and my flesh hath wonderfully rejoiced in thee. How sweet to sinners are thy words, O Lady: above all melody thy refection is sweet to my mouth. Thy word is a light to my steps: and an ineffable illumination to my paths. How often have sinners of hell exasperated me, because I would not stray from thy charity: but in thee, O Lady have I hoped. Glory be to the Father, etc.

Mary has laws?

PSALM 123
Unless our Lady was in us: many dangers would have overtaken us. O Virgin, be our defender: and a propitious advocate before God. Show us, O Lady, thy mercy: and strengthen us in thy holy service. Let the holy angels bless thee in Heaven: let all men bless thee upon earth. Give not up to the beasts the souls of them that trust in thee: let not the mouths of them that sing to thee be closed. Glory be to the Father, etc.

I thought Mary's mediatorship is not on equal terms with Christ's?

PSALM 148
Let us praise Our Lady in the heavens: glorify her in the highest. Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea. Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets. Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers. Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly dwellers. Glory be to the Father, etc.

If you still think the highlighted ones do not imply worship then I'm sorry to say that you have been brainwashed enough to lose the ability to distinguish worship from veneration.

In case you haven't noticed, the psalter has parallelisms with the book of Psalms in the Bible. Take for instance paragraph 41:

As the hart longs for the water-brooks, so doth my soul pine for thy love. For thou art the mother of my life: and the sublime repairer of my flesh. For thou art the feeder of the Savior of my soul: the beginning and the end of all my salvation. Hear me, O Lady, let my stains be cleansed: enlighten me, O Lady, that my darkness may be illuminated. Let my tepidity be enkindled by thy love: let my torpor be expelled by thy grace. Glory be to the Father, etc.

Compare it with Psalm 42:1-2 of the Bible:

As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?

What is this telling us? Any acknowledgment given to God as stated in the book of Psalms is also given to Mary in the psalter of St. Bonaventure. I'm sure that there are paragraphs which you find disturbing and which you could give more comments than mine. The bottomline is, this psalter goes way beyond veneration. Can the Roman Catholics say they are not worshiping Mary?

Sadly, there will be Roman Catholic apologists who would say something like St. Bonaventure isn't infallible and his writings is not authoritative because he doesn't represent the Magisterium. With this kind of reasoning it would appear that the Roman Catholic Church and its constituents can err as much as she likes and still be called "infallible".

A Really Bad Refutation of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17

In my previous article we began to write response from a local Roman Catholic Apologist blogger, Mr. Isahel Alfonso, who is known as a "Catholic Faith Defender" (CFD). We continue to write responses to his articles and we will discuss on how he refutes the Protestant's interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. The article can be read by clicking here.

Protestants and Evangelicals do indeed refer to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to prove the doctrine of Scripture alone. But before we give our interpretation of the verse, let's first refute the arguments of this Catholic Faith Defender (his words are in red).

In 2 Timothy 3:15 it states “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Whose infancy? Timothy’s infancy, to which the Letter of Paul is address, the very first word of the New Testament was written at 50-52 A.D (Kummel & Schmid) and during Timothy’s infancy the only available Scripture is the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet written. When Paul said “All Scripture is inspired” he was referring to the Old Testament, if Sola Scriptura is true then we don’t need the New Testament since 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is referring to the Old Testament which is absurd.

What is absurd is how he understands the portion which says "All Scriptures". Paul here is making reference to all Scriptures in general and not necessarily the Old Testament alone. He is asserting the principle that there is inspiration by God to all Scriptures. He is not limiting it to the Old Testament alone.

The same goes in Romans 3:23 wherein it says "all have sinned". Paul is not saying that the sinners are only those during his time and the past. If we were to apply CFD's argument, it is really absurd to say that those who sinned were during those in the past and in his time and not to those after his time.

Consequently, if we were to apply CFD's argument that "all Scriptures" refers only to the Old Testament, then is he actually saying that the New Testament books are not inspired? I sincerely hope not but that's how his argument goes.

Scripture is useful but not sufficient because we also need an infallible interpreter the church.

And how do we know that the church is infallible? Furthermore, with all the churches today claiming to be of God's how does a person pick the right one?

Secondly they argued that “That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” is an explicit proof text that all we need is the Bible, no church, no tradition just Bible alone! Wrong again! It states man of God may be perfect, who is the man of God? Timothy! What is a man of God? Minister of Christ! 1 Timothy 6:11, not all of us is a minister/pastor/priest of Christ, may be perfect scripture equips a man of God in his ministry to preach and instruct.

Let's test CFD's consistency on this one. If the term man of God refers to just ministers of Christ (minister/pastor/priest as he says) then let's ask CFD if he is a priest? His profile doesn't say so but why is he arguing the Scriptures with his opponents? If he is not a man of God why does he use the Scripture to proclaim the teachings which he claims are true? Shouldn't this be a job of his priest and not him?

Also, he quotes 1st Timothy 6:11 to say that the man of God is a minister. 1st Timoty 6:11 states that the man of God should pursue "righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness". Is CFD implying that those who are NOT men of God (minister/pastor/priest as per his definition) should NOT pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness? Do note that CFD limits man of God as ministers. So those who are not ministers should NOT do these things (that is if we follow CFD's argument).

When Paul refers to man of God it refers to all believers. 1st Peter 2:9 says: But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (NIV). Of course there are duties of a pastor that cannot be done by members, but upholding and preaching the gospel is for all believers.

And lastly furnished to all good work, the Greek word Exartizo also translated as fully equipped or thoroughly furnished does not connote sufficiency because the man of God must also be taught to correctly use the scripture, for instance a neophyte surgeon if fully equipped with surgical instruments to carry out an operation however it is not enough the neophyte must also observed and learn the techniques and skills of his superiors otherwise the surgical instruments is useless. The man of God must learn from the church how to use correctly the scripture otherwise the Bible will be virtually useless to him.

There is no problem with the church teaching her members on how to read the Scriptures. It is the duty of church after all to teach. But when you say the Scriptures are sufficient to thoroughly equip the man of God, you will not require another rule of faith. The more appropriate illustration is a well of water in a certain city. If one were to say that this well is the only source of water that can quench a man's thirst, then it is refuted when another well of water is found. Likewise, if we say Scriptures are sufficient to be the only source of God's teachings on faith and morals, then the only way to refute this is to present another source of God's teachings. If the Scriptures is not complete to function as the only rule of faith and morals, then Paul should have said that "the man of God is partially perfect, partially furnished to some good works".

To end this rebuttal, we think it would be best to give the appropriate interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. We will do it by refuting a certain portion of CFD's article which we skipped:

God breathed simply means that Scripture has Divine authorship not sole authorship. Protestants argued that this passage states “profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct justice” which means that Scripture is materially sufficient to do these task therefore we no longer need the authority of the Church because Scripture has everything. The Greek word ophelimos (profitable) in verse 16 means useful not sufficient, which connotes that it is a tool used to teach, reprove, correct and instruct injustice.

Noticed that CFD separated verse 16 from 17. You need both to understand how the Scripture is sufficient.

When Paul said that the Scriptures are God-breathed (theopneustos) or inspired, it means as if God is communicating to us. In verse 16, Paul tells this quality of the Scriptures. Man has nothing to do in giving inspiration and authority to Scriptures. It is all God's work.

Since inspiration came from God it becomes profitable for teaching, reproving, correcting, and training in righteousness. Yes, it says profitable, so where does it say sufficient? It is implied on the next verse: the man of God becomes thoroughly equipped to do all good works. Paul here did not include any other source of teachings that will make a man thoroughly equipped, he only mentioned Scriptures. As mentioned earlier, if Scriptures are not sufficient then Paul should have said "the man of God is partially perfect, partially furnished to some good works". Thank God it isn't written that way.

To deny the Scriptures are not sufficient to function as the only source of faith and morals would mean God did not do a good job of inspiring it.

Response to Catholic Faith Defender's Isahel Alfonso on the Mother of God Syllogisms

One of the Roman Catholic apologetic groups in the Philippines has read the articles in this blog and gave a counterargument in their blog. In fact, it has responded to two of the articles here. You can read their response in this site.

We shall be providing a rebuttal to their most recent response first. We won't exhaustively give a rebuttal to all their counterarguments but only the significant ones. The words of Catholic Faith Defender are in red.

Jesus Divine nature did not originate from Mary but since Jesus is inseparable with his Divine nature then we can say that Mary is the mother of God.

This is what the Roman Catholics are asserting. However, this contains problems that we will show later on. While it's true that both divine and human natures are inseparable in Christ, the two are nevertheless can be distinguished when explaining certain things which Christ experienced.

The Protestant position is truly similar with the heresy of Nestorianism. First and foremost Mary gave birth to a person not to a nature and Christ person is a divine person since Mary gave birth to a person and the person is divine ergo Mary is the mother of God! Where do you find in the Bible that Mary only gave birth to the human aspects of Christ? Or where do you find in the Bible that Mary gave birth to nature not a person? Chapter and verse please.

Nobody asserted that Mary gave birth to a nature. What has been asserted is that Mary is the mother only of what is human in Christ. The Roman Catholic tendency is to say Mary is the mother of a person who is Christ. What the Roman Catholics do not want to do is to distinguish the natures that explains how Christ functioned in the world.

The statement from Catholic answers is consistent with the doctrine of communication of idioms, incarnation and hypostatic union. Good that Protestants agree that the two natures of Christ are inseparable! That’s why we say “Christ was born” “Christ suffered” “Christ Died” and “Christ performed miracles” etc. because of the inseparability of his Human and Divine nature in which his actions either a characteristics of Divine or Human nature is performed, done and predicated to the person of Christ not to his nature that’s we don’t say “Christ human nature was born” “Christ human nature suffered” “Christ human nature died” and “Christ divine nature performed miracles” such statements are absurd and inconsistent with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Again, nobody is asserting that Christ's nature performed this and that. What is being asserted is the reason why Christ was able to do this and that. Christ was born because he has a human nature. Christ performed miracles because of his divine nature. You cannot say Mary gave birth to God no more than your illustration that Diane gave birth to a nurse. Since Mary cannot give birth to God, she can give birth to a person only if that person will possess a human nature. So Mary is the mother of Christ by virtue of humanity.

Can you cite instances in the Bible wherein such action of Christ is only attributed to his human or divine nature not to the person of Christ?

I don't know what this Roman Catholic apologist is thinking. If he comes across with those who oppose the deity of Christ he would be eating his words. But to provide the verse:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— Hebrews 2:14

In the context of Incarnation and Hypostatic union no distinction existed since it is the person of Christ that performs the action not his natures.

It is never a Catholic position to limit one action of Christ to one of his nature alone rather we believed that what ever Christ did was done by the Person of Christ not his nature.

The Roman Catholic apologist goes on to say that the person of Christ experienced temptation, hunger, weariness, and death. He even reiterates that that the human nature did not experience these but the person.

We have already said: What is being asserted is the reason why Christ was able to do this and that. Well, if he keeps on shouting "person" without making a distinction of the two natures, then I wonder how will he fair out when he answers the argument of the religions who deny the deity of Christ:

1. Humans get tempted. Christ isn't God because he was tempted.
2. Humans get hungry. Christ isn't God because he got hungry.
3. Humans sleep. Christ isn't God because he fell asleep.
4. Humans die. Christ isn't God because he died.

This is one of the reasons why we have to distinguish the two natures. This is one of the reasons why we have to say "the person of Christ experienced such because of his human nature".

Therefore, Mary is the mother of Christ by virtue of humanity.

Again since St. Augustine is not the Church Magisterium I am not obliged to defend him, but since you quoted Catholic saints allow me to quote great saints and church fathers that unanimously believed and defend that Mary is truly the mother of God.

For the benefit of the Evangelicals who do not know how the argument goes, we will explain the double standard employed by the Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics quotes Evangelicals scholars and even the Reformers (Luther, Wesley etc.) who has a view of certain doctrines favorable to Roman Catholics. If the Evangelicals say that these Evangelical scholars and Reformers isn't infallible nor the basis of our faith, the Roman Catholics would assert that we are not being consistent or much worse, we are not united.

We have a quote from Augustine whom Roman Catholics love as their predecessor church father. Can we say that the Church of Rome isn't united because of this different view? Our Roman Catholic apologist contender quoted several church fathers that is in contradiction Augustine's view. What did he first reasoned out? Augustine is not the Magisterium. In other words, Augustine isn't infallible. The same reason we give to our scholars and reformers.

A taste of their own medicine.

Matthew 16:18 - Is Peter a Pope?

This the main verse which the Church of Rome appeal to in support in the office of the Papacy. Let me present the verses line by line (from the New American Bible):

13 - When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi - he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 -They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 - He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 - Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17 -Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 -And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld (Hell) shall not prevail against it.

19 -I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

20 - Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Notice that the context started with Christ asking His disciples on His identity (13). Peter confesses that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God (16). The context ends with Christ instructing His disciple not to tell anyone that He is the Messiah (20). The main message to this context therefore is Christ being the Messiah. You did not see Christ appointing Peter as his vicar or pope.

We shall discuss two crucial verses in the text which the Roman Catholics often quote.

Verse 18

The main message does not change when Christ said "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". When Peter confessed that Christ was the Messiah, it is through this confession that every believing one is made part of the church. 1st John 5 says: Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (NIV). And we all know that the church is all those with this confession are gathered together under the dominion of Christ.

Furthermore the Greek Manuscript distinguishes Peter and the rock: You are Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church. Although petros can be translated in English as "rock," petra is an even massive rock (bedrock) which is of course larger than petros. It is on this petra, which is the confession of faith, that the church is built. Christ did not say, upon you Peter I will build my church.

Verse 19

The keys mentioned in verse 19 are not for Peter alone. The delegation of authority to bind and loose are given to the other disciples in Matthew 18:18. Those who think that these are some special keys given only to Peter will have a hard time looking in the Bible for the actual giving of these so-called special keys. Do note that in verse 19 it started with "I will give you" and not "I now give you". As to when the so-called special keys were given, it is for the Roman Catholics to show. Roman Catholics would relate Isaiah 22:22 with Matthew 16:19 to prove that Peter has the special keys. But if we read Revelations 3:7 we find Christ has the keys.

Overall, the message in Matthew 16:13-20 focuses on Christ and not on Peter. It does not give a clear teaching on the office of the Papacy.

Objections answered

Of course the Roman Catholics are not without objections. Here are the most frequent counterarguments that you will hear (and our responses to such):

1. Petros and Petra have the same meaning, the only difference is that Petros is masculine while Petra is feminine. Christ cannot call Simon as Petra since Simon is a man.

Then why didn't Christ just state any of the following to avoid confusion:

- You are Petros and upon you I will build my church.
- You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build my church.

Furthermore, we read in 1st Corinthians 10:4: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ. Shouldn't we be using Petros for the male Christ in this verse?

Greek lexicons distinguish Petra from Petros wherein Petra is bigger than Petros. Click here to see the entry on Vine's Expository Dictionary on Petra.

2. Christ spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for rock is Kepha, and Peter is called Cephas (which is Aramaic) in other verses in the Bible. Therefore, the statement could have read in Aramaic: you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.

Unfortunately this is pure speculation and not to mention wishful thinking. The writers of the New Testament were inspired by God to write it in Greek language. Therefore, it is the rules of Greek words and grammar that we should follow. For the Roman Catholics to assert their Aramaic rendition is true, they should present credible documentary evidences and not just simply equate the Greek language with the Aramaic language. Furthermore, the Roman Catholics would also have to contend with another possible Aramaic rendition: you are Kepha and upon this Minrah I will build my church.

It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholics claim infallibility of their Magisterium in determining the canon of Scripture yet appeals to an unknown and unverified Aramaic equivalent of the book of Matthew.

3. If Peter were to be a stone or smaller than the Rock, the Greek word lithos should be used.

This is a childish argument. We already have pointed out that Petra is bigger than Petros and so we don't need to make Petros any smaller.

4. There are Protestant scholars who identify Peter as the rock.

Sadly, this is true. Fortunately, none of them would agree that Matthew 16:18 proves the office of the Papacy. Some of them even state that this only means the commissioning of Peter in preaching the gospel.

Quoting from these Protestant scholars doesn't prove the Roman Catholics' case. In my previous article, Church Fathers that should have been declared Anathema, it quotes certain church fathers who do not identify Peter as the Rock. Yet no Roman Catholic would even consider these church fathers' position.

2nd Thessalonians 2:15 - Oral and Written Traditions?

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. New American Bible

This is one of the verses Roman Catholics use against Sola Scriptura. Protestants have no problem adhering to traditions because this only means God's teachings. But Protestants follow the traditions written in the Bible. However, Roman Catholics claim that there are oral traditions that every Christian should follow. Catholic Answers has this short Q&A about it:

Q: How do we know that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith?

A: The Bible does not claim to be the sole rule of faith. Paul wrote, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

These oral teachings and traditions have been handed down and entrusted to the Church, and they remain as much a part of the full Christian faith as the Bible. To ignore them is no less a tragedy than to ignore the Bible.

How do Protestants respond to this interpretation? It would help if we rephrase the verse the way the Roman Catholics want it to mean (pay close attention to the colored word):

Hold on to oral traditions and written traditions that you were taught.

Now compare this with how the verse is actually rendered, again pay close attention to the colored words:

...hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Does the verse say hold on to oral traditions and written traditions? No! Notice the colored words above. What is being distinguished? It's not the tradition but the manner of delivery of the tradition. The same tradition is taught in two different methods, either by oral or written. Do notice that Paul used the conjunctions "either-or" (eite in Greek) to differentiate the manner of delivery and not the tradition. If it were to side with the Roman Catholic position then the conjunction "and" (kai in Greek) should have been used.

Here is a challenge to every Roman Catholic using this verse to discredit Sola Scriptura:

Enumerate all the oral traditions which are not found in the Bible.

The parameters are:

1. The oral traditions originated from the apostles beyond reasonable doubt.
2. It affects salvation and thus all Christians should believe it.

The parameters are necessary because if the oral traditions did not come from the apostles then why believe it. And even if it did come from the apostles but will not affect your salvation if you reject it then it is useless.

Therefore, granting all Roman Catholic doctrines are true, Purgatory is out, Immaculate Conception is out, Eucharist is out etc., because Roman Catholics claim that these have biblical basis. You will not find one that will overcome our challenge.

Bottomline: 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 is only stating that God's teaching (traditions) are transmitted thru oral and written means.