"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.
This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.
In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.
The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.
The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.
Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.
Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.
First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?
Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.
How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.
If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Posts
231 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 231 of 231► 68 P: invoke texts for support which Rome has not infallibility defined.
D: All I have to do is obey the Church's teaching on interpreting Scripture. ...
Once again you simply ignore what i pointed out before, which that is your liberal scholars, even in your own stamped NAB, will claim to abide by these same general rules. If you are going to contend that your interpretation is right, then you need to first convert them, which have the stamp and far more weight than a lay Internet apologist. But the issue was brought up because what precisely constitutes Roman Catholic doctrine varies from RC to RC, including as to what is infallible, even while they boast of surety of doctrine.
P: But the answer is, again, warrant is by establishing truth claims after the method and manner of Scriptural ..."And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)
D: May we unpack this? Now, you read this as St. Paul reading the Scriptures ALONE.
But he is talking to the Thessalonians for the first time. He is explaining Jesus' Traditions. And he is Teaching how to find Jesus in the OT. This is classic, TRADITION, SCRIPTURE AND MAGISTERIUM.
No, that is evangelical exegesis, not channeling eons-old intangible, unverifiable oral tradition into dogma, which is assured to be infallible based upon fulfilling Rome's formula. Paul is “reasoning out of the Scriptures,” as we must, not Roman Tradition as your wresting of Paul's word would have it, and he evidences that he uses a kind of hermeneutic for texts that is taught in Scripture (versus Gnosticism, etc.), and we also used this Scripture-based tradition, and uphold the magisterium in so doing. But none of Paul's exegesis teaches the formulaic assured infallibility of the or a Roman church.
P: “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)
D: Same as above.
Same as above.
P: “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2)
D: This is a confirmation of MAGISTERIUM. It is about what they are teaching in the sight of God.
I would ask why it is that whenever you see teaching authority affirmed then you take one a giant leap and imagine this supports the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, but i know why you do, as Rome is all you see and cannot see that the clothes you attempt to dress him with do not fit him.
Of course this is speaking about the magisterium, but the context (something you often ignore) of these texts was the “method and manner of Scriptural corroboration and attestation that the claims of the Lord and teachings of the apostles had and have.” As said more than once, it is not the ability of the magisterium to speak some infallible truth, but the basis for it and for Rome's assertion that it is assuredly infallibility. By the apostolic manifestation of the truth we see that they reasoned out of the Scriptures, and noble souls tested their message by the Scriptures, and by this and the Scriptural attestation it affirms so it was established as from God.
P: "By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:7)
D: The Word of Truth is spoken. (Heb 13:7).
And the whole church went every where preaching the word, (Acts 8:4) and so do many of our own, but it is not assured that everyone who claims to be speaking the word of God is doing so, nor it is assured that the church is whenever it spoke/speaks on faith and morals, but we are assured that Scripture is the word of God (being established as such as hitherto described), even if the instruments of it were not assuredly infallible, and by it those who claim to be speaking the word are ultimately examined by on earth.
► 69 P: That Scripture was the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims can be abundantly substantiated. ... But what is not substantiated is that of asserting that the church magisterium will perpetually be infallible when speaking on faith and morals, ...
D: You never see them handing out Bibles. You find them explaining the Traditions of Jesus Christ with the authority of the infallible Church.
I am quite sure they would give out Bibles if they had the means then, over your objections, but explaining the Traditions of Jesus Christ does not contradict what i said, except that Scripture is what is assured tradition of the Lord Jesus, and the veracity and thus the authority of the church rests upon Scripture as it is wholly of God and thus infallible, and the church is not assuredly so, much less due to a formulaic assurance which does not rest upon the weight of Scripture determining its veracity.
The members of the church did were Scripture, but these additional writings that would be added to the canon were themselves dependent upon being in conformity and complementarity to that which was already established as Scripture, according to the Scriptural principal of progressive Divine revelation, and textual and supernatural means of establishment, versus being a formal project of Rome's magisterium, assuring that they were infallible due to her subject and scope-based formula.
D: Do you doubt the Holy Spirit can continue to guide the Church to the end of time?
Not at all, even though Rome much detours it, for God can do as He ever did, not only using a formal magisterium itself to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine,” in reliance upon the established word of the Scriptures, but also can raise up men who speak by Holy Spirit according to the Scriptures to reprove the formal magisterium when they seriously err — and presuming a formulaic infallibility is just that — and if they will not heed, at least preserve the faith among a remnant, and which is how the church began. And the true church itself only consists of true born again believers, being most essentially a spiritual entity, and which, while making up part of the visible church, are only a small part of the whole in which they exist in various parts and offices.
P: As for authority, your predecessors had the same problem with the Lord, as they, like you, presumed formal transference of office established infallible authority and authenticity (and had explicit basis for it, versus Rome), ...
D:Are you challenging that the Jews had a Tradition? Is Jesus testimony enough for you?
Matthew 23
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,...
After explicitly affirming that “the Lord required obedience to the scribes and the Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2), (under #7) and which the “explicit basis” above refers to, but making the critical distinction that this was not unconditional, or warrant implicit assent of faith, and after stating that “those who hold to SS may be said to also pass on 'traditions,'” you fail to comprehend that the problem is not that the Pharisees had authority based on what can be called “tradition,” but that it was a Scripture-based tradition, flowing from and being dependent upon what was written in the law concerning formal transference of office, and confirmed by Christ as to affirming their position, and the issue is that formal transference does not confer infallible authority and spiritual authenticity, which the Lord also clearly affirmed, but which Rome presumes. And thus her line of “unbroken” succession includes lost men who would not qualify even as church members, let alone pass the Scriptural requirements for leaders or even Peter. But as said, God can raise up such from stones.
70 ► D: As for the New Testament. Jesus did not write a word of Scripture. He established Tradition and His Traditions are infallible.
This also has been answered, but you continue to evidence a superficial reading of my response, and simply reassert your false premises that have been answered. Here it is true that Jesus Himself did not write Scripture, though that is irrelevant, as the issue is that the Holy Spirit who He was filled with and by Whom He spoke, also inspired the Scriptures. But as expressed before, (46) while a portion of Scriptures was first oral tradition, not all that is oral is of God, but the writings of Scripture are those which became established as being the wholly inspired part of tradition. And while the ground brings forth both wheat and tares, and humanity brings forth both good and bad people, you do not make both equal.
D: He taught His Apostles and disciples and the HS inspired them to preach and then, later, they began to write in order to confirm what they had spoken. The Holy Spirit inspired both the Teaching and the writing.
All this is true, but again, the only transcendent testable material medium that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God is the Scriptures, not Rome's self-proclaimed AIM.
P: The Roman Catholic response to the question, “By what authority do you declare what is or is not warranted?” is to assert the power of Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium, but which claim rests upon itself.
D: The claim rests upon the Word of God (1 Tim 3:15).
DM, you tried this one before, and was refuted, but as usually, you simply paste it again, but a verse that simply says the church supports the truth it is no more even close to proving this refers to Rome, or her type of assuredly infallible magisterium, than it was before, and it was never needed before. As such lack of actual support for what you actually need to prove shows, Rome's AIM rests upon what it proclaims of itself.
Scripture and history may be invoked to support it, ....
Certitude can be had by Scripture. But not by Scripture alone. It is evident, when looking out at Protestantism, that the fruit of that doctrine is not a good one.
You still do not know, or are willfully ignorant, of what “alone” refers to, and what it formally and materially provides, the latter being subject to it, while as for fruit of those who at least hold to the supremacy of Scripture and the evangelical gospel versus Rome, here again is a link.
P: James, the attempts to support Roman Catholic doctrine by Scripture in this thread has served to evidence that it is not,...
D: I'll let the readers be the judge of that. In the meantime, I await your response to my most recent entry.
I will let the readers judge, at least the one who are allowed to examine objectively, versus those who submit to Rome, while i do suspect you are here to try to waste our time, and further correspondence may end without notice.
Constantine said...
Mr. De Maria, Greetings.
Hello again.
Yes, we all do have jobs and families, etc. so apologies for the delay.
Not a problem.
You raise several interesting topics but given the 199 (!) comments thus far, allow me to focus on just one perhaps to engage the others later.
Thank God! I appreciate that immensely.
That issue is the threat of excommunication that hangs over you by the de fide pronouncements of Trent which require you to believe mutually exclusive tenets as true.
To wit,
1.That God created the world out of pre-existing matter as in Wisdom. (Your quotation, “For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form...)
2.That God created everything ex nihilo – out of nothing (Genesis 1 and John 1.)
Trent says thusly:
It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;
Here “holy mother Church” has “held” - through her infallible conciliar pronouncements – that mutually exclusive things are both true and both to be believed under pain of anathema.
In what sense are they mutually exclusive?
For years, I have tried to understand how this dilemma might be resolved. Here are some possibilities:
1.A good Catholic might say, well, Wisdom is of lesser importance but that can't work because Wisdom is part of the canon ala Trent.
2. Another logical possibility is to deny Genesis 1 or John 1, but again, Trent placed both in the canon. Besides, anyone questioning Genesis would stand clearly outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.
3. Or, one might say that the Magisterium has special knowledge about these matters which provides understanding to them, alone. That, however, is gnosticism so I don't think you would go there.
So I don't see any resolution to this “magisterial” dilemma and am curious as to your thoughts.
I don't see a dilemma at all.
Let me explain.
Scripture says that God created ex nihilo:
2 Macc 7:
28 I beseech thee my son, look upon heaven and earth and that is in them and consider that God made them out of nothing...
Note that this is also a Deuterocanonical book.
Scripture also teaches that God created the earth out of formless matter:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And finally, Scripture says God created the earth out of water, a formless type of matter:
2 Peter 3:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The NIV may be more easily understood.
2 Peter 3:4-6
New International Version (NIV)
4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
Nothing to resolve.
Peace.
And to you.
De Maria
I'd like to apologize if this is a duplicate post.
Constantine said...
Mr. De Maria,
Greetings.
Hello again.
Yes, we all do have jobs and families, etc. so apologies for the delay.
Not a problem.
You raise several interesting topics but given the 199 (!) comments thus far, allow me to focus on just one perhaps to engage the others later.
Thank God! I appreciate that immensely.
That issue is the threat of excommunication that hangs over you by the de fide pronouncements of Trent which require you to believe mutually exclusive tenets as true.
To wit,
1.That God created the world out of pre-existing matter as in Wisdom. (Your quotation, “For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form...)
2.That God created everything ex nihilo – out of nothing (Genesis 1 and John 1.)
Trent says thusly:
It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;
Here “holy mother Church” has “held” - through her infallible conciliar pronouncements – that mutually exclusive things are both true and both to be believed under pain of anathema.
In what sense are they mutually exclusive?
For years, I have tried to understand how this dilemma might be resolved. Here are some possibilities:
1.A good Catholic might say, well, Wisdom is of lesser importance but that can't work because Wisdom is part of the canon ala Trent.
2. Another logical possibility is to deny Genesis 1 or John 1, but again, Trent placed both in the canon. Besides, anyone questioning Genesis would stand clearly outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.
3. Or, one might say that the Magisterium has special knowledge about these matters which provides understanding to them, alone. That, however, is gnosticism so I don't think you would go there.
So I don't see any resolution to this “magisterial” dilemma and am curious as to your thoughts.
I don't see a dilemma at all.
Let me explain.
Scripture says that God created ex nihilo:
2 Macc 7:
28 I beseech thee my son, look upon heaven and earth and that is in them and consider that God made them out of nothing...
Note that this is also a Deuterocanonical book.
Scripture also teaches that God created the earth out of formless matter:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And finally, Scripture says God created the earth out of water, a formless type of matter:
2 Peter 3:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The NIV renders it thus:
2 Peter 3:4-6
4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
Nothing to resolve.
Peace.
And to you.
Hi Peace,
Thanks for responding. I'm sorry that I didn't realize there was a second page to the comments. I was waiting for your rebuttal on the first page.
Anyway, I'm going to focus on this first message again.
PeaceByJesus said...
► 36 P: “they received the word with all readiness of mind,…
D: That says nothing about Sola Scriptura.
… if Roman Catholic doctrine will rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence.
That's the point. You claim that Catholic doctrine won't rest upon Scriptural evidence. But you have provided nothing to show that Sola Scriptura will do so.
P: You yourself have attempted to show things as warranted,
D: With criteria. You haven't. Where's the verse which defines SS?
“Criteria?” The only criteria that you have exampled for establishing truth is whether Rome said it.
No. I've provided the Scripture and the explanation how it is derived therefrom.
As for which verse defines SS, first you wanted a Scriptural definition of SS, which was then provided, with its supremacy as the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims being abundantly substantiated with Scripture, and which use is due to its wholly Divine nature, and which it uniquely is affirmed to be as a material, testable transcendent medium, with 2Tim. 3:16 being the main text, yet your reliance upon for straw men continues after being corrected, and SS substantiated.
But we already obey Scripture. And we use it to establish truth claims. But you haven't provided the "sola" aspect of of your claim. You have not shown where Scripture says, it ALONE is infallible. Or it alone is authoritative or it alone is transcendant.
For moving the goal posts again now it seems you want one verse that theologically defines SS, but the verse that says “Scripture is the supreme authority and formally or materially supplies all that is needed for salvation and growth,” is right next to the one that defines God as “existing as a Trinity of three separate but Divine person all having the same nature, co-eternal...”
I see that one about the Trinity in the infallible Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. I don't see the one about Sola except in the Protestant tradition. Is that what you are saying? That Sola Scriptura exists only in Protestant tradition?
But it has not only been explained to you much earlier how sound doctrine is derived upon the weight of Scriptural evidence and warrant, even if the concise theological statement is not explicitly stated, …However and again, while all Scripture is affirmed to be perpetually assuredly infallible, being God-breathed,
Catholic Teaching.
and instrumentally able to make men perfect,
I believe the exact words are ….profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness….
and again, is clearly and abundantly used as the supreme transcendent Divine authority on earth for doctrine
Would you show me from Scripture? Because I see Scripture saying:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
And that sounds pretty transcendent to me.
Sincerely,
De Maria
► 71 D: Thanks for responding. I'm sorry that I didn't realize there was a second page to the comments. I was waiting for your rebuttal on the first page.
As far i know i addressed each block, with #70 being my last..
Anyway, I'm going to focus on this first message again.
PeaceByJesus said...
► 36 P: “they received the word with all readiness of mind,…
D: That says nothing about Sola Scriptura.
… if Roman Catholic doctrine will rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence.
D: That's the point. You claim that Catholic doctrine won't rest upon Scriptural evidence. But you have provided nothing to show that Sola Scriptura will do so.
Then i am compelled to say that you are either blind of obtuse, or refuse to see anything that will refute you due to the firewall Rome has placed over your mind. But for those who will see i have continued, though i am losing my patience, which often shows longsuffering.
P: You yourself have attempted to show things as warranted,
D: With criteria. You haven't. Where's the verse which defines SS?
P: “Criteria?” The only criteria that you have exampled for establishing truth is whether Rome said it.
D: No. I've provided the Scripture and the explanation how it is derived therefrom.
No, what you do is posit things such as that 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, which assertion has been thoroughly demolished, and invoked 1Tim. 3:15 to substantiate Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium,, and likewise Heb. 3:17 using logic that since the church supports the truth, and God ordains authority, then this supports that the magisterium of a church based in Rome is perpetually assuredly infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals. This conclusion (which again, is not that the church can speak infallible truth, but that Rome has a perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility) are Grand Canyon size leaps. And such extrapolation not only lacks any positive support but it is refuted by the fact that, as said, unlike the church of Rome, God clearly affirmed Israel as supporting the truth, and as giving us Scripture, yet it had no assuredly infallible magisterium, and God preserved truth in a way that manifested His power, versus dependence upon an assured formulaic infallibility of some men.
Likewise, you invoke 2Pt. 1:20 to support RC Tradition, reasoning that since men wrote inspired words God then Roman Catholic Tradition is infallible, but which conclusion is another giant leap of faith, for as said, it effectively makes Rome's magisterium as one of the inspired writers, though this inspiration it does not claim, and basically leaves the canon open, while Scripture in its totality was not written, nor its inspiration established, after the manner of Rome's ex cathedra statements, or in dependance upon them.
► 72 P: As for which verse defines SS, first you wanted a Scriptural definition of SS, which was then provided, with its supremacy as the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims being abundantly substantiated with Scripture, and which use is due to its wholly Divine nature, and which it uniquely is affirmed to be as a material, testable transcendent medium, with 2Tim. 3:16 being the main text, yet your reliance upon for straw men continues after being corrected, and SS substantiated.
D: But we already obey Scripture. And we use it to establish truth claims.
Though we do not say all of your doctrine is unScriptural, you have made a mere assertion as regards the totality of Rome's doctrine, as the assured veracity of any claim that Rome obeys Scripture rests upon the premise of her infallible claim to formulaic infallibility. And as said, the infallibility of her claims does not necessarily extend to the arguments or reasoning behind them, while only a minutia of Scripture has been infallibly defined.
And as usual, you are ignoring or failing to see and address the issue, which is that Scripture is NOT the supreme standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims for Rome, as it autocratically presumes to infallibly decree what constitutes Scripture as well as its meaning, and the infallibility of such decrees are not assuredly based upon the weight of Scripture, but due to the presumption of charism of infallibility whenever Rome speaks in accordance with her infallibly-defined formula.
Meanwhile, and your own poor attempts to show that Rome obeys Scripture as regards certain teachings have had the opposite effect.
D: But you haven't provided the "sola" aspect of of your claim. You have not shown where Scripture says, it ALONE is infallible. Or it alone is authoritative or it alone is transcendant.
You seem to have not qualms about dividing up my statement in your attempt to claim it is not substantiated, and also resorting to your straw man, as what i contend is not that there is no other authority, as i affirmed that SS establishes the church, nor did i simply contend that Scripture alone is transcendent, but that Christ having ascended, Scripture is the only (sola) material, transcendent infallible authority that is established as being wholly inspired of God, and thus stands in judgment over the immaterial, and over fallible men, and as the supreme and sure “norm” or standard for doctrine it is alone, providing for all that is needed for salvation and perfection in holiness by direct teaching or affirmation of means.
As for requiring an explicit statement that states this, besides your double standard when attempting to defend Rome, that is no needed, as nowhere else is any other authority or distinct class of revelation affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.
73 ► P: For moving the goal posts again now it seems you want one verse that theologically defines SS, but the verse that says “Scripture is the supreme authority and formally or materially supplies all that is needed for salvation and growth,” is right next to the one that defines God as “existing as a Trinity of three separate but Divine person all having the same nature, co-eternal...”
D: I see that one about the Trinity in the infallible Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. I don't see the one about Sola except in the Protestant tradition. Is that what you are saying? That Sola Scriptura exists only in Protestant tradition?
You can see or not see what you want, and (sigh) i am sorry you cannot understand my words. Maybe someone else can help you, but the point is that, as said before, contrary to your straw man, under SS an explicit statement for doctrine is not required, but such can be based upon the cumulative weight of the Scriptural evidence for something it teaches, without contradiction, and thus as said under #2 , “the Trinity is a warranted and demanded conclusion on the basis of many texts (in part because you cannot have Christ and the Holy Spirit being referred to as God and maintain an absolute Islamic type oneness), with clear texts such as Mt. 28:19; 2Cor. 13:14 and many others supporting that.
In contrast, as said, praying to anyone else in heaven but the Lord has zero examples or support in instructions ion who to pray to in heavenly God's throne, or due to need in the light of all that is said about immediate access and the sufficiency of Christ. And as PTDS was not derived from Scripture in the first place, this is why attempts to support it thereby, and its necessary postpartum division of saints, requires such wresting of Scripture and arguments from silence, holding that simply because a Tradition-based dogma is not clearly excluded than it can be dogma, and trying to extrapolate reasons for it.
P: But it has not only been explained to you much earlier how sound doctrine is derived upon the weight of Scriptural evidence and warrant, even if the concise theological statement is not explicitly stated, …However and again, while all Scripture is affirmed to be perpetually assuredly infallible, being God-breathed,
D: Catholic Teaching.
No, what i expressed is not Catholic teaching, as Rome only requires that her doctrine does not contradict Scripture, and which she autocratically decides. And while she affirms the plenary inspiration of Scripture, she effectively makes herself as one of the inspired writers, and able to add to the canon, even if she denies that.
P: and instrumentally able to make men perfect,
D: I believe the exact words are ….profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness….
A distinction without a difference, as their functionality requires ability, and to infer anything less of that which is wholly inspired of God is an insult to Him who breathed it, while what again, you lack is any texts that assures us that all that the church of Rome has or ever will ever speak is infallible, including her formula by which she provides assurance that it is.
► 74 and again, is clearly and abundantly used as the supreme transcendent Divine authority on earth for doctrine
Would you show me from Scripture?
Did you even look at the100+ references? Do you see any other tangible sources that is assuredly wholly inspired of God? From the time the written word was set down it is shown to be the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims, by textual support and the manner of effectual attestation it reveals is given to the truth.
Nowhere is the church, or a church based in Rome, promised to be wholly inspired of God when it speaks on faith and morals, and even if Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium and its doctrines were dependance upon Scriptural support then it would be acknowledging Scripture as supreme. But they are not because Rome autocratically asserts she is infallible and impossible that to be in error when speaking according to her formula, which does not even assure that the arguments and reasoning behind it are infallible, and if she even interprets Scripture then it only means what she decrees, and her infallibility is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural evidence.
Because I see Scripture saying:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
And that sounds pretty transcendent to me.
Thy mystery here is why you once again do not see what the issue is. I did not deny that the church is transcendent, nor that by its nature it manifests “the manifold wisdom of God,” in joining the Jews and Gentiles together, but contend that as seen in this regard, the church magisterium is not promised assured formulaic infallibility, but must look to the Scriptures as the supreme authority, and which provides for the church, which has its members by faith in the “the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,” (Rm. 1:2) making known the aforementioned “revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. (Rm. 16:26,27)
It is this God whose kingdom is not in mere say so, but in power, and who affirmed by Scripture and Scriptural attestation that the “gospel of God” was indeed of God, and by Him it was written, and by the scriptures made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. Rome in contrast, fails of the qualification of the apostles, and the manner of Scriptural evidence and attestation the gospel of God has and which the church of the living God must have.
PeaceByJesus said...
►….D: No. I've provided the Scripture and the explanation how it is derived therefrom.
No, what you do is posit things such as that 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, which assertion has been thoroughly demolished,
I'll let the reader be the judge of who demolished what.
and invoked 1Tim. 3:15 to substantiate Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium,, and likewise Heb. 3:17 using logic that since the church supports the truth, and God ordains authority, then this supports that the magisterium of a church based in Rome is perpetually assuredly infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals. This conclusion (which again, is not that the church can speak infallible truth, but that Rome has a perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility) are Grand Canyon size leaps.
I only break in here to show that you are merely arguing by "amazement". As though, your being amazed at something, somehow makes that wrong.
And such extrapolation not only lacks any positive support but it is refuted by the fact that, as said, unlike the church of Rome, God clearly affirmed Israel as supporting the truth, and as giving us Scripture, yet it had no assuredly infallible magisterium, and God preserved truth in a way that manifested His power, versus dependence upon an assured formulaic infallibility of some men.
As I mentioned before. God became flesh and established the New Covenant. Jesus is greater than Moses. Do you disagree?
Likewise, you invoke 2Pt. 1:20 to support RC Tradition, reasoning that since men wrote inspired words God then Roman Catholic Tradition is infallible, but which conclusion is another giant leap of faith,
We live by faith. Yes.
for as said, it effectively makes Rome's magisterium as one of the inspired writers, though this inspiration it does not claim, and basically leaves the canon open, while Scripture in its totality was not written, nor its inspiration established, after the manner of Rome's ex cathedra statements, or in dependance upon them.
Yet the Catholic Church accepts the protection of the Holy Spirit in her doctrines.
So far Peace, you've provided nothing but argument by amazement. I hope you provide some substance in the next responses.
Sincerely,
De Maria
PeaceByJesus said...
► Though we do not say all of your doctrine is unScriptural,...while only a minutia of Scripture has been infallibly defined.
Hm? I wonder why you need to have all of Scripture infallibly defined? Isn't it enough that all of Scripture is already infallible? The only verses which need extraordinary definitions are those which people are having trouble understanding. Do you consider Scripture so difficult to understand that every verse must be infallibly defined for you?
I don't.
And as usual, you are ignoring or failing to see and address the issue, which is that Scripture is NOT the supreme standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims for Rome,
Scripture is a standard. But we don't make reference to any SUPREME standard. God is Supreme. The Word of God is taught by His Church, lived in His Traditions and recorded in His Scriptures.
as it autocratically presumes to infallibly decree what constitutes Scripture
Did not the Protestants claim to infallibly decree a different set of Scriptures? The 66 book Bible? Or are YOU free to add and take away from that list?
as well as its meaning,
Let me see. If I say that 1 Cor 3:15 is about Purgatory. You get really upset. As though you believe you have infallibly defined the verse. If you have not infallibly defined that verse, why do you care that I have accepted a different definition of it?
and the infallibility of such decrees are not assuredly based upon the weight of Scripture, but due to the presumption of charism of infallibility whenever Rome speaks in accordance with her infallibly-defined formula.
The Catholic Church accepts the title, "Pillar of Truth". Here's the kicker. You supposedly believe in Sola Scriptura. But when the Church shows that she believes the Scriptures, you put yourself right in the middle and deny she has the right to do so. But if you have the right to interpret Scripture, why doesn't the Church?
Meanwhile, and your own poor attempts to show that Rome obeys Scripture as regards certain teachings have had the opposite effect.
I'll let the readers be the judge.
You seem to have not qualms about dividing up my statement in your attempt to claim it is not substantiated, and also resorting to your straw man, as what i contend is not that there is no other authority, as i affirmed that SS establishes the church, nor did i simply contend that Scripture alone is transcendent, but that Christ having ascended, Scripture is the only (sola) material, transcendent infallible authority that is established as being wholly inspired of God, and thus stands in judgment over the immaterial, and over fallible men, and as the supreme and sure “norm” or standard for doctrine it is alone, providing for all that is needed for salvation and perfection in holiness by direct teaching or affirmation of means.
Yeah, well, I want to see that in Scripture. YOUR WORD is not enough for me.
As for requiring an explicit statement that states this, besides your double standard when attempting to defend Rome, that is no needed,
I'm glad you said so. I wonder why Protestant always request explicit verses for those Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory, the Marian doctrines, etc. etc?
as nowhere else is any other authority or distinct class of revelation affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.
I disagree. Jesus is God and He inspired His Apostles to teach. He never mentioned writing anything.
Sincerely,
De Maria
PeaceByJesus said...
73 ►You can see or not see what you want, and (sigh) i am sorry you cannot understand my words. Maybe someone else can help you, but the point is that, as said before, contrary to your straw man, under SS an explicit statement for doctrine is not required, but such can be based upon the cumulative weight of the Scriptural evidence for something it teaches, without contradiction, and thus as said under #2 , “the Trinity is a warranted and demanded conclusion on the basis of many texts (in part because you cannot have Christ and the Holy Spirit being referred to as God and maintain an absolute Islamic type oneness), with clear texts such as Mt. 28:19; 2Cor. 13:14 and many others supporting that.
I understand, the Catholic Church infallibly defined that doctrine 1700 years ago.
In contrast, as said, praying to anyone else in heaven but the Lord has zero examples or support in instructions ion who to pray to in heavenly God's throne, or due to need in the light of all that is said about immediate access and the sufficiency of Christ.
But asking another member of the Body of Christ to pray for you is amply substantiated.
And as PTDS was not derived from Scripture in the first place,
Nor was the New Testament.
this is why attempts to support it thereby, and its necessary postpartum division of saints, requires such wresting of Scripture and arguments from silence, holding that simply because a Tradition-based dogma is not clearly excluded than it can be dogma, and trying to extrapolate reasons for it.
The Tradition and the Scripture came from the same source. The Word of God.
No, what i expressed is not Catholic teaching, as Rome only requires that her doctrine does not contradict Scripture,
Thank you. Whereas there seems to be no such requirement for Protestant teaching. Example,
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
and which she autocratically decides. And while she affirms the plenary inspiration of Scripture, she effectively makes herself as one of the inspired writers, and able to add to the canon, even if she denies that.
Only the Protestants have added to and taken from their canon. The Catholic Canon has remained the same for 1700 years.
A distinction without a difference, ….
There is a great difference. Since 2 Tim 3:16 is about TEACHING the Word of God and suggesting that Scripture is profitable for the task. The verse does not say that Scripture is necessary for the task. The entire letter of 2 Tim is about teaching the Word of God.
as their functionality requires ability, and to infer anything less of that which is wholly inspired of God is an insult to Him who breathed it,
On the contrary, He who breathed it warns us that some verses of Scripture are difficult to understand and that some people, the unlearned and unstable, twist it to their destruction (2 Pet 3:16).
while what again, you lack is any texts that assures us that all that the church of Rome has or ever will ever speak is infallible, including her formula by which she provides assurance that it is.
Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10 are enough for me. Are you asking for the explicit texts which you say are not needed?
Sincerely,
De Maria
PeaceByJesus said...
►Did you even look at the100+ references?
I looked at the first few. But none of them said Scripture alone. So, like the Philip's companion (Acts 8:31), I need a guide. Show me.
Do you see any other tangible sources that is assuredly wholly inspired of God?
Sacred Tradition and the Church.
From the time the written word was set down it is shown to be the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims, by textual support and the manner of effectual attestation it reveals is given to the truth.
And from before it was written down, the Church was proclaimed by Her Lord and ours to be the arbiter of truth (Matt 18:17) and our Lord commanded Her to pass down His Traditions.
Nowhere is the church, or a church based in Rome, promised to be wholly inspired of God when it speaks on faith and morals,
Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:15
and even if Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium and its doctrines were dependance upon Scriptural support then it would be acknowledging Scripture as supreme.
The Catholic Church has a stricter test than Scripture ALONE. Doctrines are dependent upon the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.
But they are not because Rome autocratically asserts she is infallible and impossible that to be in error when speaking according to her formula, which does not even assure that the arguments and reasoning behind it are infallible, and if she even interprets Scripture then it only means what she decrees, and her infallibility is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural evidence.
But you do the same. It amazes me, that you claim it is wrong for the Church to claim that her interpretations are infallible, but you act as though yours are infallible. Or if yours are not infallible, why must we believe you? I believe you are wrong. I believe the Catholic Church is correct. Now tell me, what ground do you have to stand upon?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Peace by Jesus said:Thy mystery here is why you once again do not see what the issue is. I did not deny that the church is transcendent,
I think you claimed the Sciptures ALONE were transcendent, so, yes, I think you did deny that the Church is so.
nor that by its nature it manifests “the manifold wisdom of God,” in joining the Jews and Gentiles together, but contend that as seen in this regard, the church magisterium is not promised assured formulaic infallibility, but must look to the Scriptures as the supreme authority, and which provides for the church, which has its members by faith in the “the gospel of God,
Then you're imposing something into Scripture. Because I've seen nothing of the sort in the Scriptures, myself.
Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,” (Rm. 1:2) making known the aforementioned “revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. (Rm. 16:26,27)
I see it differently, as I have already explained. These verses are not about Scripture alone, as the revelations were first given to men, even in the OT.
It is this God whose kingdom is not in mere say so, but in power, and who affirmed by Scripture and Scriptural attestation that the “gospel of God” was indeed of God, and by Him it was written, and by the scriptures made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. Rome in contrast, fails of the qualification of the apostles, and the manner of Scriptural evidence and attestation the gospel of God has and which the church of the living God must have.
Actually, He asserted it by sending Prophets and then by sending His Only Son, who established a Church and appointed Apostles to teach His Traditions.
One question though. Someone here said that the Church requires one to check their brain at the door and believe Her doctrines. I think it may have been you. So, if that is wrong, why isn't it wrong for you to insist that we "check our brains at the door" and accept your doctrines? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
Sincerely,
De Maria
75 ► PeaceByJesus said...
….D: No. I've provided the Scripture and the explanation how it is derived therefrom.
No, what you do is posit things such as that 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, which assertion has been thoroughly demolished,
I'll let the reader be the judge of who demolished what.
Indeed, i encourage that.
P: and invoked 1Tim. 3:15 to substantiate Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium,, and likewise Heb. 3:17 using logic that since the church supports the truth, and God ordains authority, then this supports that the magisterium of a church based in Rome is perpetually assuredly infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals. This conclusion (which again, is not that the church can speak infallible truth, but that Rome has a perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility) are Grand Canyon size leaps.
D: I only break in here to show that you are merely arguing by "amazement". As though, your being amazed at something, somehow makes that wrong.
No, that is not an argument, but the reasoned conclusion of examining your claims by searching the Scriptures, which show that the assertions of truth by Rome and you do not make them so, but require wresting texts and unwarranted extrapolations, but that by substantively “showing by the Scriptures” (Acts 18:28) i let i the readers decide if 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, commencing after death, or the judgment as to rewards, at the coming of Christ (as argued # 52, and 53 and other posts), or if Mt. 23:2; 1Tim. 3:15 and Heb. 3:17 means or supports that Rome's magisterium will perpetually be infallible whenever speaking in accordance with her infallible formula, and whether its decrees or the Scriptures are the supreme infallible standard for obedience and testing truth claims. (Is. 41:21)
And such extrapolation not only lacks any positive support but it is refuted by the fact that, as said, unlike the church of Rome, God clearly affirmed Israel as supporting the truth, and as giving us Scripture, yet it had no assuredly infallible magisterium, and God preserved truth in a way that manifested His power, versus dependence upon an assured formulaic infallibility of some men.
As I mentioned before. God became flesh and established the New Covenant. Jesus is greater than Moses. Do you disagree?
And which deductive fallacy and giant leap for Romankind was refuted before, as your premise does not lead to your conclusion (Christ assuredly infallible=church assuredly infallible), which by extension would make the church infallible in all it speaks, as Christ was.
Nor does Jesus and the N.C. being greater mean an AIM, and in fact, under the N.C. every believer has the Holy Spirit, and needs not an infallible Gnostical mystic (1Jn. 2:27) which Rome is, channeling mysterious ethereal oral teachings which she alone can divine, and thus assurance of having eternal life is provided based upon what is written in Scripture, (1Jn. 5:13) and every believe is called to prove all things. Apostolic authority was not established upon a claim to assured infallibility, but upon sound Scriptural doctrine, personal piety, and manifest power, as Paul exampled and exhorted. (Acts 13:15,27,29,33,39; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23; Rom 1:2,17; 6:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 1:11-14; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 8:5; 10:7,28; 13:22; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 1Tim. 4:11-16; Titus 2:7,8,15)
And while Christ, being God, is greater than Moses, yet the claims of Jesus were established by appeal to the words of Moses and the rest of the Jewish Scriptures, (Lk. 24:44) and by the manner of supernatural attestation that it records being given to men like Moses. (Jn. 14:11; Heb. 2:3,4)
76 ► Moreover, the New covenant being “greater,” or better” with its “better promises” (Heb. 8:6) which Hebrews details, does not refer to an AIM of Rome, out of which we have the church making prayer to multitudes of saintly secretaries in Heaven, but to having such graces as that of (again) boldly directly entering into the holiest by the blood of Jesus therewith to meet with God. (Heb. 4:15,16; 10:19).
P: Likewise, you invoke 2Pt. 1:20 to support RC Tradition, reasoning that since men wrote inspired words God then Roman Catholic Tradition is infallible, but which conclusion is another giant leap of faith,
D: We live by faith. Yes.
Indeed you do, faith in Rome that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) formula, which makes her declaration of infallibility to be infallible, and whatever else she autocratically decrees, defining what is right and wrong, which precludes her from being wrong. And around and around she goes.
P: for as said, it effectively makes Rome's magisterium as one of the inspired writers, though this inspiration it does not claim, and basically leaves the canon open, while Scripture in its totality was not written, nor its inspiration established, after the manner of Rome's ex cathedra statements, or in dependance upon them.
D: Yet the Catholic Church accepts the protection of the Holy Spirit in her doctrines.
A mere assertion of faith in Rome, which you just affirmed that living by faith means, and rendering her as one of the inspired writers.
D: So far Peace, you've provided nothing but argument by amazement.
So far, you've provided nothing but assertions or arguments that provide amazement that anyone could suppose that they actually establish what they assert.
D: I hope you provide some substance in the next responses.
Behold your immature insolence, for as anyone may see, if anyone has provided substance from Scripture, which you esteem as optional, and reasoned argumentation, it is me, while you mainly resort to making mere assertions of faith in Rome, and invoking bare texts out of which you wrest or extrapolate what is needed to support teachings which did not originate from the weight of Scriptural exegesis, or by missing or misrepresenting my arguments.
While such attempts may pacify souls who rest upon Rome as their supreme authority on earth, selectively channeling nebulous, unverifiable mysterious oral tradition, for those who seek to live by every word of God and trust that the Scriptures are assuredly infallible, your poor attempts to support her by Scripture in particular testify to a superfluous place Scripture has in such.
78 ► P: as it autocratically presumes to infallibly decree what constitutes Scripture
D: Did not the Protestants claim to infallibly decree a different set of Scriptures? The 66 book Bible? Or are YOU free to add and take away from that list?
Not quite, but this is a worthy question, which others have raised and i will spend some time on it and what it entails, the answer to which is that Jews nor Catholics had no infallibly defined canon (as per her definition) for most of her history, until the 16th century, but which did not prevent the Jews from discerning what was Scriptures and invoking it as authoritative. And while Protestantism as a universal magisterium does not claim to infallibly define all of what Scripture consists of, yet historically the 66 book canon became settled rather quickly in Protestantism, due to a common consensus, which is due to Scripture being manifest as being from God, like as it was progressively established in the first place, without a formulaic assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome. As for freedom, those who dissent are marked as aberrant, such as the Mormons, but not upon the premise of an AIM, but by arguing on the weight of evidence.
Also, here again you are missing or muddling the issue, which as said, is not whether the church or its members can speak infallible truth (“God is” being a most basic example), but on what basis is any degree of certitude achieved: by autocratically declaring you are speaking truth whenever you universally speak on doctrinal truth, or by God manifesting writings as being Divine and authoritative, and then doctrine being presented on the basis of Scriptural evidence, textual and effectual, and teaching authoritatively on that basis, trusting God to convince others. Catholics are only under the latter method in seeking to persuade souls to submit to Rome, though any treatment of Scripture as the supreme authority is only a means of achieving an end of making Rome the supreme authority, after that they can leave reason at the door, as some of your own assert. Rome's decrees may presuppose Scriptural warrant, but again, infallibility is assured based upon the premise of a special charism being promised whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals.
In addition, if you require us to infallibly be sure on the 66 book canon or our doctrines, then you must answer, “how can you be infallibly sure that Rome is infallible, if this certitude can only come by the infallible magisterium?” And even then, do Catholics infallibly understand the magisterium so as to have absolute certitude in what they believe?
This of course, must deal with the issue of different kinds of certitude, but from the Scriptural perspective the surety which God promises in Scripture, such as that one has eternal life, (1 Jn. 5:13) is based upon warrant from evidence, and confirmed faith.
P: as well as its meaning,
D: Let me see. If I say that 1 Cor 3:15 is about Purgatory. You get really upset. As though you believe you have infallibly defined the verse. If you have not infallibly defined that verse, why do you care that I have accepted a different definition of it?
Apparently your superficial reading and jumping to conclusion is not limited to Scripture, as i made the distinction between appealing to the weight of infallible Scripture, versus asserting one is infallible as per Rome. And the reason i chastise you is because you blithely ignore the former in your commitment to the latter.
79 ► and the infallibility of such decrees are not assuredly based upon the weight of Scripture, but due to the presumption of charism of infallibility whenever Rome speaks in accordance with her infallibly-defined formula.
The Catholic Church accepts the title, "Pillar of Truth". Here's the kicker. You supposedly believe in Sola Scriptura. But when the Church shows that she believes the Scriptures, you put yourself right in the middle and deny she has the right to do so. But if you have the right to interpret Scripture, why doesn't the Church?
Why do you falsify the issue? This is not about freedom to interpret the Scriptures, as much as you might like to cry victim, and want to misconstrue disagreeing with yours interpretations of Scripture as being a prohibition on engaging in such, but it is about holding Scripture as supreme, and relying on evidence by examination thereby, versus Rome autocratically decreeing what is truth, based upon the premise of perpetual infallibility whenever she speaks according to her formula, even if her reasons are not.
Meanwhile, and your own poor attempts to show that Rome obeys Scripture as regards certain teachings have had the opposite effect.
I'll let the readers be the judge.
Indeed, and in fact i could present better arguments for your side, but which would not be what Scripture teaches.
P:You seem to have not qualms about dividing up my statement in your attempt to claim it is not substantiated, and also resorting to your straw man, as what i contend is not that there is no other authority, as i affirmed that SS establishes the church, nor did i simply contend that Scripture alone is transcendent, but that Christ having ascended, Scripture is the only (sola) material, transcendent infallible authority that is established as being wholly inspired of God, and thus stands in judgment over the immaterial, and over fallible men, and as the supreme and sure “norm” or standard for doctrine it is alone, providing for all that is needed for salvation and perfection in holiness by direct teaching or affirmation of means.
D: Yeah, well, I want to see that in Scripture. YOUR WORD is not enough for me.
That has been shown, and all you have another argument from silence, that while the Scriptures are the only distinct class of revelation that are wholly inspired of God, this does not exclude the ethereal essence call Tradition from being so, as channeled by Rome, while the Mormons can say the same about the BOM, also autocratically defining history and Scripture to support them, and the list goes on.
Your ostrich mentality is the problem because Rome's word is enough for you, but rather than being like Rome, my appeal has been to Scripture and its evidence, which you refuse to see.
As for requiring an explicit statement that states this, besides your double standard when attempting to defend Rome, that is no needed,
I'm glad you said so. I wonder why Protestant always request explicit verses for those Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory, the Marian doctrines, etc. etc?
I said it before but you are good at missing things, but teaching for dogma traditions that are defended by arguing from silence and deductive fallacies is not the same as holding that since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each called God, and uniquely Divine abilities are ascribed to them, and attributes of personality, and are sometimes referred to in the plural, among other things, then they constitute one God, or even arguing that the souls in Abraham's bosom are now with the Lord, based upon the corroboration of many texts.
80 ► P:as nowhere else is any other authority or distinct class of revelation affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.
D: I disagree. Jesus is God and He inspired His Apostles to teach. He never mentioned writing anything.
You tried this already, but your Jesus does not mention it=it has no weight argument eliminates the Scriptures entirely as the authoritative inspired word, while using your red letter hermeneutic we can also eliminate things like laws against bestiality, and you must eliminate things from bowing down to graven images to supporting the church by Bingo. But your division of the Trinity makes up a divided kingdom, as the Holy Spirit under whose anointing Christ spoke by, (Lk. 4:18; Acts 10:38) and who authored the gospels, explicitly states,
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
It does not say that a wholly God-inspired oral tradition of other things which Jesus did was provided to that end, but that these things were written for salvation. And to which more was added, the Scriptures being the assuredly inspired part of Tradition, the word of God, and judging all that claims to be, and thus Jesus invoked the Scriptures in establishing His claims.
PeaceByJesus said...
You can see or not see what you want, and (sigh) i am sorry you cannot understand my words. Maybe someone else can help you, but the point is that, as said before, contrary to your straw man, under SS an explicit statement for doctrine is not required, but such can be based upon the cumulative weight of the Scriptural evidence for something it teaches, without contradiction, and thus as said under #2 , “the Trinity is a warranted and demanded conclusion on the basis of many texts (in part because you cannot have Christ and the Holy Spirit being referred to as God and maintain an absolute Islamic type oneness), with clear texts such as Mt. 28:19; 2Cor. 13:14 and many others supporting that.
D: I understand, the Catholic Church infallibly defined that doctrine 1700 years ago.
Which establishes nothing and again ignores the point, as the issue is not whether Rome can speak some truth but that of her AIM claim. Yet Islam and Rome both worship the same God, according to the latter, and not as an unknown God, but follow a false prophet who was deceived by the devil imitating Deity. (Rv. 20:10; cf. 1Cor. 10:20,21)
P: In contrast, as said, praying to anyone else in heaven but the Lord has zero examples or support in instructions ion who to pray to in heavenly God's throne, or due to need in the light of all that is said about immediate access and the sufficiency of Christ.
D: But asking another member of the Body of Christ to pray for you is amply substantiated.
Which means a most basic spiritual practice is built upon nothing but an hypotheses by analogy, with a conclusion that zero precedent or need, being contrary to what is taught about who to pray to, and the immediate and direct access and sufficiency of Christ, and to what is revealed about communication by created being between realms. Give it up.
81 ► P: And as PTDS was not derived from Scripture in the first place,
D: Nor was the New Testament.
An attempt at confusion, as while part of the NT. was spoken first, its gospel and doctrines were built upon the foundation of the Old Testament and in fulfillment of them.
“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Lk. 24:44,45)
“Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22)
“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:23)
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" (Rm. 1:1-2)
“All scripture [and all that Rome decrees from oral Tradition] is given by inspiration of God.” (2Tim., 3:16)
New Testament Scripture was dependent upon and complementary to what had first been established as Scripture., and without the OT there would be no gospel, and thus no church in the manner in which God planed it, which multitude more references can show.
this is why attempts to support it thereby, and its necessary postpartum division of saints, requires such wresting of Scripture and arguments from silence, holding that simply because a Tradition-based dogma is not clearly excluded than it can be dogma, and trying to extrapolate reasons for it.
The Tradition and the Scripture came from the same source. The Word of God.
And by such leap of logic thus both are wholly inspired and equal, or only when Rome channels the former and declares part of it to be infallible, leaving the Tradition-based EOs and others to variously do the same. But again, wheat and tares come from the same ground, but that does not make them equal, nor was Scripture established as being from God on the basis of the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome.
In addition, the Orthodox Jews and their superstitious Talmud have you beat on antiquity, while the amorphous and untestable nature of the former, which as a class of revelation is not assured to be the word of God, makes it subject to the written word of God which as a class is assuredly wholly inspired of God.
82 ► P: No, what i expressed is not Catholic teaching, as Rome only requires that her doctrine does not contradict Scripture,
D: Thank you. Whereas there seems to be no such requirement for Protestant teaching. Example,
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
You ignore that you were shown that you were wrong on your statement on what Catholic teaching was, while your next assertion has already been responded to (#57) , which you ignored, as it much depends upon a straw man of sola fide that imagines we hold that a kind of faith that does not effect the “obedience of faith,” and thus while God justifies the unGodly by faith, as this effects works, so it is also true that “the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13; cf. 8:4)
I agree with Luther here in his statement that saving faith is,
“a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
I see James contradicting both Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4: 1-8 (cf. Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim. 1:9) if he is indeed teaching that Abraham was not justified in the sight of God until Gn. 22, but both are reconciled by understanding that the faith that is counted for righteousness is one that will effect the obedience of faith by the Spirit, working to fulfill the righteousness of the law, (Rm. 8:4) The faith that saves is a kind of faith that manifestly confesses, ability allowing, baptism being the first formal manifestation of that faith, a “sinner's prayer” in body language, but regeneration can take place prior to that. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
And Rome itself does not consistently hold that works are necessary for justification (infant and baptism by desire) while also affirming that baptized Protestants are born again in their own faith.
P: and which she autocratically decides. And while she affirms the plenary inspiration of Scripture, she effectively makes herself as one of the inspired writers, and able to add to the canon, even if she denies that.
D: Only the Protestants have added to and taken from their canon. The Catholic Canon has remained the same for 1700 years.
That is either ignorance or deception. You must have refused again to read linked material, or refuse to believe anything that refutes your case for Rome, but the reality is that you had no infallible canon till over 1400 years after the last book was written, and there was dissent right into Trent, besides the possible implications if she passed over 3 Esdras in silence.
83 ► P: A distinction without a difference, ….
D: There is a great difference. Since 2 Tim 3:16 is about TEACHING the Word of God and suggesting that Scripture is profitable for the task. The verse does not say that Scripture is necessary for the task. The entire letter of 2 Tim is about teaching the Word of God.
So besides “profitable” meaning Scripture is not necessary, and thus superfluous, Paul is now only “suggesting” that it is even useful! However, after affirming that all Scripture is God-breathed, Paul is not marginalizing it or making it superfluous, as “profitable” [ōphelimos] does not mean that any more than 1Tim. 4:8 means that Godliness is not necessary, or merely supplemental, but that “Godliness is profitable [ōphelimos] to all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” ( Douay Rheims)
And again, the person Timothy learned about teaching the word of God from was a man who often reasoned out of the Scriptures and whose faith was established by examination thereby, and Scriptural fruits and attestation. (Acts 17:2,11; 26:22; Heb. 2:3,4; 11:33--38; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10)
P:as their functionality requires ability, and to infer anything less of that which is wholly inspired of God is an insult to Him who breathed it,
D: On the contrary, He who breathed it warns us that some verses of Scripture are difficult to understand and that some people, the unlearned and unstable, twist it to their destruction (2 Pet 3:16).
To the contrary, rather than this showing Scripture to be an unnecessarily, superfluous source as you wrest 2Tim. 3:16,17 to mean, its use by the devil (who did not invoke tradition in tempting Christ) and his subjects shows more esteem of its authority than you, even if you both misuse it.
P: while what again, you lack is any texts that assures us that all that the church of Rome has or ever will ever speak is infallible, including her formula by which she provides assurance that it is.
D: Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10 are enough for me. Are you asking for the explicit texts which you say are not needed?
Anything that talks of authority is enough for you to extrapolate the AIM of Rome out of it, and as you ignore what is needed, especially for such a cardinal doctrine (the Deity of the persons of the Trinity are actually based upon explicit texts, which demands a doctrine of the Trinity), and i am asking for something far more than leaps to conclusions that require extrapolation of Rome's AIM out one text which only states the church, not a particular one or one in Rome, supports the truth, and which Scripture shows does not require an AIM as per that of Rome, but that it upholds the truth by that which is assuredly is Truth, the Scriptures.
And more than a text that is not contextually referring to the AIM of Rome, but to the mystery of God as being the church consisting of Jews and Gentiles, which was manifested to the inspired apostles an prophets by both being saved, (Acts 15), and by the scriptures of the prophets.” (Rm. 16:25,26)
And for texts which define that the rock upon which the church is built was formally Peter, yet which only Christ is affirmed to be, and only secondarily the foundational apostles (plural) and prophets, which Rome is not disqualified as being, nor does formal decent assure spiritual authenticity. (Mt. 3:9; Rm. 2:28)
84 ► PeaceByJesus said...
►Did you even look at the100+ references?
D: I looked at the first few. But none of them said Scripture alone. So, like the Philip's companion (Acts 8:31), I need a guide. Show me.
You evidence need more than a guide, but a heart that was doing what this man was, and thus was saved, and in the desert no less, without even mentioned of a church, much less one in Rome, and who was left there with his Bible. That fact that you imagine seeing Rome alone as being the one true church, which is nowhere in the Scriptures, but cannot see Scripture being the only distinct class of transcendent revelation which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and the supreme standard for obedience and truth claims, testifies to the blinders on your heart.
P: Do you see any other tangible sources that is assuredly wholly inspired of God?
D: Sacred Tradition and the Church.
So now unwritten oral “Sacred Tradition is tangible, and the church of Rome is assuredly wholly inspired of God? Can i have the name of your bishop?
From the time the written word was set down it is shown to be the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims, by textual support and the manner of effectual attestation it reveals is given to the truth.
And from before it was written down, the Church was proclaimed by Her Lord and ours to be the arbiter of truth (Matt 18:17) and our Lord commanded Her to pass down His Traditions.
P: Nowhere is the church, or a church based in Rome, promised to be wholly inspired of God when it speaks on faith and morals,
D: Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:15
You tried these remember? Fallacies of presumption, and of necessity.
P: and even if Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium and its doctrines were dependance upon Scriptural support then it would be acknowledging Scripture as supreme.<
The Catholic Church has a stricter test than Scripture ALONE. Doctrines are dependent upon the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.
Circularity, which assumes what needs to be proved. Again, assurance of truth under Rome does not rest upon proving it by Scripture upon the weight of its evidence, but it is decreed by fiat; its decrees being infallibly assured as infallibly true because Rome is infallibly true when it speaks according to its infallibly true formula.
But they are not because Rome autocratically asserts she is infallible and impossible that to be in error when speaking according to her formula, which does not even assure that the arguments and reasoning behind it are infallible, and if she even interprets Scripture then it only means what she decrees, and her infallibility is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural evidence.
But you do the same. It amazes me, that you claim it is wrong for the Church to claim that her interpretations are infallible, but you act as though yours are infallible. Or if yours are not infallible, why must we believe you? I believe you are wrong. I believe the Catholic Church is correct. Now tell me, what ground do you have to stand upon?
You tried this before, and again, as said in #58, “I am sorry you cannot see the difference between arguing on the basis of the weight of Scriptural evidence versus asserting you are right due to who you are.” I rest upon the former, which source rests upon the manifest attestation of God.
85 ► P: Peace by Jesus said:Thy mystery here is why you once again do not see what the issue is. I did not deny that the church is transcendent,
D: I think you claimed the Sciptures ALONE were transcendent, so, yes, I think you did deny that the Church is so.
The fact that you do not even know what i said or care to look indicates your superficial interest in my arguments, while you imagine your support of Rome is substantial. What you did is filter out the qualifying terms on my statements, which were given from the beginning and thus set the basic definition, such as that Scripture is
the supreme transcendent Divine authority on earth
the only transcendent testable material medium that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God
the only transcendent assuredly infallible material source of Truth
P: nor that by its nature it manifests “the manifold wisdom of God,” in joining the Jews and Gentiles together, but contend that as seen in this regard, the church magisterium is not promised assured formulaic infallibility, but must look to the Scriptures as the supreme authority, and which provides for the church, which has its members by faith in the “the gospel of God,
D: Then you're imposing something into Scripture. Because I've seen nothing of the sort in the Scriptures, myself.
What you see or do not see is a problem, and here i substantiated that “the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began” and revealed to the apostles is made manifest by the nature of the church in Jews and Gentiles being saved, (Acts 15) and by the scriptures of the prophets, (Rm. 16:25,26),
Rome presumes apostleship, but fails of the requirements, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; 2Cor. 12:12) neither were any apostolic successors named except for Matthias, which was in order to keep the number of foundational (Acts 1:17,20; Eph. 2:20; Rv. 21:14) apostles, but not for James. (Act 12:2) And which method Rome never followed, resulting in politics and up to 3 year absences in
“unbroken” succession, while some were not even believers, let alone qualified successors to Peter. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
P: Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,” (Rm. 1:2) making known the aforementioned “revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. (Rm. 16:26,27)
D: I see it differently, as I have already explained. These verses are not about Scripture alone,....
It would be god if you evidenced that you understood the need for context, and could see what the issue being address was, which here was what Eph. 3:10 was referring to. And other texts i provided do manifest that Scripture is alone as the supreme doctrinal authority on earth...
D: as the revelations were first given to men, even in the OT.
This is true, and tares come out of the same ground as the wheat, but in maturity the difference is made manifest, and likewise not all that instruments of revelation said was of God, including the donkey of Balaam, and Scripture is the portion of Tradition that has been established as being wholly from God.
86 ► It is this God whose kingdom is not in mere say so, but in power, and who affirmed by Scripture and Scriptural attestation that the “gospel of God” was indeed of God, and by Him it was written, and by the scriptures made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. Rome in contrast, fails of the qualification of the apostles, and the manner of Scriptural evidence and attestation the gospel of God has and which the church of the living God must have.
Actually, He asserted it by sending Prophets and then by sending His Only Son, who established a Church and appointed Apostles to teach His Traditions.
Actually, the prophets looked to the Scriptures, and the Lord invoked and alluded to them substantially as the established standard of truth, and likewise was the apostles doctrine built upon them. Go look up the rest of my New Testament references.
D: One question though. Someone here said that the Church requires one to check their brain at the door and believe Her doctrines. I think it may have been you. So, if that is wrong, why isn't it wrong for you to insist that we "check our brains at the door" and accept your doctrines? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
Frankly, there is something wrong here. One of your own whom i quoted said you can leave reason at the door once you accept Rome, (see #38), and i would think you would recall that well, while in no place did i insist that you "check our brains at the door" and accept your doctrines, but instead i have spent a very great amount of time carefully explaining to you the basis for my faith, and responding to your charges and superficial attempts to support Rome, and that we rely upon manifestation of the truth versus decreeing truth by fiat as per Rome.
So here you have essentially argued such things as that
Disagreeing with your interpretations of Scripture is a prohibition on engaging in such.
Unwritten oral Sacred Tradition is tangible, and the church of Rome is assuredly wholly inspired of God.
Living by faith is believing that since men wrote inspired words then Roman Catholic Tradition is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.
That since Catholic Church accepts the protection of the Holy Spirit in her doctrines, therefore they are.
That Jesus being greater than Moses means the church infallible in all it speaks, or at least whenever it fits within her formula.
Since Jesus never mentioned writing anything then Scripture cannot be invoked as the supreme authority (or at all by that rule).
Scripture is optional, not necessary.
You are wasting a lot of bandwidth, and taking too much of my time with your superficial consideration and leaps to conclusion. Let another RCA try. Good bye.
PeaceByJesus said...
75 ► No, that is not an argument, but the reasoned conclusion of examining your claims by searching the Scriptures, ... but that by substantively “showing by the Scriptures” (Acts 18:28) i let i the readers decide if 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, commencing after death, or the judgment as to rewards, at the coming of Christ (as argued # 52, and 53 and other posts),
That's actually a good idea. But here's a better idea. Let us show, by Scripture, whether Purgatory exists. You can and have, taken 1 Cor 3:15 out of context to make the verse say what you believe. However, there are other verses which show that:
1. There is a place, frequently called a prison, where souls go after they die :
1 Peter 3:19
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
2. After they go there for a time, they are released into heaven:
Revelation 2:10
10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
3. It is there that they are tested and purified by fire:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Now, tell me, how does Protestant doctrine account for this PRISON where souls go after they die or at the coming of Christ, to suffer by fire before they enter heaven?
Amen! Let us search the Scriptures about Purgatory.
As for your claim of judgement of reward. I remind you that reward implies merit and that is a Catholic doctrine which Protestants vehemently deny.
Sincerely,
De Maria
87 ► PeaceByJesus said...
75 No, that is not an argument, but the reasoned conclusion of examining your claims by searching the Scriptures, ... but that by substantively “showing by the Scriptures” (Acts 18:28) i let i the readers decide if 1Cor. 3:15 refers to purgatory, commencing after death, or the judgment as to rewards, at the coming of Christ (as argued # 52, and 53 and other posts),
D: That's actually a good idea. But here's a better idea. Let us show, by Scripture, whether Purgatory exists. You can and have, taken 1 Cor 3:15 out of context to make the verse say what you believe.
Your insolent brazen statement after i showed you verse by verse that 1Cor. 3:15 cannot refer to a place believers go to immediately after death for personal purification, and which approved notes in your own Bible denies, negates any warrant for reply, and your “proof texts” have been refuted, save for the new one i will quickly expose as another example of wresting texts, which Peter warns of. But as usually, you do not even interact with the evidence but act as if nothing was said, which further indicates you are here to waste our time.
James take notice.
D: However, there are other verses which show that:
1. There is a place, frequently called a prison, where souls go after they die :
1 Peter 3:19
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
As usual, you use a verse in isolation and then extrapolate out of it what you need, testifying that you do not derive doctrine from the Bible but seek to read your doctrine into it.
The context which you left out shows that this prison was for the disobedient souls of Noah's time “when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” and which died in the flood, “wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1Pt. 1:20)
Thus the disobedient souls are set in contrast to those who were saved by the Ark from the waters of judgment, which pictures baptism, signifying death to the old man, to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6:3,4)
This prison corresponds to the place the rich man went, while before the cross the saved were comforted, not tormented, in Abraham's bosom, “the way into the holiest of all [the inner heavenly tabernacle] was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” (Heb. 9:8) was not yet provided, it being impossible that “the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” (Heb. 10:4)
Additional Scriptures state that after Jesus death, in which He would spend 3 days and nights in the heart of the earth, (Mt. 12:40) He “descended first into the lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9) where he preached unto the spirits in prison who had disobeyed Noah, (1Pt. 3:19,20) — as in so doing they rejected Him — and as He “ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” (Eph. 4:8)
Moreover, upon Christ's death, the atoning work being finished, (Jn. 19:30) the heavy curtain “of the temple, the second veil into the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all” (Heb. 9:3); was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Mt. 27:51-43) In addition, we now see that paradise now is the third heaven. (2Cor. 12:4) The contrite criminal of Lk. 23 thus would have gone with Christ to Abraham's Bosom, and then to heaven.
In addition, even one of your own books affirms that that after death, Jews expected to be with Abraham: “For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us." (4 Maccabees 13:17)
88 ► Thus it can be seen that Christ, being the perfect scapegoat, and having made the perfect atonement, the way into the holiest of all in heaven was opened, and having descended first into the lower parts of the earth, He led those who were captive in Abraham's Bosom, or paradise, to the holiest of all to personally commune with God upon His resurrection — although some first testified to His resurrection by appearing to some on earth — and gave gifts unto men, pouring out the Holy Spirit to believers of all flesh, (Jn. 7:39; Acts 2:17) and giving spiritual gifts to the church. (1Cor. 12:7) Look up all the Scriptures.
D: 2. After they go there for a time, they are released into heaven:
Revelation 2:10
10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
You tried this twice already remember? And you which response to blithely ignored and per usual, simply post it again. This refers to this life — “be thou faithful unto death” — after which they would be with the Lord, and if this indicates martyrdom then even Rome would likely consider them to be present with the Lord. And in no place do we see the devil having power over believers after death.
D: 3. It is there that they are tested and purified by fire:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Now, tell me, how does Protestant doctrine account for this PRISON where souls go after they die or at the coming of Christ, to suffer by fire before they enter heaven?
Blind leader of the blind. Or are you just forgetful? Or here to waste our time? You are again begging the question with premise that believers now go to a prison after death, or that 1Cor. 3:15 refers to a prison, and if it refers to the 2nd coming then you just denied purgatory.
Since you again ignore what has been said in response to your prior assertions, i will just repeat part of my response to you (#53, 53).
>What the text very clearly states in black and white is that the broader context is that the Corinthians were following men more than Christ, (1Cor. 3:4) and thus Paul states that they are the fruit of the work of the sowers Apollos and himself, but God gives the increase, (1Cor. 3:5-7) and that “every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour,” with believers themselves being God's building, (v. 9) built upon Christ, (v. 11) with the admonition being “let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon,” v. 10), as what is built is either imperishable or perishable, (v. 12) which “the day [of Christ] shall declare” by fire, (v. 13) with the work that abides the fire gaining the builders a reward, (v. 14) whereas if any mans works are burned then the believer suffers loss, (v. 15) — not gain as would be the case if salvific personal purification was the case. But if anyone defiles the church, as one was doing in the next chapter, then he would be destroyed if he died in that state. (vs. 16,17) ctnd
89 ► ctnd Paul is committed to seeing believers be of imperishable quality, for which he would be rewarded to the glory of God, and thus he says that the Corinthians were his rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus, (2Cor. 1:14) and to the Thessalonians, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) and to the Philippians, “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)
Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1) <
The judgment of 1Cor. 3:15 is thus about works in building the church, for “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.” And the fire is not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified through potentially thousands of years of “fire and torments or purifying' punishments,” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) but the fire is that which consumes the false building material, and the suffering is the consequential suffering of loss of rewards )1Cor. 3:15) for building the church with bad material, versus stones like Peter. The fire burns up the fake stones, these represented as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness.
In addition, Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, (2Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:23) where they is “fullness of joy” and “pleasures forever more,” (Ps. 16:11) and thus when the Lord returns he will be accompanied with all those who “sleep” in Christ, which catching away was always considered imminent, “and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17)
There simply is no purgatory here, while the Corinthians were, like Rome, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture), while many RCs blithely ignore or dismiss context and anything else that contradicts Rome in their zeal to defend her.
As for your claim of judgement of reward. I remind you that reward implies merit and that is a Catholic doctrine which Protestants vehemently deny.
No we do not deny that God rewards faith by rewarding works, which has always been a part of Protestant and especially evangelical doctrine, and thus again what is denied is the validity of your polemical straw men which use you so often manifest, as well as mere assertions and superficiality, while insolently remarking about a lack of substance, all of which is a result of your cultic commitment to Rome and superfluous view of Scripture, which disallows objectivity, and which again shows you you do not merit further response.
Also as said, due to the length of this exchange and what it reveals, and the advantage that the RefTagger provides (mouse hover over Scripture references to see them) i am working on making a web page out of it which should be available here shortly: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BeggarAll-Exchange-DM
As "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," (Rm. 15:4) and all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, may it be esteemed above the words of men who autocratically presume they are effectively above it
Thank you James for granting the space to respond to certain spurious attempts to support RC teaching here, and I have and will pray for you DeMaria, (2Tim. 2:25) and thank you for providing this former Catholic, who has far to grow in grace, the opportunity to try to interact with you for your salvation.
Post a Comment