You are De_Maria. Let me name it: (1) you said how does God destroy a man? by casting him into hell. This idea is no where to be found in 1st. Cor. 6. You forced it into the passage in your mind. Then you tagged it with Mt. 25:46 a completely different context. If you were taking a hermeneutics class and turned in this paper, you would flunk De_Maria.
Hm? Wasn’t that Satan?De_Maria:
God pretty much destroyed Job without the need for hell.
Are the tares considered saved?De_Maria:
I think this is in relation to the wheat and tares parable. The wheat can be used immediately for creating dough. The tares have to be dried and burned later to heat the oven. Without both wheat and tares one cannot bake bread. The wheat doesn’t have to wait. The tares do and lose their moisture hence they ‘suffer loss’.
I thought so, but I guess it doesn’t matter, since including this passage/concept causes flunking hermenutics anyhow!
Which sin leads to physical, literal death?De_Maria:
yes I get it, thanks. in my view 1st. John 5 was talking about literal and physical death in verse 17. Not all sin leads to that.
We interpret it literally. We believe St. John was speaking spiritually in that verse (5:17).
Big difference in the way we go about studying Scripture. We, or at least, I, follow the Catholic protocol, which does not include word counts. My main criteria is how the verse relates to the pre-existing doctrine from which it was drawn.De_Maria:
This is a predictable reaction on both sides of the theological isle. It is a knee jerk for so many … but if you will slow down and do a word study on how the word “destroy” is used in the bible, you will find that it is used in many temporal ways. Only when it is intended to be understood eternally do you find specific language indicating that.
[/QUOTE]
De_Maria, you claim a sense of unity simply because you are Catholic and thus this is some kind of validation to the legitimacy of the CC. Legitimacy is not discerned by quote “correct doctrine,” it is discerned as Christ stated, by our “love for one another.” Jn.13:35. One could potentially be in some form of false doctrine but if they have love for one another it has more value than correct doctrine in many cases.
But it is in Scripture. And we don’t, in our understanding of Scripture, make it contradict itself.De_Maria:
You are De_Maria. Let me name it: (1) you said how does God destroy a man? by casting him into hell. This idea is no where to be found in 1st. Cor. 6.
Two errors there. My interpretation is not mine. But the Church’s Teaching and it precedes your interpretation by 1500 years. Your interpretation is a novelty.
Again, I don’t have to find the exact word if I can see the meaning of the word in the passage. Sacrilege, to deface something holy. To destroy the temple of God.
Nothing of the sort is implied. It is implied that they will not enter heaven, they will not be saved, they will be punished in hell for all eternity.
No, I would be satisfied with words that even come close. sola scriptura is not a verse of scripture but a concept.
So what!.. the amount of years has nothing to do with a bad interpretation accept that it is a shame that it has gone this long. The CC is wrong about it. I know that is impossible from your point of view it is.
It is discerned by both.
This is true. But you have now proven the superiority of love over faith. Because holding sound doctrine, is essence of faith.
But you can’t prove it. Your doctrines are proven to spring into the scene in the 1500’s. Before then, no one had heard of Sola Scriptura. Before then, there was no group of people holding the doctrine of Sola fide. Although individuals had considered it, but the idea was squashed before it gained any following.
But the trend is reversing. I have been speaking to Protestants for over twenty years. I can see the difference in the attitudes. The biggest and most rabid anti-Catholic forum out there, CARM, has moved Catholicism from the cults and sects section to the Orthodox/Heterodox section. Protestants no longer try to prove that Sola Scriptura is even in Scripture. They frequently admit it isn’t and are now trying to justify why it’s not.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church does not deny the Protestant view of the Church. The Protestants took one aspect of Catholic Teaching concerning the nature of the Church and rejected the rest. We hold the fullness of the Doctrinal truth on the understanding of the nature of the Church.
I did not argue that destruction in hell is scriptural. I argued that it was not found in 1st. Cor. 6, the passage you quoted. Let’s be clear on that.
There’s a world of difference.
That’s been the case from the time of Christ. Christ, Himself, declared the Pharisees to be hypocrites who would be cast into hell for their behaviour and way of life.
And yet your view has no support for it. You have explained the support of the Catholic perspective. But all you have to support yours is your opinion.
Thanks! I don’t mean to be insulting. But I will quote the word of God.
The crescendo is growing. I can also hear it.
You can’t. And believe me, you gave no quarter, nor shall we. Everywhere you turn around and whisper a protest against the Catholic Church, there will be a Catholic who hears it and puts it down.
Your running but you can’t hide. We’re going to do our best to give you the best chance to get into heaven. We will Teach you the truth. If you reject it, that is your fault. Not ours.
If I read you correctly, that is our common enemy. Too bad that their leader has lured you out of the Church of Jesus Christ and turned you against her.
You too! Pleasure talking with you.
No, tgG, you are the one who is wrong.De_Maria:
So what!.. the amount of years has nothing to do with a bad interpretation accept that it is a shame that it has gone this long. The CC is wrong about it. I know that is impossible from your point of view it is.
And I am arguing that Scripture does not contradict itself. If someone has defiled the Temple of God, and God destroys him, that means that God has sent him to hell.De_Maria:
I did not argue that destruction in hell is scriptural. I argued that it was not found in 1st. Cor. 6, the passage you quoted. Let’s be clear on that.
No our doctrine is a return to that of the apostles and New Testament writers. The Church drifted away from scripture and eventually replaced it with tradition. The reformation was a return to 1st. Century basics. Sola scriptura was a response to the belief that “tradition” had become equal in authority to scripture. It was decreed years later, but the practice was there at the reformation.
I will agree with you on this point. Many protestant Churches have drifted away from their founders, into what I would call apostasy and a forsaking of the word of God. Many of them have ordained homosexual ministers and teach forms of witchcraft in their Sunday schools classes. Some of the main-line denominations are in big trouble and need prayer.
The Doctrine of the Apostles and New Testament writers, is Catholic Doctrine.De_Maria:
No our doctrine is a return to that of the apostles and New Testament writers.
Protestants did that. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. He commanded the Church to Teach the world. The Church has continued Teaching what Christ commanded, by word and Scripture, all these centuries.
No. The reformation was a revolution which laid waste to the Teachings of Christ and started a movement that drifted farther and farther from Christ with every generation.
Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine designed to induce people to disavow the authority of Jesus Christ through His Church and replace it with their own understanding.