Hell

[guanophore]

hey thanks for the info-- But it's not correct--

Scripture alone is in the Bible-- and it is the Ultimate authority–

Scripture alone was invented during the Reformation in the 1600’s. It is a concept unknown to the writers of the Bible.

Certainly the Scriptures are authoratative, and we are to be obedient to them, but they are to be interpreted by those Jesus put in place to do so.

(now i am sure you can figure a way around this) that’s how a discussion works

We do not need to “figure a way around” anything. The Scriptures themselves teach us not to receive “a different gospel” such as Scripture alone.

Un-less you don't condsider the O.T. TORAH

part of the bible

Deuteromomy 4;2

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

This is part of the Mosaic Law. If we were not allowed to add to it, there would be no books in the Bible after the Torah, such as the Psalms, prophets, proverbs, and the entire new testament. Sorry, ,but this doesn’t say “Scripture alone”. It also doesn’t say we can’t add to the Torah.

Do not add to or subtract from these commands I am giving you. Just obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you.

So, we should ignore all that Jesus commanded in the NT?

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The observance of the law, however, required that it should be kept as it was given, that nothing should be added to it or taken from it. but that men should submit to it as to the inviolable word of God

Quite true. but…
Rom 6:14
“you are not under law but under grace”

Eph 2:15
15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances

Not by omissions only, but by additions also, was the commandment weakened, and the word of God turned into ordinances of men, as Pharisaism sufficiently proved.

This precept is repeated in Deuteronomy 13:1; it is then revived by the prophets

(Jeremiah 26:2; Proverbs 30:6), and enforced again at the close of the whole revelation (Revelation 22:18-19).

In the same sense Christ also said that He had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil (Matthew 5:17); and the old covenant was not abrogated, but only glorified and perfected, by the new.

None of this says the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, invented by the Reformers, is true.

 

[guanophore]

working4christ did not add to the bible or contradict the bible,The Holy Spirit did add to His Word and did not contradict Himself.

You are right, but PR’s point is also correct. If one takes the words of Moses literally, then the writing of Scripture would have stopped at the Torah. In fact, that is what the Sadducees believed, which is why they rejected the rest of the Word of God.

Yes “I have heard” this before though “it is written” is used by Jesus to correct what you have heard.

No one is saying that what is written is not also the revealed Word of God. We are saying that it was never intended to be the ultimate authority. That is why, after Jesus said “it is written” He also said “but I say to you…”

Jesus gave His authority to men, and they taught faithful men who could teach others also. This is how He structured the authority of HIs One Church.

 

[earl40]

Well, since what “was written” that Jesus referred to was the OT, are you proposing a Sola Old Testament tradition?

For that is what Jesus was referring to, yes?

Of coursed He was referring to the OT. The point is Jesus used scripture to refute “you have heard”. Interesting in that I do not know Jesus ever using tradition to refute incorrect teaching.

How do YOU test any tradition? By tradition?

 

[earl40]

No one is saying that what is written is not also the revealed Word of God. We are saying that it was never intended to be the ultimate authority. That is why, after Jesus said “it is written” He also said “but I say to you…”

Which would be the same as what was written because of His authority.

Jesus gave His authority to men, and they taught faithful men who could teach others also. This is how He structured the authority of HIs One Church.

You mistake the authority of the Apostles with popes. You can test the Apostles with the ultimate authority of scripture but refuse to test popes with the same. You may say you can and do, but when one puts the authority of popes equal with His Word you are in a dilemma in picking which is right on a myriad of topics.

 

[davidv]

Which would be the same as what was written because of His authority.

You mistake the authority of the Apostles with popes.

Its not a mistake. Its the truth.

You can test the Apostles with the ultimate authority of scripture but refuse to test popes with the same. You may say you can and do, but when one puts the authority of popes equal with His Word you are in a dilemma in picking which is right on a myriad of topics.

How can you test the apostles, there are no longer present?

 

[Porknpie]

Which would be the same as what was written because of His authority.

You mistake the authority of the Apostles with popes. You can test the Apostles with the ultimate authority of scripture but refuse to test popes with the same. You may say you can and do, but when one puts the authority of popes equal with His Word you are in a dilemma in picking which is right on a myriad of topics.

Where does scripture say it is the ultimate authority? For it to be true, scripture must say so.

A book can be inerrant and inspired … However, It takes an authority, in this case the Catholic Church, founded by Christ to have declared it to be inerrant and inspired and to determine what books were included in the canon of scripture.

Without this authority, the Catholic Church, you are in a dilemna on who to turn to…to understand and interpret scripture. Every pastor is their own authority…with faith and morals changing from pastor to pastor . ,

 

[jimmy]

Sola scriptura is man made just like the bible is man made. The apostles never knew of any book called the bible. The canon was determined later by bishops who had heard and read the scriptures in worship, so to propose sola scriptura is an irrational invention. It takes a book that was compiled and canonized in the fourth century, and then it denies the authority of those who actually canonized it. The way protestants portray it, you would think God droped a book out of the sky and said, ‘this is my word, read it.’ But he didn’t. What he did do was send Jesus, who is the word of God. It is wishful thinking that stems from a refusal to trust what was actually handed on, which was the faith of the apostles. Jesus told the apostles to preach the good news, not to write a book and call it the bible. What was handed on by the apostles was the spirit of Christ, and that was in the life of the Church, not in a book.

 

[Rete]

Why is it not sufficient to simply quote all the places where Christ warned us of Hell, and mentioned how people will be cast out into the outer darkness forever?

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

drb.scripturetext.com/matthew/25.htm

I wouldn’t dare accuse God of telling us an untruth. Yet, while I don’t think many of these people would consciously agree to call God a liar, I think they were bamboozled into claiming so indirectly. Either that statement is true or false. I for one shall stick with true.

 

[PRmerger]

Of coursed He was referring to the OT. The point is Jesus used scripture to refute “you have heard”.

What you mean is he used the OT to refute “you have heard”. He did not refer to the NT.

So if you are going to use this to support your objection to tradition, you’re going to have to promote a Sola Old Testament paradigm.

If you’re going to do what Jesus did, then you cannot refer to the NT.

Interesting in that I do not know Jesus ever using tradition to refute incorrect teaching.

Every word that Jesus uttered was using tradition to refute incorrect teaching.

And that is the paradigm that the CC follows.

Incidentally, this is also what the early Christians did.

Since, as you know, there was no New Testament text for at least 40 years.

How do YOU test any tradition? By tradition?

By discerning whether it conforms to the Word of God, earl.

 

[PRmerger]

You mistake the authority of the Apostles with popes. You can test the Apostles with the ultimate authority of scripture but refuse to test popes with the same. You may say you can and do, but when one puts the authority of popes equal with His Word you are in a dilemma in picking which is right on a myriad of topics.

Why don’t you cite one or two topics which you think pose a dilemma to Catholics?

 

[guanophore]

Of coursed He was referring to the OT. The point is Jesus used scripture to refute “you have heard”. Interesting in that I do not know Jesus ever using tradition to refute incorrect teaching.

Sure He did!

The Seat of Moses is one such Tradition. He taught the people to respect the people in the seat, but not to follow their bad example.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God preserved orally. A good example also is His teaching about marriage. The Jews had strayed from God’s intention with marriage, and Jesus instructed them that Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of heart “but from the beginning it was not so”.

How do YOU test any tradition? By tradition?

I am not sure if you are distinguishing between sacred tradition, and human traditions (customs). This is important, since Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, and therefore, just as inspired and inerrant as Scripture. Human customs can be misled, or can interfere with the Word of God.

Since Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same Source, they always compliment and never contradict each other. Human customs must be measured in the light of both Scripture and Tradition.

 Which would be **the same** as what was written because of His authority.

Yes, and He gave His authority to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors, the Bishops. He taught His disciples how to interpret the Scriptures correctly. The Holy Spirit does not reveal opposing views to various Christians.

You mistake the authority of the Apostles with popes.

How does that work, exactly? I think you lost me there.

You can test the Apostles with the ultimate authority of scripture but refuse to test popes with the same.

You lost me here too. The successors of the Apostles, the bishops, are the servants of Scripture. Of course they are subject to it.

You may say you can and do, but when one puts the authority of popes equal with His Word you are in a dilemma in picking which is right on a myriad of topics.

No, I do not think so. First of all, “the authority of popes” varies. The pope is given the Petrine Charge to feed and guide the flock of God on earth. This does not mean everything he says is infallible, or that his behaivor is always impeccable.

The Popes have not made infallible pronouncements on “a myriad of topics” so I have no dilemmas there.

The Holy Spirit prevents a Pope from teaching anything that is not consistent with the Word of God.

 

[guanophore]

Sola scriptura is man made just like the bible is man made.

No, I don’t think so. The Bible was assembled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through councils directed by bishops who were successors of the Apostles. The bible is the product of a Sacred Tradition .

Sola Scriptura was invented by men who rejected the authority of the successors of the Apostles, and wished to replace their authority by it. It was not invented through any sacred or infallible council, and is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

The apostles never knew of any book called the bible. The canon was determined later by bishops who had heard and read the scriptures in worship,

Yes, but it was consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught, just as were other later doctrinal developments such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Theotokos, and Sunday observance.

so to propose sola scriptura is an irrational invention.

On the contrary, I think it lies completely in human rationality. It replaces the Sacred Tradition with one that is dependent upon the mind of whatever man who reads it. It is an invention that capitallzes on human rationality. As we can see, it has caused a complete splintering of christendom as a result.

**

It takes a book that was compiled and canonized in the fourth century, and then it denies the authority of those who actually canonized it. The way protestants portray it, you would think God droped a book out of the sky and said, ‘this is my word, read it.’**

In defense of the unlearned, what you say is true, but most Bible Christians are never taught anything about where their bible came from.

jimmy:

 But he didn't. What he did do was send Jesus, who is the word of God. It is wishful thinking that stems from a refusal to trust what was actually handed on, which was the faith of the apostles. Jesus told the apostles to preach the good news, not to write a book and call it the bible. What was handed on by the apostles was the spirit of Christ, and that was in the life of the Church, not in a book.

Yes, the Word of God is in the life of the Church also, but I think we would all agree that the Holy Spirit did guide the Apostles and their disciples to write and canonize the Scriptures. They were just never expected to be separated from the Church that produced them.

 

[guanophore]

Why don’t you cite one or two topics which you think pose a dilemma to Catholics?

PR you are absolutely crackin’ me up with your pics!

:dancing:

 

[PRmerger]

PR you are absolutely crackin’ me up with your pics!

:dancing:

It’s one of my new favorite ways to respond.