Infallibility of Church?

[MT1926]

And yet I thought you stated thay you dont know the how or when God did this to OT saints such as David, just that it must have been after Christ.

I never said this. I stated the OT saints were in Sheol (Abraham’s bosom) and weren’t born again until Christ descended into Hell and preached to them. You are the one claiming Nicodemus should have known the how, just like ever teacher should have. Well if it’s was suppose to be as obvious as you say Nic should have known, how come the verses you post are allusions, if you read into them what you want to hear, at best.

So how did David get born again to get to heaven?

When Christ preached to the righteous dead.

Was Davids plea really answered as in “not yet”… no peace ,joy, forgiveness, new heart saving faith…not yet not in his earthly lifetime

That’s my thoughts on the matter. I’m not aware of scripture telling us God gave David an answer to this question. Where does it say God told him he was born again?

was David delusional in his psalms for uttering experiences in such blessings?

You base this on the assumption that the only possible way God would allow this experience is if David was born again.

Was looking forward in faith to Christ ineffectual but looking backward is ?

Yes in that it did not get you into heaven, which I would argue because they were not yet born again, but only into Abraham’s bosom awaiting Christ so you could be born again and enter heaven.

Looking back actually allows you to be born again now and enter heaven when you die.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

OK. I will grant you this. The Pope sins, but God still works through him. The Pope is fallible, but God still works through him. He does not make the Pope infallible. God just delivers his infallible message through a fallible Pope. I assume that is what you are saying. I don’t know what to think about this, but I do see the logic.

Yep that is the basics of it. For instance if the Pope says it’s going to rain tomorrow that’s not infallible. It might or it might not, heck even the weathermen don’t know the answer to that one.

Same goes with all of those news interviews that take what he says out of context. Well even if he did say something fishy, in context, it’s not an infallible teaching, he is just giving his personal opinion.

I’m simply saying that what constitutes the church is adhering to “the Spirit and Truth,” not what is contained in its documents.

OK I see what you mean. However, from my point of view the Catholic Church lays all their cards on the table. So here documents are here teachings and understandings of what that Spirit and Truth, that I agree we must adhere to, actually is.

So based on that reason is why I objected.

Because the Jews did not submit to the Truth, the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Gentiles.

I’m not following you here. Many Jews became Christians before the Gentiles?

For an organization to be the Church, it must be alive in Spirit. If it ceases to preach the truth, it is no longer the Church.

I do agree with this statement. It does make perfect sense. However, at the end of the day how does one prove that they are preaching the truth and prove to the other Church that they are not?

The Jews had the Scriptures, but they did not submit to them.

Not so sure about this one. I believe they did submit, the problem was they went to far with what they made other submit to.

So all I am saying is that having God’s infallible documents does not make the organization that has them, be it Catholic or otherwise, the true Church.

I have no objections with this. Yes it is the Spirit and Truth. However, I think where we differ is I believe the “AND” means the Spirit and Truth need to be equal. Which is why I also believe the only way to have equal amounts of Spirit and Truth is if we infallible know the Truth. If not how to we know the True Church? Is it the one with 60/40? or 70/30? or is 90/10 good enough?

Not saying your Church is 90/10 all I’m asking is, if all we have are fallible interpretations how do we know?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Not saying your Church is 90/10 all I’m asking is, if all we have are fallible interpretations how do we know?

We’re back to the Protestant belief that the subjective testimony is the Holy Spirit in us, confirmed by the objective testimony of the same Spirit, in the Scriptures.

“So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8:12-17).

 

[mcq72]

never said this. I stated the OT saints were in Sheol (Abraham’s bosom) and weren’t born again until Christ descended into Hell and preached to them.

Ok…so sorry about that…do recall you stating this…maybe it was something do with water baptism for them

But anyways, I follow your logic. After preaching to them , did Jesus water baptize them, and did He give them communion ( satisfying the claim that one must be born of water and the Spirit, and one must eat His flesh to gain eternal life)?

 

[mcq72]

ou base this on the assumption that the only possible way God would allow this experience is if David was born again.

Then why be born again if one can have the blessings listed ( new heart, peace, love, joy, law written in hearts, forgiveness,fellowship with God ,persevering faith?), without being born of the Spirit?

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…must be a…duck.

When Christ preached to the righteous dead

Have to look that up…thougt He only preached to the wicked, to those who did not obey.

 

[mcq72]

Where does it say God told him he was born again?

But I’m not seeing why Nicodemus would read Christ into these verses when the Prophets clearly stated YOU.

Well Isaiah 51 says God has written the laws on their hearts, just as they prophesied God would do to all flesh , even gentiles as us.

So while some verses say “you”, as it does for our covenant also (you repent, you believe, you must be born again), some say God will and does, such as Isaiah here. Psalms says God satifies, saves, forgives, heals, enlightens. Does not say it in future tense, but says it is for all generations.

Again Paul says (Rom. 9, and 11) that
the elect of Israel were satisfied, in their day and in the future, just like us being satisfied today and more in future. They were and are children of God, from their own OT day.

To be a child of God is to be born of His Spirit, which Jesus says is being born again. Paul nowhere insinuates that the elect of the old testament Jews were not children of God until Jesus came.

And for God to respond sure thing my plan is to send my Son and He will accomplish this for you.

Again, would not say OT saints were kept in the dark, or were not in their day satisfied with being children of God, children of the promise of a Messiah, or born of the Spirit, or in those things that David asked ( a clean heart etc.).

 

[Glenn]

I came across this video of Dr. Hahn explaining what helped him understand infallibility…

I listened to the video by Dr. Hahn. I have actually read both of the books he recommended, Rome Sweet Home, and A Father Who Keeps His Promises–God’s Covenant Love in Scripture. His ideas about covenants actually came from the Protestant seminary that he attended, Gordon Conwell.

Covenant Theology really does not insist upon Papal infallibility. I agree with what Hahn teaches about God making covenants with his people, and about establishing leaders. Yes, the Church is a family, and God is our Father. There was the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, who according to Paul, who is the spiritual “father of us all” (Romans 4:14). Then, of course, there is Moses, who said, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deuteronomy 28:15), where he is referring to Christ.

Then we move to the Davidic covenant, which again leads to Jesus. He is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, the promised Son of David.

The Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the Church, not the Pope. “And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent” (Colossians 1:18).

Christ does not need a successor because he is still alive: The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:23-25).

The Church universal (which is what the word “catholic” means) is a mystical body, with Christ as the permanent head. “We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Hebrews 8:1-2).

There is no need of an earthly successor to Christ, because he is alive forever, seated at God’s right hand, there to make continual intercession for us, in the true sanctuary that the Lord has made, not man. He promised that he would be with us till the end of the age. And he has kept that promise through the indwelling presence of his Holy Spirit.

 

[Glenn]

In regard to Christ’s statement to Peter that he would build his Church on “this rock,” the following is from a Protestant commentary:

Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is couched in a form which was usual in Oriental addresses, and intelligible to his hearers. "Thou hast said to me, ‘Thou art the Son of God;’ I say to thee, ‘Thou art Peter,’ a rock man, ‘and on thee,’ as a rock, ‘I will build my Church.’ As he was the first to acknowledge Christ’s nature and office, so he was rewarded by being appointed as the apostle who should inaugurate the Christian Church and lay its first foundation. His name and his work were to coincide. This promise was fulfilled in Peter’s acts. He it was who took the lead on the Day of Pentecost, when at his preaching, to the hundred and twenty disciples there were added three thousand souls (Acts 2:41); he it was who admitted the Gentiles to the Christian community (Acts 10); he it was who in these early days stood forth prominently as a master builder, and was the first to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles. It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression, of course, is metaphorical. Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house; Peter’s zeal and activity and stable faith are indeed the living rock which forms the material element, so to speak, of this erection; he, as laboring in the holy cause beyond all others, at any rate in the early days of the gospel, is regarded as that solid basis on which the Church was raised. Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. The Church, in so far as it was visible, had Peter for its rocky foundation; in so far as it was spiritual, it was founded on Christ. The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter was personal, and carried with it none of the consequences which human ambition or mistaken pursuit of unity have elicited therefrom. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that there was a strife among them who should be the greatest; James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face “because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11); the president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is a figment unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings.

 

[MT1926]

We’re back to the Protestant belief that the subjective testimony is the Holy Spirit in us, confirmed by the objective testimony of the same Spirit, in the Scriptures.

If the Protestant belief is willing to accept this that is fine. It just can’t ever work for me, because it doesn’t work in the world I live in. I’m a Doctor and if I submitted all of my patient notes to the insurance company based on this criteria I’d be a poor doctor, because they would deny every claim. The reason is because testimony is not objective it is still subjective. Even though the patient is the one with the pain and is the one actually describing the pain their testimony is still considered to be subjective. This is because I haven’t given any objective evidence that the patient isn’t being truthful about their accident. The burden of objective evidence is on me. If I don’t present it to the insurance company I don’t get paid.

I know you guys hate when I give definitions but I believe they are important.

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective - NOT influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Since we are the ones interpreting the Holy Spirit’s Testimony, our influence makes His testimony subjective. The only way they could be objective is if Jesus actually told someone this is what I meant by this. Since the Scriptures come from Jesus, His testimony or the testimony of someone He gave authority to speak in His absence, would be considered Objective evidence.

I know you probably won’t agree with this, believe me I wish I didn’t have to, life would be a whole lot easier and patient noted would be a whole lot shorter, but this is how it works in every aspect of my life anyway.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

The reason is because testimony is not objective it is still subjective.

I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that the Protestant view is any less objective than the Catholic view. I said that Holy Scripture is the objective Word of God. So you have the Pope, but what is the objective basis of his authority? Do you not refer to the same objective Word of God, just like Protestants? If you wish to prove the Church’s authority based upon history, then you are still resorting to human testimony. When Protestants wish to prove the Scripture’s authority, they also go to history, to reliable witnesses.

I have no difficulty understanding the meaning of the word objective. A better analogy would be a court of law, where human testimony is considered perfectly valid, if the reliability of the witness can be established, and if his testimony can be corroborated by other reliable witnesses–which is exactly how we establish the reliability and authority of Scripture.

 

[MT1926]

But anyways, I follow your logic. After preaching to them , did Jesus water baptize them, and did He give them communion ( satisfying the claim that one must be born of water and the Spirit, and one must eat His flesh to gain eternal life)?

And we already discussed this. I freely admit we don’t know, the Scriptures are silent on what Jesus actually said or did. My guess would be that they didn’t, because they didn’t have bodies.

However, like I already said this doesn’t matter to Catholics we don’t believe the exceptions make the rules. Jesus can do whatever He wants with what is his. We believe we are bound by the Sacraments, Jesus is not. We don’t believe we can go up to God and say "Hey not fair the good thief didn’t have to be Baptized, the good thief didn’t have to go to Church and receive communion.

Remember I brought up…

Matthew 20:15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?

Then why be born again if one can have the blessings listed ( new heart, peace, love, joy, law written in hearts, forgiveness,fellowship with God ,persevering faith?), without being born of the Spirit?

Where does it say David had all of this before the coming of Christ?

Have to look that up…thougt He only preached to the wicked, to those who did not obey.

Why would He preach to the wicked? I thought we both believed there is no second chance in the Hell of the Damned.

Here’s a good article.

Well Isaiah 51 says God has written the laws on their hearts

I’m not finding this could you post please. Inverse 7 it says ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law. It doesn’t says God has written. It just says it is already there.

Why would I believe this is any different than St. Paul telling us in Romans 2 that the Gentiles show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. I’m sure we both agree that these Gentiles in Romans 2 weren’t born again as of yet.

Psalms says God satifies, saves, forgives, heals, enlightens. Does not say it in future tense, but says it is for all generations.

If it’s not future tense are you saying these people are in heaven before Jesus opened the gates? If not then it is future tense.

They were and are children of God, from their own OT day.

Yes they were a member of God’s covenant family through circumcision.

would not say OT saints were kept in the dark

Don’t know if there was daylight or darkness in Sheol. The Scriptures don’t say.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Covenant Theology really does not insist upon Papal infallibility.

I don’t think he was making the leap the entire way to Papal Infallibility, I think he was more saying Covenant Theology insists on Authority. That the old covenants have always had a line of authority from the father down.

I agree with what Hahn teaches about God making covenants with his people, and about establishing leaders.

I think a lot of Protestants agree with this. I think where we differ is in how those leaders are established.

The Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the Church, not the Pope.

Agree. Catholics don’t believe the Pope is the head of the Church we believe he is the chief steward of the King(Jesus). Jesus being the Son of David He too appoints a chief steward with the keys just like David did. Sure some might us the term head of the Church on earth but that is not the same headship that belongs to Christ alone. It just means visible head, until Christ returns.

Christ does not need a successor because he is still alive:

Peter was not Christs successor, he was the chief steward. If Christ the King was not alive, instead of just being away, there wouldn’t be no need of a chief steward to run the Kingdom because He wouldn’t be His returning. The Pope is scriptural and it all ties into the Second coming. If we truly believe that Christ is visible present with us at this very moment then there is no need of a second coming.

“We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven , a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man ”

Since when does having a High Priest mean we no longer have Priests that are above us but below the High Priest? Is that how it was done in the old testament and even still done when Christ came? The OT shows us that God set up a High Priest a ministerial Priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. I know you still believe in the first and the third why do you believe Jesus disbanded the ministerial Priesthood?

There is no need of an earthly successor to Christ

Agreed, but remember the Pope is not His successor.

He promised that he would be with us till the end of the age. And he has kept that promise through the indwelling presence of his Holy Spirit.

Where does it teach Jesus made this exact promise to each of us? Also, this is spiritually present, the Chief Steward is about being visible present.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

In regard to Christ’s statement to Peter

I’m good with a lot of what this says, it makes a few assumptions though and a couple of points that are confusing.

if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised.

I’m not sure what he means by this. Just want to be sure we all understand that Catholics don’t believe Peter built the Church we believe Christ built the Church on Peter. Goes back to the previous discussion we had about infallibility having nothing to do with Peter’s physical body.

Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house

Also not sure what is meant by spiritual house. Catholics don’t believe the church is invisible if that is what he means by this.

Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ…

Another one that I’m not following. From my understanding Christ does all of the building. Even when Peter or us build on Christ it is not us but the Holy Spirit. So based on this fact (that it is all Christ), which I’m pretty sure we both agree on, why is there a need to divide Christ between the visible and spiritual? The Church is ALL Christ it’s not Spiritual here and visible over there.

The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter…

Don’t know what this means. It almost sounds like he thinks infallibility is a human based charisma and not Christ based.

There was no promise of present supremacy

This would depend on how the commentary defines the keys. Does it say?

superiority being now conferred on Peter

To me it is sad when commentators make statements like this. Especially after all of the verses about Peter that he already pointed out above.

strife among them who should be the greatest

Every wonder why this strife occurred? Just 2 chapters earlier Jesus changes Simone’s name to Peter. Then Jesus takes only Peter, James and John up on the mountain. The Jesus performs a miracle to pay the temple tax ONLY for Himself and Peter. Then we get to the strife. Sure sounds like someone was getting jealous about all the attention Peter was getting doesn’t it?

(Galatians 2:11);

Here’s a good Explanation.

James, the Bishop of Jerusalem

I like this Explanation.

a figment unknown to primitive Christianity

Does the author provide evidence of this claim? My guess would be the author considers the writings of the Church Fathers to be spurious.

Just curious how does he deal with the name change in the commentary?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

And we already discussed this. I freely admit we don’t know, the Scriptures are silent on what Jesus actually said or did. My guess would be that they didn’t, because they didn’t have bodies.

However, like I already said this doesn’t matter to Catholics we don’t believe the exceptions make the rules. Jesus can do whatever He wants with what is his. We believe we are bound by the Sacraments, Jesus is not. We don’t believe we can go up to God and say "Hey not fair the good thief didn’t have to be Baptized, the good thief didn’t have to go to Church and receive communion.

Remember I brought up…

Matthew 20:15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?

Yes, and thank you for being patient (and very busy on all your thoughtful posts). I do recall you posting this before.

I would say there are two options then with how old testament saints get into heaven and not just that God can do whatever he wants between testaments.

I have been suggesting the testaments are intertwined with basic themes, even foreshadowings. Such as both would be saved by faith, in the light and promises God gives at the time, again a foreshadow with substance of more future light. Also being born of the Spirit, born of God, becoming birthed as His child. Both having conviction of sin, of judgement, and of righteousness by administration of Holy Spirit. Both having hopes and promises of a resurection to a more perfect union.

The only thing that changes are some of the rituals, symbols, covenant signs, of such spiritual realities, but even they are connected.

Circumcision dealt with a people, that were to be light of the world (quite a fleshly symbol/ rite, but certainly showed that offspring, a people, after God, was the mission, and to bring forth a Messiah).

We obviously have water baptism as the new rite. Yet the two covenants are intertwined, a foreshadowing in the old , where water baptism (signifying purification for something) was used to separate or prepare one for priestly ministry, and required for gentile upon conversion, (as well as cicrcimcision).

So circumcision was narrow, for the formation of a Jewish people of faith. Water is broad as the oceans, meant for the gentile (entire) world. It is how we in this covenant enter by faith the Jewish promises, and are set forth in our priestly ministry. Both these aspects of water baptism (gentile conversion and priestly ministry) were foreshadowed in old covenant times.

And of course both had blood for sin remission. In particular the lamb at Passover. Again a foreshadow and hope in promises for the future Lamb, , just as we eucharist in remembrance of thay fullfilment, yet having hope for His promised return.

 

[mcq72]

Why would He preach to the wicked? I thought we both believed there is no second chance in the Hell of the Damned.

Well because thay is exactly what the scripture says:

"which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, "

Correct no second chances and why I do not apply this verse of Christ in sheol.

But I might add why would Jesus need to preach to those in Paradise, unless one believes in soul sleep. I mean He is the God of the living. The saints were quite alive, and just as you say the saints in heaven are not oblivious to us, why would Paradise saints be any less oblivious to what was going on ?

 

[mcq72]

I’m not finding this could you post please. Inverse 7 it says ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law. It doesn’t says God has written. It just says it is already there.

Why would I believe this is any different than St. Paul telling us in Romans 2 that the Gentiles show that what the law requires is written on their hearts . I’m sure we both agree that these Gentiles in

“Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law”. Is. 51:7

That is a stretch, to say that this refers to natural law, that all people have, as if “the people” does not mean the Jewish people and “my law” is not the Mosaic law.

If it’s not future tense are you saying these people are in heaven before Jesus opened the gates? If not then it is future tense

It is not up to interpret how but the text is the text. The text is present. I mean we are not in heaven yet either and we have no peace, joy , forgiveness , healing, new heart, now?

Like we have no sanctification, justification because we have no glorification yet?

Besides, the fulfillment of many of these promises is based on Calvary. If anything your argument is better to say they (OT saints) not have apprehended yet because Calvary hadn’t happened yet. And I say their faith in the future Calvary promise healed them, just as you say it did for Mary in her immaculate conception.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that the Protestant view is any less objective than the Catholic view.

First off I never said the Protestant view was less objective than the Catholic view. I simple explained the definition of objective. I explained what I believe would make the testimony of scripture objective, but never said this is why the Catholic view is objective and the Protestant view isn’t.

What part of my explanation didn’t you understand, that makes it impossible for you to make a conclusion?

Do you not refer to the same objective Word of God, just like Protestants?

No I refer to a subjective word of God. When I read scripture it is subject to my interpretation.

If you wish to prove the Church’s authority based upon history, then you are still resorting to human testimony.

I agree with this. It is all subjective. I never made the claim that the testimony of the scriptures is objective you did. I freely admit that the only reason I believe the Bible is true is because history shows me that Jesus founded a Church to speak on His behalf and that Church says it is true. The way I see it get rid of the Church and the Bible becomes nothing more than a history book. Because unless you can show that human testimony in every generation then the testimony becomes unreliable.

I have no difficulty understanding the meaning of the word objective .

Then why do you keep applying it where it doesn’t belong?

A better analogy would be a court of law, where human testimony is considered perfectly valid, if the reliability of the witness can be established, and if his testimony can be corroborated by other reliable witnesses

You do realize the human testimony is considered subjective evidence don’t you? Also in a court of law 1 admission of objective evidence would override the testimony of 10 witnesses.

which is exactly how we establish the reliability and authority of Scripture.

Yes subjectively, not objectively.

Like I said if you want to accept this that is fine, but don’t make it sound all rosy by saying you use objective testimony when what you use is really subjective.

I mean no disrespect but saying something is objective doesn’t make it that way. It’s word play to make something sound better or stronger than it really is.

Last week I heard about a sign in front of a planned parenthood abortion clinic. It had a list of statements that all began with “It’s morally right to”…fill in the blank with pro-choice statement.

Just because they used the words morally right doesn’t make it that way, but it sure fooled a lot of woman into believe they were making a morally correct choice.

Not equating the word objective to morality just saying it is a buzz word that get people to think the statement says what it doesn’t really say.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Such as both would be saved by faith, in the light and promises God gives at the time, again a foreshadow with substance of more future light. Also being born of the Spirit, born of God, becoming birthed as His child. Both having conviction of sin, of judgement, and of righteousness by administration of Holy Spirit. Both having hopes and promises of a resurection to a more perfect union.

Let’s say you are right. The OT Saints were already saved by faith, born of the Spirit, born of God. Had conviction of sin, of judgement and of righteousness already. And all they were awaiting was the promise of the resurrection.

If this is all they were waiting for why did Christ have to descend and preach to them?

I mean other than the gates of heaven needing to be opened what else did they need?

Well because thay is exactly what the scripture says:

"which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, "

Correct no second chances and why I do not apply this verse of Christ in sheol.

What do you mean you do not apply this verse? How can you just say nope not needed?

Did you read the article I linked?

But I might add why would Jesus need to preach to those in Paradise, unless one believes in soul sleep. I mean He is the God of the living. The saints were quite alive, and just as you say the saints in heaven are not oblivious to us, why would Paradise saints be any less oblivious to what was going on ?

Because they were disobedient, just like we are, not damned. Once again we don’t know. But what’s the difference if they already knew what was going on. I already know what’s going on does that mean I can skip Church and my pastors preaching for the rest of my life?

See the problem is you believe everyone there was already born again, therefore you need throw that verse out and not apply it so it fits your theology. Whereas if they weren’t yet born again Jesus going down and preaching to them and Baptizing them with the spirit to be born again fits right in line with no one being born again until after the Crucifixion.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

“Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law”. Is. 51:7

That is a stretch, to say that this refers to natural law, that all people have, as if “the people” does not mean the Jewish people and “my law” is not the Mosaic law.

And you don’t think it’s a stretch to say God has (past tense) written?

How come when I try to explain something with Biblical evidence of what the word means you tell me I’m wrong “because that is exactly what the scripture says”

But when I ask for clarification on how you can read, you who know righteousness to mean God has written. I get no explanation other than the way I am reading it is wrong.

I mean we are not in heaven yet either and we have no(?) peace, joy , forgiveness , healing, new heart, now?

You didn’t mean to put in the NO did you?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

If this is all they were waiting for why did Christ have to descend and preach to them?

I tried to find this verse that says he did, didn’t find one, except for the Noah one, the disobedient verse. Am I missing one, a verse?

therefore you need throw that verse out and not apply it so it fits your theology.

Does having what I believe is the proper interpretation qualify for throwing the verse out? Of course you mean I throw out a what I believe to be an improper interpretation, which one, including yourself, should do ( follow one’s conviction ).

fits right in line with no one being born again until after the Crucifixion.

So did the apostles and all those baptized by John and Jesus and the apostles get rebaptized after the Crucifixion, or after the Resurection?