Mathew 5:32-?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmRose87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the same Church that discerned for you that Matt 5:32 is* theopneustos* has told you what it means; thus, if it’s correct in telling you that it is God’s word, then it’s correct in telling you what it means.

Additionally, we know that the Church teaches correctly through a spiral argument:
-On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
Your argument is circular. You “prove” the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.
 
So you’ve memorized an argument. Congratulations.

How do you know it’s right?

Are you infallible?
I already answered your first question.

No, not infallible. But the Church is.

Now, your turn: please answer how you will discuss with another Christian who’s proposing that his interpretation is contrary to yours, when each of you is claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Marriage cannot ever be disolved because it is a mirror of the bonds of love within the Trinity. Matrimony mirrors the love between God the Father and God the Son in the way that love produces the Holy Spirit.
Is that what Scripture says?
 
Your argument is circular. You “prove” the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.
Courteous discourse here requires that you answer questions posed to you.

Now, if you’ve never encountered these questions before–and it seems that you haven’t–and you need to ask your pastor first, that’s fine. But it would be polite for you to say so.
 
If you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
I will respond after you answer my question first, as polite discourse here requires.

Again, as it seems that you have never encountered objections to your paradigm before, and need to check with your pastor (who, BTW, is fallible, so you’ll have to discern for yourself (I guess, is that how you discern the truth of what a man proposes??), then go ahead.

But let us know when you’re ready to answer challenges to your paradigm.
 
Your argument is circular. You “prove” the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.
Not circular. Spiral.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).
 
I will respond after you answer my question first, as polite discourse here requires.

Again, as it seems that you have never encountered objections to your paradigm before, and need to check with your pastor (who, BTW, is fallible, so you’ll have to discern for yourself (I guess, is that how you discern the truth of what a man proposes??), then go ahead.

But let us know when you’re ready to answer challenges to your paradigm.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, PR.

Back to my question: if you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
 
Not circular. Spiral.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).
It’s circular, and I told you why.
 
It’s circular, and I told you why.
'kay. 🤷

I think your recusant non-responses speak for itself.

Circular means starting from the same point, arguing, and then reaching the same point.

Here we started with one premise: the bible is historically accurate and ended with the bible is inspired.

Clearly not circular.

Here’s an example of circular: I know what’s Scripture because it’s inspired; and I know what’s inspired because it’s in Scripture. That’s clearly :whacky: yet it’s the only argument Protestants can offer regarding how to know what’s theopneustos without the authority of the CC.
 
I have no idea what you’re talking about, PR.

Back to my question: if you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
I asked you first. 😃

Now, my question for you, WCH:

How can you, in your paradigm of “I can interpret Scripture as the Holy Spirit directs me to” tell anyone else that his interpretation is incorrect? What if that person responds, “Yes, my interpretation directly contradicts yours, but I read that verse and the HS told me it means " and, thus, I’m using the same paradigm as you.”
 
What if that person responds, “Yes, my interpretation directly contradicts yours, but I read that verse and the HS told me it means " and, thus, I’m using the same paradigm as you.”
Please prove that what you say above is, as you put it, “my paradigm?” (This oughta be good.)
I asked you first. 😃

Now, my question for you, WCH:

How can you, in your paradigm of “I can interpret Scripture as the Holy Spirit directs me to” tell anyone else that his interpretation is incorrect?
You need to cite where I’ve said that, and include the thread name and post number, and I’ll answer.

I don’t think you’ll be able to do that, so back to my question: If you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
 
Please prove that what you say above is, as you put it, “my paradigm?” (This oughta be good.)

You need to cite where I’ve said that, and include the thread name and post number, and I’ll answer.
As you wish: (Please keep your promise, kay?)

🎉
Look in a lexicon, you’ll see they haven’t.

”Development of Doctrine” doesn’t occur in Catholicism? Are you sure?

Yes, Scripture is Apostolic teaching.

”Be diligent to…accurately handle the word of truth…” private interpretation isn’t an error it’s encouraged.

Authority comes from God.

I have that already.

”The world” was already converted v19?
Last time I checked, God was authorized to remit sin. I don’t think that’s changed since then.

Look in a Greek Lexicon. You’ll see the word meanings are the same. No one has changed them.

Same here.

There’s only one faith, guanophore (Eph 4:5).

There’s only one faith, guanophore (Eph 4:5).

There’s only one faith, guanophore (Eph 4:5).

The Gospel handed down by the apostles is written out in Scripture for all to read.

It’s Christ’s power on display, so it’s Christ.

And authoritative Scripture.

Excellent.

The Reformation position is Biblical. I’ve yet to see anyone who can successfully challenge it.

So do Protestants:

2 Corinthians 3:18

…we…are being transformed into the same image [of the Lord] from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

A great verse proclaiming a great Biblical truth.
Jesus is talking about the indwelling of the Spirit. He doesn’t say a thing about “infused” anything.

All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and none of the verses you’ve linked talk about “infused” anything.

Regarding Calvin, and the image of God, you’re reading is wrong. For Calvin, the image of God was not lost.

Wrong again, guanophore, by grace is one regenerated, or born again.

Scripture’s very clear that it is by grace, that God JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, IOW, God JUSTIFIES SINNERS, guanophore (Rom 4:5; 5:6), so your beef about that makes no sense?

Yes, that’s justification.

You’re wrong, guanophore.

Hear the following scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:18

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image [of Jesus] from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
That’s what you’re saying, but that’s not what Jesus is saying.

”No one,” means NO ONE, and NO ONE would include the sheep.

I think you believe that God justifies believers through baptism. God says of those He justifies that HE ALSO glorifies them (Rom 8:30), which squares with Jesus’ saying “THEY WILL NEVER PERISH.”

Those He justified HE ALSO GLORIFIED…” (Rom 8:30).

So could you have misinterpreted it.

You can’t prove any of that. As far as being “enlightened,” Jesus gives light to every man (Jn 1:9; cf Rom 1:19), and believers are no where in scripture described as being “partakers” of the Spirit, but are indwelt by Him, and you can’t prove that the “heavenly gift” is the Eucharist, and most importantly, how do you square that with Jesus’ statement that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish? Huh? How do you square that?

Dude, (face/palm).

Amen.

You’re using John 15 to negate John 10 again. You simply can’t believe what Jesus says in John 10:28,29. Look, if one doesn’t abide in Christ, it’s because he’s not one of Christ’s sheep.

You set up a contradiction you can’t resolve. Don’t deny it.

Then He didn’t give them eternal life because He says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “THEY WILL NEVER PERISH.”

Are you free from sin, guanophore, and never to go to confession?
In truth, as a result of salvation, one is placed into the true church by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:12-13).
 
As you wish: (Please keep your promise, kay?)

🎉
jYou’ve not demonstrated what I’ve asked for.

There’s one post in which I said gphore was wrong, and as I recall it had nothing to do with an interpretation of scripture, but with assertions about Calvin, and Protestantism.

Now, if you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
 
Please answer the question first.

Thanks! 🙂
That’s right; you can’t prove it, so stop with pretending to know things about me you don’t know, and quit thinking you know what my answers to your questions are when you don’t know.
 
jYou’ve not demonstrated what I’ve asked for.
Now, how did I know you were going to say that? 😛

WCH, it is good for you to be here. You have clearly never heard apologia for Catholicism, nor have you ever been posed questions about your Protestantism.

Your silence on questions posed to you speaks volumes.

Perhaps you will indeed speak to your pastor and come back to us with answers, and then we can pursue dialogue in that vein. 🤷

So, in Christian charity I will continue.
Now, if you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
Ok…since you asked…😃

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
 
Now, how did I know you were going to say that? 😛

WCH, it is good for you to be here. You have clearly never heard apologia for Catholicism, nor have you ever been posed questions about your Protestantism.

Your silence on questions posed to you speaks volumes.

Perhaps you will indeed speak to your pastor and come back to us with answers, and then we can pursue dialogue in that vein. 🤷

So, in Christian charity I will continue.

Ok…since you asked…😃

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
But if you’re not infallible, how do you know the church is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top