More on false gospels

[rockyankeeswon]

centuri0n:

… that’s a cop out. :dancing:

Fairly well in what way? None of you have yet confronted the issue that your definition is itself self-referential (circular), and none of you have yet delivered on the implications of Hebrews 11-12.My initial question was whether or not Pius XII declaration in 1950 was always part of the faith, the faith being clearly defined by the passage in Heb 11-12. Your answer simply says, without examining Hebrews, that it must be so – no reference to any fact but that Pius said it and it must be so. :ehh:

That’s not an answer.
Of Course. The question is whether the church has the kind of authority you are resting your argument on, and whether it has exercised that authority within the bounds the Apostle has already provided.

:bounce: Bring it. Bring your case that those who are listed in Heb 11-12 all had the same faith which Pius XII says is the only true faith – that is, a faith which includes the bodily assumption of Mary.

Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems to me that the faith that is being described in Heb 11:12 is a God believing faith.This is the faith or grace that allows one to believe and trust that God exists and be confident about his revealed truths or directives. The divine and Catholic faith that Pius XII is referring to is a faith that is based on the deposit of revealed truths that have been continuously passed on by the apostles and their successors and lived out in that one, holy,catholic and apostolic faith community. I believe divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle,but divine revelation all-ready revealed in scripture or apostolic tradition can evolve or be more fully interpreted and understood in new ways without falling into non-infallibility or inventing a new revelation. I guess I don ’ t see the relationship between Abrahams believing faith( Heb 11:12) and adding something to the deposit of the Devine and catholic faith and how that might exclude non Catholics from the original deposit of believing faith of Abraham etc

 

[Richard_Froggat]

Try addressin the meat of the statement and not the inadequate introduction: “the argument I think you are making is that because Abraham did not openly deny the assumption of Mary, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have the faith which includes belief in the assumption of Mary.” That’s my summary of your argument, and if it’s wrong you ought to correct the summary.

Your summary is wrong, because I would not put forth something about Abraham denying something that had not happened in his lifetime. But lets say it did happen in or before his lifetime, and lets say that he did deny it, then my answer would be that he would be outside of the faith. Why? Because it would imply that there was something untrue about what was revealed to him by God, either directly, or better for the sake of our argument, by the means chosen by God to reveal this to him, namely in our case the Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Froggat
Why does the Pope have to say that affirmation of the translation of Enoch is essential? Are you saying it’s not essential to believe Enoch was translated?

centuriOn replies:

Yup. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying one can deny that Enoch was translated and still have saving faith. I’m not saying I deny it: I’m saying that a person could deny it and not be rejecting the Gospel of Christ.

Is that really what you’re saying? I’ll ask again. Where would you place yourself in God’s eyes if you deny what he did for Enoch?

Or, let me ask it another way.

Does not one article of faith require the same kind of faith as another? If you deny one thing, what’s so special about your belief in another? And just to make myself clear, I’m not talking about believing just because it is written, but in the manner and on the authority in which it was, and subseqeuntly, it’s being accepted as truth.

Your argument, seems to me to be, since Abraham and the cloud of witnesses did not believe in the Assumption, which is also an argument from silence, as a requirment for salvation, then it is not required for us to believe it. My argument is that Abraham could not deny that which had not happened in his lifetime, and if it did happen, he would in essence be denying God, who BTW also pulled off the resurrection.

Quote:
If by some slight chance UFO’s are revealed by God to the Church, Why would that be a problem? Because someone chooses not to believe it? And would this mean the cloud of witnesses had a different faith because they did not believe the exact same things. (bolded words are your own)

I’m sorry – your words in bold are not mine. You can’t find them in this thread.

From centuriOns post #14
But keep this in mind: even if there is no evidence in the OT that Abraham believed these things, that does not overturn the exposition of Heb 11-12 that says he in fact did have faith in exactly the same things Paul and the other present believers had faith in. It’s the same faith, of which Jesus Christ is the author and the finisher.

In JMJ, Richard

p.s. if you don’t hear from me for a while then it’s because I’m working.

 

[centuri0n]

rockyankeeswon:

Forgive me if I am wrong but it seems to me that the faith that is being described in Heb 11:12 is a God believing faith.This is the faith or grace that allows one to believe and trust that God exists and be confident about his revealed truths or directives.

Heb 11:1 Begins, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” That’s not just the belief in the existence of God: it is the conviction that God fulfills His promises. Moreover, as we read through Heb 11, we find that “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (v.6); “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own” (v. 13-14); it is exemplified by Abraham, who “considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type” (v. 19); and by Moses, who “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward” (v.24-26).

It is not a blank feeling, or a mere sense of awe: it is a confidence or conviction that God does what He sets out to do that comes only through the second birth, and it is the signifer that God is doing His work in a person.

The divine and Catholic faith that Pius XII is referring to is a faith that is based on the deposit of revealed truths that have been continuously passed on by the apostles and their successors and lived out in that one, holy,catholic and apostolic faith community.

Please! No more equivocating between the faith which saves and the deposit of faith. Pius XII was not talking about the deposit of faith when he said someone who denied the assumption was cut off from the faith: he was refering to someone being cut off from faith and subject to the wrath of God – which is the explicit statement of Munificentissimus Deus.

I believe divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle,but divine revelation all-ready revealed in scripture or apostolic tradition can evolve or be more fully interpreted and understood in new ways without falling into non-infallibility or inventing a new revelation. I guess I don ’ t see the relationship between Abrahams believing faith( Heb 11:12) and adding something to the deposit of the Devine and catholic faith and how that might exclude non Catholics from the original deposit of believing faith of Abraham etc

What you are saying here is that the Scripture is closed, but anything the magisterium appends to it is, by definition, just a clarification and not an addition. Do you not see that this remodeling of the term “adding on” to simply exclude any action of the magisterium is the worst kind of begging the question?

Paul defines those who add on to the Gospel as false bretheren. When someone adds onto the Gospel, they are false bretheren. Adding on is adding on. It’s like trying to call extamarital sex christian fellowship – it’s simply kidding yourself.

 

[centuri0n]

Richard Froggat:

Your summary is wrong, because I would not put forth something about Abraham denying something that had not happened in his lifetime. But lets say it did happen in or before his lifetime, and lets say that he did deny it, then my answer would be that he would be outside of the faith. Why? Because it would imply that there was something untrue about what was revealed to him by God, either directly, or better for the sake of our argument, by the means chosen by God to reveal this to him, namely in our case the Church.

I never thought I would live long enough to see a Catholic argue that a Pope could excommunicate Abraham, but there you go …

Is that really what you’re saying? I’ll ask again. Where would you place yourself in God’s eyes if you deny what he did for Enoch?

I also never thought I’d live long enough to see a Catholic argue that disagreeing with a report of Scripture is grounds for eternal damnation – especially when the magisterium has never commented infallibly on this passage.

To answer your question directly, I think that anyone would be sinning to deny what God’s word says is true – but that’s because I know God’s word is infallible. It is not an unforgivable sin, and it is not an unrepentable sin. It is the same kind of sin that men accomplish every day.

Or, let me ask it another way.

Does not one article of faith require the same kind of faith as another? If you deny one thing, what’s so special about your belief in another? And just to make myself clear, I’m not talking about believing just because it is written, but in the manner and on the authority in which it was, and subseqeuntly, it’s being accepted as truth.

Is it possible that you have no intention of ever coming back to the original question – which is whether the assumption of Mary is an addition to the Gospel? This question is such a leap away from the topic, I have to believe that you simply want to fight and cannot find a good reason to fight about Munificentissimus Deus – because what Pius XII said was transparently clear, and it is utterly unfound in the Gospel Paul preached.

The answer to your question is this: “The assumption of Enoch, while a historical fact of our faith history, is not a matter of the Gospel message.” The Gospel Paul preached did not require people to have faith in an event in Enoch’s life: it was the promise (and fulfillment) of the Messiah in the life of Jesus.

Your argument, seems to me to be, since Abraham and the cloud of witnesses did not believe in the Assumption, which is also an argument from silence, …

A minor correction of my previous statement is in order: an argument from silence is the argument that because someone doesn’t mention it they must be ignorant of it. However, the problem is that I am not saying that Abraham never mentions it: I’m saying the Bible never mentions it – it is never once brought up. The consensus of **Catholic ** scholars agrees with that assertion. It is not brought up in anyone from Abel to John the Apostle.

The error that the Catholic advocate falls into, however, is that he draws a conclusion with ZERO evidence – in order to deny something that is in obvious evidence. In order to avoid admitting that the Pope has added onto the Gospel Paul preached, he makes a massive historical revision.

as a requirment for salvation, then it is not required for us to believe it. My argument is that Abraham could not deny that which had not happened in his lifetime, and if it did happen, he would in essence be denying God, who BTW also pulled off the resurrection.

The resurrection did not happen in his lifetime either, sir, but Heb 11 is clear that Abraham believed in it: Abraham’s faith was the same as Paul’s faith.

:crying:

 

[Richard_Froggat]

I never thought I would live long enough to see a Catholic argue that a Pope could excommunicate Abraham, but there you go …

Not what I said.

I also never thought I’d live long enough to see a Catholic argue that disagreeing with a report of Scripture is grounds for eternal damnation – especially when the magisterium has never commented infallibly on this passage.

To answer your question directly, I think that anyone would be sinning to deny what God’s word says is true – but that’s because I know God’s word is infallible. It is not an unforgivable sin, and it is not an unrepentable sin. It is the same kind of sin that men accomplish every day.

Not only did you not answer my question, you comepletely missed the point.

To keep this short:

The gospel is the salvation of the world through Jesus Christ. Belief in Christ has everything to do with the translation of Enoch to the assumption of Mary. To say that they are not essential to the gospel is saying you can pick and choose what you want to believe and still be saved.

To illustrate my point, here is a conversation:

Moses to God:
God, I don’t believe that tale about Enoch, but I believe in your Christ.

God to Moses:
How did you hear about Enoch?

centuriOn to God:
God, I believe the gospel message proclaimed by the church up to the point where they defined the dogma of the Assumption of the virgin Mary.

This is my last post on this.

In JMJ, Richard

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

something wrong with the notion that the Apostles were infallible and that they left an infallible line of successors.

Where does it say that all successors of the Apostles are infallible, in the Catechism? I know we don’t believe that.

Do you not understand that the doctrine of sola Scriptura does not say that men infallibly know everything Scripture teaches, but that Scripture teaches without any errors, and because its teqaching is error-free, it is the only standard which is not subject to correction?

“Yeah, but” how do us ordinary people figure out what Scripture teaches inerrantly?

Inerrant Scriptures + fallible interpreter = error.

That’s a nice soliloquy. It’s not an argument which does not render the same result for your own system of belief.

Thank you for not disproving that Sola Scriptura = Sola Mirrora.

I’m still waiting for the scriptural citations that prove that the 27 books in the new testament are all the books that belong in the new testament, for some reason that wasn’t addressed.

 

[centuri0n]

… appears to be whistling past the graveyard.

BobCatholic:

Where does it say that all successors of the Apostles are infallible, in the Catechism? I know we don’t believe that.

I guess I have no idea what you are arguing, then, when you say that Paul was inerrant. If Paul cannot tell who is and is not rightly inside the brotherhood of Christians – and he mistakes John Mark in the passage I have refered to – then Paul violates your definition, or at least the definition in CCC P81.

The question is whether Paul had the inerrant authority you are claiming for the Magisterium.

“Yeah, but” how do us ordinary people figure out what Scripture teaches inerrantly?

Inerrant Scriptures + fallible interpreter = error.

I’m wondering: can you tell me what the Magisterium has inerrantly taught about Romans 1? How about John 5? How about Mt 23? Any chapter of the Bible?

No? OK. So what’s your argument now?

Oh – that’s right.
Inerrant Scriptures + fallible interpreter = error

If those are the terms you into which you put this issue, here’s what happens when we add the Magisterium:

Inerrant Scriptures + infallible interpreter + fallible listener = ???

I suggest to you that the ??? is still error – because the last guy on the left side of the equation is still you (or me): ol’ fallible us.

Thank you for not disproving that Sola Scriptura = Sola Mirrora.

Disprove it for what reason? It is a meaningless position because it has nothing to do with the inerrancy or authority of Scripture.

I’m still waiting for the scriptural citations that prove that the 27 books in the new testament are all the books that belong in the new testament, for some reason that wasn’t addressed.

There are none. Excuse me, there are as many of those as there are church fathers prior to 1560 who did not know that there was a canon of Scripture.