B
benjohnson
Guest
Perhaps making the pious belief of the Immaculate Conception dogma - placing a stumbling block per 1 Corinthians 8:9.
NonCatholics: Are you able to know it's Scripture from reading a text?
- Status
T
Thorolfr
Guest
What you’re saying here makes no sense. You say that God didn’t give the Israelites permission to own slaves, divorce wives, etc., but that these passages where he does give them permission to do such things are still inspired and are God’s Word. Why would God say something or inspire something that is not true? Why would God say, for example (Leviticus 25:44-46): “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have…You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property” but not really be giving them permission to own these slaves as property?
God even says (Exodus 21:1-4): "These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: 2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone.
So you’re saying that God didn’t really mean it that a freed slave must leave behind his wife and children if his wife belonged to his former master even though God says this in his inspired Word?
Or how about where God says in Deuteronomy 23:2: “Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”
Is God really punishing illegitimate children (it’s not their fault that they are illegitimate) by excluding them from the community or is He just saying this in His inspired Word but didn’t really mean it?
S
spedteacherita
Guest
This may seem like I’m avoiding the question but since this thread deals directly with knowledge that it’s Scripture from reading a text I don’t want to derail the thread. I’d be happy to discuss it in another thread - although I don’t want to risk being banned for my thoughts/beliefs as my faith is challenged and I grow through the studying and interaction with other Christians
I admire your confidence and your faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a devout Christian in my Lutheran faith I have learned over the years that I can learn more about my faith from visiting other churches but I have 40 years under my belt in this theology - I take my time when I learn about others (ask the SDA’s in Berrien Springs, MI - we studied and debated for almost 20 years
).I appreciate your respectful dialogue with me.
God’s peace to you,
Rita
I
inocente
Guest
No it isn’t. Just look at the interlinear I linked:
God-breathed = θεόπνευστος (theopneustos)
Scripture = γραφὴ (graphē)
They are totally different words. If they meant the same then 2 Tim 3:16 would start “All Scripture is Scripture”, which would be silly. It doesn’t, it starts “All Scripture is God-breathed”.
Amazing you would search for a four and a half year old post, but if you look back at that discussion, it was about your transliterated θεόπνευστος in the context of the Holy Quran, as you quoted.
You now appear to be comparing the God-breathed inspiration which hundreds of millions of people see in the Quran to Nutella. Do you think such comparisons are God-breathed?
I think you just demonstrated you still have NO IDEA what others find God-breathed.
As an exercise, try reading this parable, substituting yourself for the first man and a Muslim for the second. Report back on where and why you find it unkind for that exercise to have entered my head. Seeing it from my point of view, do you think it entered my head prompted by the Spirit, or by Satan, or neither?
It’s very kind of you to spend your valuable time connecting the dots for all us non-Catholics. If only there was a way for you to let the Pope know about your θεόπνευστος argument so he could spread your Good News to us all. Oh, hang on, here it is: His Holiness Pope Francis, Apostolic Palace, 00120 Vatican City.
Way not to talk down to others! Only trouble is, your θεόπνευστος argument has more holes than a fishing net. But suppose for one moment you were right. Is the most positive thing you can find to say about the Church that long ago a committee took a vote? You want us to leave living faiths in a living God to join your Church because long ago a committee took a vote?
I
inocente
Guest
I take it by HS you mean the Holy Spirit. Not sure calling the Holy Spirit HS is God-breathed, perhaps it’s the latest fad. #RespectIsSoLastCentury
Is your claim that the Church was once guided by the Spirit, but Protestant’s were not?
Or is your claim that the Church was and is guided by the Spirit, but Protestant’s were and are not?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
My favorite 2 verses to use to demonstrate this is:
“My breath is offensive to my wife”.
and
“Saul went into a cave to relieve himself.”
Surely no one could possibly be saying that they know, from reading the text, that these are theopneustos.
Surely not!
P
PRmerger
Guest
I suppose you would have to show that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t believe this.
And as far as the IC, it’s 100% logical, isn’t it, and fitting, that the vessel which contained He Who Could Not Be Contained, would be pure and undefiled?
Yes?
I believe the councils got things right, yes. Do you believe that it is wrong for someone not in communion with the Bishop of Rome to say or believe this?
The Holy Spirit’s guidance is always infallible. The very fact that there are traditions within the Church that hold differing views on doctrines indicates that, sometimes, we don’t get the message clearly, because of our sin.
1 Cor. 13
*Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12**For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. *Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
We trust grace, PR, when we fail to discern properly.
But I’d like to know the point in this: is it your point that if I as a non-Catholic agree with the Catholic Church regarding the canon of the NT,
…that I am inconsistent in the principle of sola scriptura, in giving credit or authority to the Church?
…that I am inconsistent in that by giving said credit and authority to the Church in this instance (the canon of the NT), I should give this authority in all manner about canon and doctrine?
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh! I didn’t realize that you find it amiss to use HS for Holy Spirit. I can certainly cease with using that abbreviation when in dialogue with you.I take it by HS you mean the Holy Spirit. Not sure calling the Holy Spirit HS is God-breathed, perhaps it’s the latest fad. #RespectIsSoLastCentury
My claim is that Protestants, where they have divorced themselves from the Catholic Faith, are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit.
However, where they proclaim things consonant with the kerygma, we say
And this isn’t to say that individual Protestants, when praying, reading the Scriptures, doing corporal works of mercy, aren’t filled with the Holy Spirit. Of course they are!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, sir.
Because of the hardness of their hearts.
It’s an attempt to reach the Israelites where they were at.
But it’s not God endorsing slavery.
It’s simply God tolerating it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let’s just understand that when I use the word “theopneustos”, I mean: God’s Word. The inspired Word of God. Scripture.
And the point remains:*** each and every time you quote from the NT as the Word of God, you are declaring your submission to the authority of the CC.***
For THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR YOU TO KNOW what’s theopneustos and what’s not, as far as the canon of the NT is concerned, except by saying, “Oh, the CC said that Hebrews is theopneustos. And it says that the epistles of Clement are not. I defer to her authority on this manner”.
Yes, it’s kind of, I propose, as if the Holy Spirit brought that post to me.
I had forgotten that you were indeed one of those folks who took me to mean “inspiring” when I said “inspired”…but when I did a search, your post was the first one to pop up! I didn’t even know it was you until I clicked on the link…and then chuckled in amazement at the coincidence.#coincidenceorHolySpirit?Idunno
I often find it peculiar that people cannot think in the abstract in discussions here.
It’s like some of the disciples of Christ getting offended when He used parables.
Imagine some of the Jews saying, “Jesus now appears to be comparing people eating the slop of pigs to me! How dare he! I wouldn’t touch that slop with a 10 foot pole!”
This is true.
There are many folks (Bahais? Baptists? New Agers?) who seem to think rocks and poetry and the Koran and the writings of a guy name Baba, the utterings of a guy named Dawkins are God-breathed.
Heck, there’s even some folks who think that conscious breathing is…God-breathed.
But what I mean by God breathed, in this discussion, is Scripture.
And, again, the ONLY WAY you know what belongs in the NT is because you say, “I defer to the authority of the CC on this matter!”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then, Jon, you believe that they were guided by the HS, and prevented from declaring something to be theopneustos which wasn’t…and that is nothing but an acknowledgement of the charism of infallibility.
No. I think it is absolutely right for you to say this!
True. But in the case of the canon of the NT, you believe the Church got it right.
And that means, since it was guided by the HS, you believe that the Church received the charism of infallibility…in this case, right?
Yes. Your authority is the Church in this case. NOT Scripture.
Not my point…yet.
Who has the charism of infallibility?
Good.
Who, then, has the OT correct? Let’s leave Reformation communions out of it for a moment?
The Jews? The Roman Catholic Church? One of the EO or OO canons?
What does that mean?
It seems to me that the Church’s authority comes from Christ, and we find it in scripture.
First to Peter
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."…
Then the Apostles
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
Then the Great Commission of the Church:
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
“Teaching them” is part of the job of the Church, which we find in scripture. It is in perfect harmony with the principle of sola scriptura that we recognize the teaching authority of the Church.
I knew it…Not my point…yet.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, firstly all of the inspired authors of Scripture.
And secondly the vicar of Christ.
And thirdly, all the Apostles, and their successors, when they are in union with the vicar of Christ.
All of the above rendered only when they are speaking in the areas of faith and morals, and intending to be declaring an infallible teaching.
Of course, from my POV, it’s the CC.
But from your POV, I guess you’re not certain.
I don’t think, however, I would defer to the authority of the Jews in this case, for it would be reasonable to think that if they reject Christ any of their theological decisions would be suspect.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
I would think the onus would be on the CC to show that Jesus and the Apostles believed this. It’s the mysterious “Sacred Tradition” that is a great stumbling block for me - I’d like to know where this info is kept and why I can’t find it in my research…
As far as the logic of the vessel which contained our Perfect Lord and Savior being pure and undefiled why couldn’t God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, be able to set up a perfect vessel for the time He was developing His incarnate form.
- I figured since the thread was being derailed already I would add my misgivings and “stumbling blocks.”
Rita
And herein is the issue you face. Virtually no protestant, no Orthodox, will recognize that the Bishop of Rome, even when speaking ex cathedra has by himself a charism of infallilbility. Further, you will not get agreement that only bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome have this, because that assumes the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, which is rejected by virtually all protestant communions and traditions, as well as Holy Orthodoxy.
This is why the answers you are receiving are couched in caveats regarding the meaning of “charism of infallibility”. This is in part why the early seven councils are the only ones accepted as ecumenical outside of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Understood that this is what limits placed on it by ex cathedrameans.
Not certain because there is no scriptural or early council testimony that grants this only to the pope, and by extension to only the bishops in communion with him. That isn’t the way the early Church worked.
Maybe, but then again, its hard for me to see anything in the DC’s, for example, that is specific to Christianity.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
It means that you do acknowledge that the Church was given the charism of infallibility, at least as far as canon of the NT is concerned.
Yes.
And in Tradition.
But you wouldn’t know what IS Scripture, except through the authority of the CC.
So, when it comes to knowing what belongs in the Bible (NT), the ONLY authority you defer to is Christ’s Church.
NOT the Bible.
So…in the case of the canon of the NT, your authority is the Church.
NOT the Bible.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, it was you who asserted that the CC teaches things which the Apostles and Christ didn’t teach…so it would appear that the onus is actually on you, no?
You might find it helpful to read JDKelley, who is a Protestant historian. He describes Sacred Tradition as "Sacred Tradition which unerringly interprets the deposit of Catholic faith, then this Tradition is “embedded in all the organs of [the Church’s] institutional life” ( Early Christian Doctrines, pg 47-48). "
That’s exactly what He did, Rita! He did “set up a perfect vessel for the time He was developing His incarnate form”! That vessel is the Immaculate Virgin Mary.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is true.
Yet it is an untenable position to take our Holy Book and declare it to be an infallible oracle from God, without acknowledging that the men who brought you this Book did this (under the direction of the HS)…INFALLIBLY.
Once the dots are connected, it makes it clear that no one can accept the canon of the NT without also declaring, “The CC received the charism of infallibility in this case”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Isn’t this BACKWARDS, Jon?
Don’t you assert that your Christian teachings come from the Bible, NOT (as the CC asserts) that the Bible reflects our doctrines?
So this means, from your POV, you don’t get to read a text and decide, “It’s Christian”.
Rather, you read the theopneustos text and declare, “It says, A, B and C, so now I teach A, B and C.”
Do you see what I am trying to articulate? I don’t feel I am effectively presenting my point, so if this is not clear, I will try to rephrase.
- Status