second question for our non-catholic brethern

[PRmerger]

When we stand before God to stand behind what we believe, there will be no magisterium to back us up, we are responsible for our beliefs.

Also, the thought occurred to me that if by “no magisterium to back us up” means that you reject what the magisterium has proclaimed, then you will not have the dogma of the Trinity.

For it is not by Scripture that anyone receives the dogma of the Trinity, but rather from the magisterium.

One cannot read the Bible and come to a distillation of the Trinity. That lens comes from the Church.

As JWs are so fond of saying, (and they are absolutely correct here): if you were on a desert island and someone dropped a Bible in your lap, you would not glean that there is One God with 3 Persons from its pages.

That distillation comes from…

the magisterium.

 

[Kliska]

So how will you know when your pastor is interpreting correctly or incorrectly, knowing that he is fallible?

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and **searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. **

 

[PRmerger]

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and **searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. **

Can you tell me whether the SDAs, who state that the day of worship is Saturday, haven’t searched the Scriptures?

They claim that they have done that which is in Acts 17:11. Except they come to a very, very different conclusion than you or I do.

Now what do we do, in your SS paradigm?

 

[Kliska]

Also, the thought occurred to me that if by “no magisterium to back us up” means that you reject what the magisterium has proclaimed, then you will not have the dogma of the Trinity.

Muddled logic again, we believe people can obviously get teachings right as well as wrong, and we are to search scripture daily to check their teaching. I’ve studied the doctrine of theTrinity and prayed on it, and find it to be true. I can make a case to anyone who asks because I’ve researched it myself and know it to be accurate.

For it is not by Scripture that anyone receives the dogma of the Trinity, but rather from the magisterium.

Holy Spirit.

One cannot read the Bible and come to a distillation of the Trinity.

What an odd statement.

As JWs are so fond of saying, (and they are absolutely correct here): if you were on a desert island and someone dropped a Bible in your lap, you would not glean that there is One God with 3 Persons from its pages.

Sure I would.

That distillation comes from…

The Holy Spirit. God does direct His people, OT and NT. Gratefully in the NT we are made priests, sons, and daughters, sealed with the Spirit and directed personally by God as long as we are willing to listen and to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, and searching scripture daily, studying to show ourselves approved.

 

[Kliska]

Can you tell me whether the SDAs, who state that the day of worship is Saturday, haven’t searched the Scriptures?

They claim that they have done that which is in Acts 17:11. Except they come to a very, very different conclusion than you or I do.

Now what do we do, in your SS paradigm?

Show them in scripture where they are in error. I’ve done it before, so can you. It’s up to them to listen and believe or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and **searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. **

And what about the folks who apply “text crit” and decide that St. Paul’s writings are not theopneustos?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Can they exclude those writings when they “search the Scriptures”?

What is your belief about their decision to remove the writings of St. Paul from the canon?

 

[PRmerger]

Show them in scripture where they are in error. I’ve done it before, so can you. It’s up to them to listen and believe or not.

But they’re going to show you in Scripture where you are in error regarding the day of worship.

And then what?

 

[Kliska]

And what about the folks who apply “text crit” and decide that St. Paul’s writings are not theopneustos?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Can they exclude those writings when they “search the Scriptures”?

What is your belief about their decision to remove the writings of St. Paul from the canon?

They are in error.

 

[Kliska]

But they’re going to show you in Scripture where you are in error.

And then what?

They can’t show me that, because it isn’t there, and their cherry pickings don’t interest me. If they don’t believe what scripture teaches and as I show it forth, I knock the dust off my feet and move on.

 

[PRmerger]

They are in error.

Of course.

But they have applied the very same paradigm which you reserve for yourself.

Except you say that they can’t use text crit to independently assert their conclusions, outside of the magisterium.

But you can.

It is wrong to reserve for yourself what you deny in others, Kliska.

 

[Kliska]

Of course.

But they have applied the very same paradigm which you reserve for yourself.

And they’ve reached a false conclusion just like those who rejected Paul’s message when he was walking around this earth.

Except you say that they can’t use text crit to independently assert their conclusions, outside of the magisterium.

Sure they can., they just did, but they reached a faulty conclusion.

It is wrong to reserve for yourself what you deny in others, Kliska.

PR, I don’t deny anything for others. Again, we’ve gone over this and over this, they have the ability and right to err. The RCC has done similar things in it’s teaching. If Jesus was to endow a certain group with infallibility He would not have to chastise churches and leaders as He does in scripture, nor would He ask if He shall find faith on the earth when He comes back.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I don’t deny anything for others.

Yes, you do.

You bristle when the magisterium tells you, “You are in error”.

But reserve for yourself the right to tell others, “You are in error.”

And now, with my psychic powers, I am going to predict that someone here is going to bow out of the discussion with something like, “Thank you very much. But I have nothing more to say here!”.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m not dancing, you are. Scripture was around before the church. This is clear from scripture itself. The church was born on Pentecost, this happened in Jerusalem where scripture was studied daily.

Yet what books were considered scripture at the time of Pentecost? Old Testament writings only yet the Jew’s did not have an agreed to canon of OT scripture. So which OT writings do you believe are inspired and inerrant and why? The apostles used the septuagint which included the Deuterocanonical’s. Both Catholics and Orthodox have considered them inspired and inerrant for 1,600+ years. You side with the Pharisees and exclude them. Why?

Not so. The NT is the word of God as well as the OT.

Perfect. You agree that the Holy Spirit led the Catholic Church to all Truth in deciding which books should be in the NT as the NT does not come with a list of inspired books. You hold that the Catholic Church was infallible in deciding that 27 NT writings are inspired and inerrant, out of a couple of hundred writings at the time. You agree with the Catholic Council of Rome (382ad), Synod of Hippo (393ad), Synod of Carthage (397), Council of Florence (1431) as well as the Council of Trent.

That the Catholic Church got the NT “right” in your mind, and the OT “wrong” is a problematic position to hold. If you can not trust the Church on getting the OT number of books right, then neither can you trust that it got the NT right either.

Interesting too that the Original King James Version, 1511, had 73 books.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes, you do.

You bristle when the magisterium tells you, “You are in error”.

But reserve for yourself the right to tell others, “You are in error.”

And now, with my psychic powers, I am going to predict that someone here is going to bow out of the discussion with something like, “Thank you very much. But I have nothing more to say here!”.

You’ve changed your example there.

Re: the mad anti-Paul people, surely you can see that it’s possible to assert that their text-critical methods are legitimate, but their conclusions are erroneous? That’s in no way contradictory or denying others what one allows one’s self.

 

[Novocastrian]

And since it’s “very unlikely” that does mean that it’s likely–quite likely, in fact–that he’s going to be wrong.

Going. To. Be. Wrong.

Which brings me back to my original statement.

Fallible means: going to be wrong.

Or, at least, quite likely to be.

Those are two different things!! Can’t you see this? Definitions matter.

Fallible does not mean ‘going to be wrong’. Fallibility, in practice, often leads to going wrong, but it does not entail it as such. If you make that logical leap as if it were necessary, you build your argument on untrue premises and invalid deductions.

 

[Porknpie]

The bible does not teach the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

Christ said that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead his Church to all Truth and that he himself would protect it from the gates of hell until the end of time. Infallible on faith and morals. Believing otherwise, that Christ would NOT lead his Church to all Truth contradicts scripture.

Jesus and Paul said you can find eternal life in the scriptures.

Then you don’t need the New Testament as they were speaking of the Old Testatment.

 

[Porknpie]

Again, a key belief in Sola Scriptura is that written scripture is a benchmark; if something that is taught is contrary to written scripture, we know the teaching is false.

Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and **searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. **

And this is exactly why I keep saying that you should be under the Law of Moses by the way you support your private individual definition of SS:

Scriptures refers to the OT. There is no NT when the NT is being written. Not only that but there is not even a canon for the OT yet. Not only that but there a different Jewish sects that used different collections of books that each one determined to be inspired or to be authoritative (Sounds familiar doesn’t it?). Not only that but what the Apostles are more than likely to have used was a collection of OT books from an open canon known as the Septuagint - since more than 70% of the OT quotations are from these collection of writings. Not only that but it was Protestantism that wanted to side with Jewish authorities for the OT canon and not Christ’s Church… Imagine that! Relying on secularism and on non-Christian sources… When Luther and even the original KJV had the deuterocanonicals.

No my friend, you don’t realize it but you are placing yourself under the law.

You want to be SS then you must be under the Law. The Church declared what NT writings are Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You can’t claim one and keep the other at the same time.

Either the Church received the Scriptures from the Holy Spirit or they didn’t. And if you accept the NT - you are accepting the authority of the Church because there is no other source of revelation in this regard.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They are in error.

Where in Scriptures does it say that we are to **worship **on Sunday? Where Sunday should be in place for the Sabbath?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then you don’t need the New Testament as they were speaking of the Old Testatment.

Right but Christ actually didn’t say that.

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.