The OT can make wise unto salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued

Taking it all in “renders the man of God fully equipped for every good work” = materially sufficient. Again, sufficient does not logically mean exclusive or necessary. Can the Bible alone do it all without faith, righteousness, and a whole bunch of other non-Biblical (things outside the text itself–Paul used “grapha” in verse 16) things?

I am only concerned with Scripture being materially and formally sufficient.

Although it is certain Jesus could save without the Bible that fact is irrelevant to the question “is the bible sufficient to make wise unto salvation and equip the saints for every good work?” If it wasn’t Paul would have said so.

As the Bible teaches “faith, righteousness, and a whole bunch of other” things any part these have in salvation cannot invalidate Paul’s teaching about Scripture!

Unnecessary items are irrelevant and immaterial to the question of the sufficiency of Scripture.

The Bible could not fully equip men of God unless it had all the equipment = materially sufficient. “Fully equipped” does not mean (is not logically identical to) “sufficiently equipped.” What is sufficient is often not “full.” See “full aromor of God” above. A sword is sufficient but by itself it is not “full.”

That is irrelevant, I never said all the equipment exists in Scripture, I said it must have all that is necessary to be made wise unto salvation, otherwise Paul would have said so.

For the Bible’s teaching to instruct and correct etc, it must be clear = formal sufficiency. First, this means that in addition to the Bible there needs to be a correct understanding. The Bible alone isn’t enough (which is part of why Paul said “for teaching” not just reading aloud) without that understanding–and a correct understanding is not always present when the Bible is, so there is no logical identity or mutual implication between them.

You are looking at the wrong verse:

2 Timothy 3:15 …the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The OT scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation provided its testimony about Jesus is believed.

It must be clear otherwise Timothy could not have known them as a child and that without the teaching of the RCC or their traditions:

2 Timothy 3:15 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures

The logical obverse of your statement “For the Bible’s teaching to instruct…, it must be clear” is “If it is not clear, then the Bible’s teaching does not instruct…” The former (your version) makes “clear” the logically necessary condition for the Bible to work to instruct… The latter shows that “not clear” means the Bible’s teaching does not instruct or work in the way it should.

For Catholics “clear” comes from the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium of the Church (CCC 84f.)–the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church and not its traditions.

Thanks for your statement of belief but that is immaterial to the proposition:

“For the Bible’s teaching to instruct…, it must be clear”

“If it is not clear, then the Bible’s teaching does not instruct…”

Magisterium teaching authority is very unappealing as I see nothing necessary to salvation coming into existence because of them.

All the good necessary to be made wise unto salvation is in sufficient clear quantity in Scripture without them.

Another way of expressing this:

The RCC Magisterium is either Superfluous or Pernicious as it must either agree or disagree with Scripture.

If in agreement then their output is superfluous; if in disagreement then their product is pernicious as it contradicts God’s Word.

As what is Superfluous or Pernicious is undesirable the RCC Magisterium is undesirable.
 
I guess the good thing, LOC, is that you acknowledge that Paul was referring only to Old Testament Scriptures in this letter to Timothy (this is, of course, obvious from the fact that Timothy has known them from his childhood, as well as from the fact that the letter he is reading is currently a letter, not Scripture). At least we’re squared away on that point.

However, you have not been supporting your arguments. For example, the argument that material and formal sufficiency are meaningless distinctions. You did a good job listing a conviction, but did not supply any reason for a reader to agree with it. This distinction actually points toward the heart of your argument. You can’t avoid discussing the difference between fully equipped and sufficiently equipped by simply stating it is irrelevant. In order to address it, you must explain why. Your argument seems to consist instead of a rather vain repetition. If you never come from a different angle, how is one to understand your argument.

A last piece of advice would be to warn you against claiming the obvious clarity of Scripture, because Scripture in fact seems to contradict this; most specifically it tells us that your quote itself comes from a passage that may be hard to understand.

“He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16).

If all Scripture is obviously so easy to understand, why is it that Peter’s second epistle (which I assume you still regard as inspired) tells us that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand? Is it that Paul’s writings are not Scripture? Or did only Paul’s *easy-*to-understand writings wind up in the canon, while all the harder parts were left by the wayside?

“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 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.” (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

This verse also makes it seem odd that the Scriptures could be sufficient unto knowledge of God all by their lonesome because then they would be doing so in the absence of that thing which supports and upholds the truth - the church. A foundation, actually, is considered by builders to be a rather important part of a structure. But I guess if you’ve found a great way of supporting the truth without a foundation or pillars or anything like that, then it must be better than Paul’s way.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
When Paul says the Bible has enough in it to make wise unto salvation, it does.
Click to expand...
Paul actually doesn’t say what you are claiming he is, but rather is specifically eluding to the OT (which are the scriptures that Timothy knew since his infancy).
There are those who claim that the OT, alone, is sufficient for making one wise unto salvation based on this scripture passage. Are you of this school of thought?
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Continued
Magisterium teaching authority is very unappealing as I see nothing necessary to salvation coming into existence because of them.

All the good necessary to be made wise unto salvation is in sufficient clear quantity in Scripture without them.

Another way of expressing this:

The RCC Magisterium is either Superfluous or Pernicious as it must either agree or disagree with Scripture.

If in agreement then their output is superfluous; if in disagreement then their product is pernicious as it contradicts God’s Word.

As what is Superfluous or Pernicious is undesirable the RCC Magisterium is undesirable.
Click to expand...
You tried this argument in the “Eat my flesh…” thread and I answered the “dilemma” you said no one has “been able to answer”. In case you missed it:
LOC, Sorry to disagree with another argument, but here is an answer. The dilemma simply doesn’t work. There is no reason given why the only answers are “Superfluous” or “Pernicious.” Worse, there is no logical principle of division that makes these the only possibilities. FInally, there is good reason to think they are not the only possibilities. For example (a hypothetical example), The Magisterium could address questions (make pronouncement) about cloning. Such comment wouldn’t necessarily be pernicious (after all don’t we need guidance on such matters from a Christian perspective?) and it wouldn’t necessarily be superfluous since Scripture does not directly address cloning.

True, it could be (would be) based on Scripture but it would not be superfluous. The same reasoning is true for doctrines concerning the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and others that I assume you would accept. The Cathchism of the Catholic Church says: “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith” (CCC 86). Aquinas addressed this kind of question in the"Treatise on Law" in discussing the need for Scripture and human law in addition to (and built on) God’s eternal law (Summa I Q. 90-100).

David
 
Interesting C&P, LOC, but not one of them answers any of my infamous 4 questions 🙂
 
Catholic4aReasn said:
Paul actually doesn’t say what you are claiming he is, but rather is specifically eluding to the OT (which are the scriptures that Timothy knew since his infancy).
There are those who claim that the OT, alone, is sufficient for making one wise unto salvation based on this scripture passage. Are you of this school of thought?
Click to expand...

Actually, LOC is positing that way of thinking in this thread.

He effectively de-scripturizes the NT in his opinion. So desperate is he to hold on to a certain man-made tradition that makes null the word of God, he is willing to make null the entire NT! 🙂
 
The OT (if absolutely alone) cannot make anyone wise unless they have already had some instruction and support.

Infants need parents to care for them.

Any parent knows that an infant left with the Old Testament alone will soon perish for lack of water or nourishment.

As a child, we learn how to read and write.

There were many ancient scribes who had to replicate the manuscripts, to continue to hand them down to us.

There were Bible translators who researched and translated with the best of their abilities to give us something we could read in our own language.

And Bible publishers, etc.

I once met a nice Baptist man who actually thought God had given us the Bible in the authorized King James Version and any other Bible translation was worthless. I asked him what Bible Spanish-speaking people should use. He said he had never thought about that. Look, I’m not speaking against that brother. We all only have the intelligence that God gave us.

We do learn from our outer environment. St. Paul in his letter to Romans says that.

The OT has provided me with a lot of guidance, even greatly helping me to see my way to the Roman Catholic Church (I’m starting RCIA soon). If you like KJV (and what Bible-believing Baptist doesn’t?), get the whole thing – the Old Testament that the KJV translators originally produced.

You need “eyes to see and ears to hear”.

And even as Christians, Paul exhorts in Hebrews 10:25 “We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.”

So we should not stay at home alone with our Bibles and study only the OT to seek salvation.

How would my sister find salvation with only the Old Testament? She was born mentally retarded? The intention of the Church counts in her case, doesn’t it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

I read and thought about what St. Thomas Aquinas said about “Intention”. And Ecclesiastes 4:12 “…A three-ply cord is not easily broken.” In the sacraments, there are three intentions. The ministering Priest, the intent of the Church and the one(s) receiving the sacrament. I think when perplexing difficulties arise from the Priest or the one(s) receiving the sacrament – God in His infinite Wisdom, Mercy and Love will see a solution and Grace will abound so long as it follows the intent of the Church. I think examples of such perplexing difficulties may include:
  • Infant Baptism (the infant cannot have intent)
  • Mentally retarded adults (who don’t have sufficient understanding)
  • The rare circumstance that the Priest is actually failing in his duty although he expresses the correct words and outwardly appears to be fulfilling his duty.
I must be completely missing the point of this thread.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown #33
While it might be nice to have a tank to slay one’s enemy, sword and shield are sufficient to do the job.
Click to expand...
But there are tanks and they can do the job too. Also, what about the rest of the armor of God in Ephesians 6? As I said a sword may be all that you need to fight, but the rest is important too (why else did Paul tell us to take them all?). Here you add the shield of faith to your equipment. So now it is the sword (word of God) and the shield of faith. This undermines claims to “sword alone.” Further, while a sword is a sufficient weapon it is not necessary and there are any number of other sufficient weapons that can accomplish the same task.
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown #33
Belief in Christ as LORD for salvation is both necessary and sufficient (Rm 10:9), hence Paul’s caveat about the Scriptures making “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 2:15)…
Click to expand...
If “Belief” is necessary and sufficient for salvation, it does not logically follow that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for that purpose. Paul told Timothy that he had known the Scriptures from his youth–here, in using “grammata”, he refers to the written text. Paul, earlier in this chapter, told Timothy to continue in what he learned from Paul’s life, teaching, patience, sufferings, and love–and then added the reference to the Scripture he learned in his youth. In verse 16 Paul said all Scripture (“graphe”-lit. writing) is God-breathed. Scripture here refers to the written text (“logos” and “rhema” are not used. The written “graphe” is not the sum and totality of the Word of God–there is a difference).

Problem. There have been any number of people being saved without the written Scriptures, or without even hearing them–many conversions come about by testimony, etc., for example (I have even, as a Protestant, heard conversion stories about Jesus appearing to someone). If you want to include this as part of “Scripture,” then you go beyond your proof text. In Romans, Paul said those without the Law–without the written Scripture–still have a witness sufficient to condemn them (Ro. 1:18f.) or to save them (Ro. 2:14f.). Abraham was justified by faith (Ro. 4:1-3) but he did not have any Scripture (“graphe”).
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown #33
To illustrate, a Host having sufficiently fed His guests all that is necessary to make them “full” ready to “burst” ladles additional servings to everyone’s plate. It does not follow this happened because they were hungry, did not receive sufficient food before.
Click to expand...
I hope you know this is a bad example. It is an exmple of the fallacy of begging the question. To “sufficiently” feed does not neecessarily mean giving them “all that is necessary to make them ‘full’.” To sufficiently feed can also mean (and moer accurately does mean) to feed sufficient for some purpose (sufficient for life, for training, for some activity, etc.–it might mean for the purpose of making full)–for some purpose other than being “full” and “ready to burst.” You assume your meaning for the word and then try to use your example to prove your assumption.
 
By the way, a general comment (my previous post was too long to add this). The most you have shown in any of the numerous posts I have read is that you can interpret Scripture to fit your beliefs (“can” not necessarily “have”). The number of Catholic responses have shown they can do the same (and that is the most they can do too)–you can’t show their interpetation wrong by assuming your interpretation; the most that can logically show is that the Catholic interpretation is not consistent with your interpretation. The same is true of the Protestants who don’t agree with your interpretations. What you have never shown, and can never show, is that your interpretation is the only right one (“true”). Ultimately, all of it boils down to which interpretation is accepted and on what basis must one accept an interpretation (saying “accept the Bible,” or “accept what the Word of God” says, or “the Bible says…,” etc. are question-begging).
 
LetsObeyChrist said:
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

2 Tim 3:17 (HINA) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.-asv

The appearance of “that” (hina, lit., in order that) at the start of vs 17 identifies what follows as the conclusion to the premise in verse 16.

Reversed it teaches the same thing:

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. 16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.-asv
Click to expand...

Actually, “reversed” it does not teach the same thing. As you have given it, in the first instance Scripture is the sufficient cause but when you “reverse” it, you make Scripture the necessary cause. There is a logical distinction between the two (as well as metaphysical distinctions). It is a logically invalid inference to claim “If S, then C” is the same thing as “If C, then S.” You are assuming what you are trying to prove–that Scripture is necessary and sufficient, and this passage won’t give you both.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
If one accepts the OT testimony Jesus is the Christ (Lk 24:44) and believes in Him as LORD (Rm 10:9) they are made wise unto (eis, into) salvation just as happened to these Bereans:

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. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Hence the idea Scripture may be “materially sufficient” but not “formally sufficient” is bogus. Scripture is clear enough to be made wise unto salvation.

It may not contain all the info Catholic apologists would like to see, but it certainly does have sufficiently clear material that the man of God be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

God through Paul says so.
Click to expand...
Actually, the distinction is not “bogus.” Set aside your interpretation of that passage, for the sake of argument. You cannot logically infer that because Scripture was (I am taking your assumption here) formally and materially sufficient in one case that it is in all cases (which would involve the fallacy of hasty generalization or the fallacy of composition/division)–which is what you would have to do to make your point. Further, even if it were true in all cases, it wouldn’t prove the distinction “bogus” (it might have some other function, for example)–just that the distinction isn’t relevant in this case.

Worse still, there is a counter-example (someone already gave this and I repeat it). Philip was sent by God to an Ethiopian eunuch who and and was reading the Scripture (Acts 8:28) but this eunuch said he couldn’t understand the text and needed a teacher (Acts 8:31)–Scripture was clearly not sufficient for him. Since it only takes one counter-example to refute a universal claim, the story of the eunuch is logically sufficient to refute that claim. (I have given other reasons in a previous post today.)
 
Reply to David Brown: #45

You tried this argument in the “Eat my flesh…” thread and I answered the “dilemma” you said no one has “been able to answer”. In case you missed it:

LOC, Sorry to disagree with another argument, but here is an answer. The dilemma simply doesn’t work. There is no reason given why the only answers are “Superfluous” or “Pernicious.”

Worse, there is no logical principle of division that makes these the only possibilities. Finally, there is good reason to think they are not the only possibilities. For example (a hypothetical example), The Magisterium could address questions (make pronouncement) about cloning. Such comment wouldn’t necessarily be pernicious (after all don’t we need guidance on such matters from a Christian perspective?) and it wouldn’t necessarily be superfluous since Scripture does not directly address cloning.

True, it could be (would be) based on Scripture but it would not be superfluous.

I did miss it, sorry.

I gave good reason, “all teaching either agrees or disagrees with Scripture” and this indeed supplied the logical division of only two possibilities, even in the cloning and Trinity examples you cite.

A human clone is a human being as all which makes one a human being is obviously in the clone also. Clones even retain the element of having been conceived albeit via those cells that were cloned.

Therefore all scripture (and secular) law governing human beings would be applicable to their clones and that conclusion is self-evident, any Magisterium formed to conclude this would only manifest again why it is “Superfluous.”

Scripture either agrees or disagrees with cloning according to the use of the clone:

1)It would be acceptable to clone any species to multiply it(Gn 1:22,28) that such enjoy life on God’s good earth.

2)It would be unacceptable to clone humans only to rob their body parts, killing them in the process; As murder and theft are immoral and condemned in Scripture one cannot clone to accomplish those acts.

While many permutations of the above can be constructed, ultimately all of these will either agree or disagree with letter and Spirit of Scripture and therefore the need for any Magisterium also pronouncing their agreement or disagreement on the issue, is either “Superfluous” or “Pernicious.”

As either “the waste of duplication” or “the difficulty that arises from contradicting Scripture” is undesirable, a Magisterium which can only accomplish either of these to things is undesirable.

Your other example, the Trinity, proves my point.

Even me a former Arian an prove the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in Scripture and does not require a the existence of a Magisterium to conclude its essence.

However the Magisterium proved it is pernicious when it added to this data the FILIOQUE which ultimately helped fuel the Orthodox/Catholic split.
 
change:
Even me a former Arian an prove the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in Scripture and does not require a the existence of a Magisterium to conclude its essence.

However the Magisterium proved it is pernicious when it added to this data the FILIOQUE which ultimately helped fuel the Orthodox/Catholic split.

to:

Even while an Arian I perceived the Scripture teaches the Holy Trinity, without the necessity of a Magisterium.

I trust I don’t have to recite the proofs of it to you.

However the Magisterium proved it can be very pernicious when its unwarranted FILIOQUE doctrine helped fuel the Orthodox/Catholic split.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
change:
Even me a former Arian an prove the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in Scripture and does not require a the existence of a Magisterium to conclude its essence.

However the Magisterium proved it is pernicious when it added to this data the FILIOQUE which ultimately helped fuel the Orthodox/Catholic split.

to:

Even while an Arian I perceived the Scripture teaches the Holy Trinity, without the necessity of a Magisterium.

I trust I don’t have to recite the proofs of it to you.

However the Magisterium proved it can be very pernicious when its unwarranted FILIOQUE doctrine helped fuel the Orthodox/Catholic split.
Click to expand...
Even with the change, all Holy Scripture can be shown to be is consistent with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. It is there implicitly, but not explicitly, unlike sola scriptura, which is not there at all.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #45

I gave good reason, “all teaching either agrees or disagrees with Scripture” and this indeed supplied the logical division of only two possibilities, even in the cloning and Trinity examples you cite.
Click to expand...
The two possibilities are P or not-P. That is “agrees” or “not agrees.” You have assumed “not agrees” means “disagrees” and thereby imply something pernicious or false. But while “not agrees” (the proper logical division) would include “disagrees” it is not so limited.
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #45
A human clone is a human being as all which makes one a human being is obviously in the clone also. Clones even retain the element of having been conceived albeit via those cells that were cloned.

Therefore all scripture (and secular) law governing human beings would be applicable to their clones and that conclusion is self-evident, any Magisterium formed to conclude this would only manifest again why it is “Superfluous.” .
Click to expand...
To be a bit extreme…How do you know a clone is a human being? It is not a method of reproduction mentioned in the text of Scripture for producing human beings. Science, DNA, etc. are all extra-Biblical and you seem to assume at least something like them
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #45
Scripture either agrees or disagrees with cloning according to the use of the clone:
Click to expand...
Where does Scripture say it is the use of a thing that matters? What of its nature or its purpose or any number of other consideratins? Why this and only this one? Again, the proper division is “Scripture either agrees or does not agree…”
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #45
1)It would be acceptable to clone any species to multiply it(Gn 1:22,28) that such enjoy life on God’s good earth.
Click to expand...
This passage does not speak of cloning. It does, however, tell us how to go about multiplying–the one flesh union of a man and wife. Since the verses you used do not talk about cloning you must “extend” their meaning or find a meaning “behind” the text itself. But that would be superfluous or pernicious, right? MORE ON NEXT POST
 
CONTINUED…
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #45
While many permutations of the above can be constructed, ultimately all of these will either agree or disagree with letter and Spirit of Scripture and therefore the need for any Magisterium also pronouncing their agreement or disagreement on the issue, is either “Superfluous” or “Pernicious.”:
Click to expand...
Here, apart from the logical problem (“superfluous” and “pernicious” do not have the logical form of “P” and “not-P”), you seem to violate your own rule. You tried to use Gen 1 to support cloning, but the verse does not address cloning.

As for claiming a clone is a human being, you have no scripture to show that–no Scripture talks about cloning–it is something we understand apart from Scripture and you are creating your own Magisterium when you add to the original meaning and context of Scripture. More interesting you admit this by distinguishing the “letter” of Scripture from the “Spirit of Scripture.” Where is this “Spirit” since it is not in the letter? Sure, the Spirit and letter agree, but that is the Catechism’s view of Magesterium (CCC 85f.). Isn’t the Spirit of Scripture superfluous or pernicious too by your logic? It goes beyind the text. Perhaps, by Scripture you mean both. If so, then the “graphe”, the letter is not sufficient as you elsewhere claim–that Scripture goes beyond the text. Perhaps, you will deny that the Spirit of Scripture goes beyond or adds to the text, then by your logic it is superfluous or pernicious.

The question is where is your Magisterium? How do you get the “Spirit” of Scripture when others get something else from the same text?
 
I am coming in late in the game but here goes…the verse does not say “only” scripture or scripture “alone”. Fundamentalists claim to be literalists, but here they want to twist the verse to say something it doesn’t. Let’s look at it this way. To be fully equipped every soldier must have a rifle. But is that the ONLY thing he needs? Doesn’t he need boots, uniform, ammunition etc.? The verse says scripture is inspired and necessary, but it doesn’t say only scripture is inspired and necessary. The Bible itself never claims that. In addition the verse does not define what books are scripture. It took an inspired Church, the Catholic Church, to do that. So even if he was right we still would not know what scripture is scripture. Keep in mind the OT canon wasn’t set yet then either. Also consider that if it was so obvious then why do all Protestants not agree on what scripture says? The Bible tells us to also hold fast to Tradition. That is one of those scriptures that gets abandoned pretty fast in fundamentalist circles. I have looked through the whole Bible and have not found a single verse that supports the sola scriptura fallacy. Hence I went from Protestant minister to Catholic priest.
 
Btw, I read that sermon by MacArthur. It was one of the most vile, bigoted, and vicious attacks on Catholicism that I have seen outside a Jack Chick comic book. Not only that he misrepresented the faith he was attacking. I seem to remember a scripture that forbids bearing false witness. Again we see how selective fundamentalists are in their Bible quoting.
 
Reply to David Brown: #56-57

LOC:I gave good reason, “all teaching either agrees or disagrees with Scripture” and this indeed supplied the logical division of only two possibilities, even in the cloning and Trinity examples you cite.

DB:The two possibilities are P or not-P. That is “agrees” or “not agrees.” You have assumed “not agrees” means “disagrees” and thereby imply something pernicious or false. But while “not agrees” (the proper logical division) would include “disagrees” it is not so limited.

Agree or disagree are contradictories just as true and false are, you are arguing they contraries which they are not.

God’s truth is not predicated on untruth, and contains only truth, not untruth.

Unless you can document otherwise P or Not-P with its logical divisions remain unchanged and your argument for contraries is irrelevant immaterial and incompetent.

Prove your premises sir and then will can consider any examples predicated upon them.

Until then RCC magisterium remains either Superfluous or Pernicious.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Until then RCC magisterium remains either Superfluous or Pernicious.
Click to expand...
Heh. But your personal magisterium is not superfluous or pernicious?

You’ve essentially de-scripturized the NT while at the same time citing it as an authority. Huh?

Violation of Sola Scriptura. I’ll have to write you up a citation 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top