The OT can make wise unto salvation

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

It just occurred to me, prove your premises by citing infallible RCC magisterial pronouncements that both agree and disagree with Scripture yet never disagree with Scripture.

thanks in advance

Until then RCC magisterium remains either Superfluous or Pernicious.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
It just occurred to me, prove your premises by citing infallible RCC magisterial pronouncements that both agree and disagree with Scripture yet never disagree with Scripture.
Click to expand...
OK, but who is going to judge that something is “disagreeing with Scripture” and why should we accept their authority to make this decision that is binding on the both of us?

Until then your magisterium remains either Superfluous or Pernicious. 🙂
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
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 🙂
Click to expand...
He he…got a chuckle out of that one Bob, Keep fighting for the truth brother!😃
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #56-57

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.
Click to expand...
Reasserting a false claim doesn’t make it true. “Agree” and “Disagree” are not contradictories–especially as you have given a very negative connotation to “disagree.” “Agree” and “Not Agree” are contradictories (P and not-P)–since you mean more than “not agree” by “disagree” you cannot claim the terms identical. Moreover, you haven’t remotely shown that “agree” and “disagree” logically lead to “superfluous” or “penicious” in any case. Since the simple fact of there being other possibilites besides "agree’ and "disagree, isn’t accepted (or the reasons given already), some new examples:

"Example 1: Does the color red agree or disagree with Scripture? If it agrees, please show me chapter and verse. If it disagrees, please show me chapter and verse. Example 2: Does calculus agree or disagree with Scripture? Again, chapter and verse for your answer. Example 3, my two corgis are named “Theo” and “Cara,” does that agree or disagree with Scripture? Chapter and verse please–I don’t want to be un-Scriptural in naming my dogs. If “agrees” and “disagrees” are contradictories, then they must be contradictories in every case (and applicable in every case).

Perhpas you want to extend “agrees” with Scripture to the “Spirit” and not just the letter so you don’t have to give chapter and verse, something you mentioned earlier. If so, then 2 Tim. which talks about the letter (“graphe”) no longer supports your original position. If you want to use “agree” to mean “doesn’t contradict” and "disagree to mean “contradict,” then you can answer my examples. But then you have opened the door to a Magisterium that does not contradict Scripture (CCC 84f.) and have rendered “Superfluous or pernicious” meaningless as an attack. Lose the battle or lose the war, your choice.

By the way, Sir, you never justified your “premises” but simply repeat them. My earlier example of cloning, Sir, justified my assetion that there is a third possibility between being superfluous and pernicious–and I have already responded to your attempt to get around it.
 
Letsobeychrist,

As it has been stated many times before “sola scriptura” is plainly self refuting. I am starting to wonder if you really take the time to read what others have written so I will state it as plainly as I can. But I think this will put the issue to rest if you are honest with yourself and with the logic.

I believe that the term “sola scriptura” can be defined as “The Bible and only the Bible as the infallible rule of faith.” Correct? And the words “only the Bible” could be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura", correct?

: “The Bible and ‘sola scriptura’ is the rule of faith.”

This is the reasonable deduction agree?

I think we can see from this perspective of thought that “sola scriptura” is logically self refutingon all levels, simply for the fact that this principle (scripture as the rule of faith) must be assumed to be true in addition to the Bible correct? So we see clearly, “sola scriptura” refutes what it is purporting to claim. Am I correct in what I am saying? If not show me how you can shake yourself free from this trap.

Take Kurt Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem from met mathematical analysis for example

mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/godel/

Self-referential statements are notorious for making statements which are logically improvable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false. So, “sola scriptura” as the rule of faith without an external referent is illogical. I might challenge you to look into the (Liars Paradox) utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm Click this link to see just how ridicoulous the argument really is…
Mary concieved without sin pray for us
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
I’ll see your 16 or 18, and give you a blackjack: 21 🙂

21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
Click to expand...
This lept out at me in the “21 reasons”…

The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth” if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? *How can the Church be this “pillar and ground” if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? *The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” by denying that the Church has the authority to teach…l.

Very informative Bob, keep the good stuff coming that the truth may be known!
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
I’ll see your 16 or 18, and give you a blackjack: 21 🙂

21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
Click to expand...
This lept out out me Bob…good stuff!

The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth” if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this “pillar and ground” if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” by denying that the Church has the authority to teach
**
 
Reply to David Brown: #65

Reasserting a false claim doesn’t make it true. “Agree” and “Disagree” are not contradictories–especially as you have given a very negative connotation to “disagree.” “Agree” and “Not Agree” are contradictories (P and not-P)–since you mean more than “not agree” by “disagree” you cannot claim the terms identical.

“Disagree” is an antonym of “Agree,” “1 : to fail to agree”

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disagree

It clearly is a contradictory and not a contrary.

The form of my argument is valid and sound. In context “Agree” is the opposite of “disagree,” it is irrelevant these words elsewhere may not be opposites. In this context they are.

Moreover, you haven’t remotely shown that “agree” and “disagree” logically lead to “superfluous” or “pernicious” in any case.

As any deviation from God’s truth results in injury to believers the Teaching Authority that taught rebellion as being God’s truth is pernicious.

Since the simple fact of there being other possibilities besides "agree’ and "disagree, isn’t accepted (or the reasons given already), some new examples:

In this context they are antonyms, there aren’t other possibilities.

However for the sake of argument I proposed we follow your schema and construct a dilemma using contraries.

It just occurred to me, prove your premises by citing infallible RCC magisterial pronouncements that both agree and disagree with Scripture yet never disagree with Scripture

The RCC Magisterium has been in existence for hundreds of years, therefore it should be easy for you to pluck from its Magisterial pronouncements many examples where they have disagreed with the bible yet are not thereby pernicious.

Against my dilemma you argue that is possible, now prove it so with real world examples.

Which of the many magisterial pronouncements of the RCC are contrary to scripture (dissenting only partially) without rendering it pernicious.

‘Disagreeing with God (even a little) is pernicious,’ as even that results in injury to believers in the day of God’s Judgment.

"Example 1: Does the color red agree or disagree with Scripture? If it agrees, please show me chapter and verse. If it disagrees, please show me chapter and verse. Example 2: Does calculus agree or disagree with Scripture? Again, chapter and verse for your answer. Example 3, my two corgis are named “Theo” and “Cara,” does that agree or disagree with Scripture? Chapter and verse please–I don’t want to be un-Scriptural in naming my dogs. If “agrees” and “disagrees” are contradictories, then they must be contradictories in every case (and applicable in every case).

Non sequitur. Your examples are irrelevant and immaterial to the (RCC’s) dilemma.

The statement of the dilemma concerns God’s truth, the act of agreeing or disagreeing with it. There is no third possibility, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. One is either with God or not with Him.

While in relativistic truth “versions of truth” may coexist as absolute truth is never known.

Not so with God’s absolute truth, its either His way or the broad way that leads off into destruction.

Continued:
 
Reply to David Brown: #65 continued:

By the way, Sir, you never justified your “premises” but simply repeat them. My earlier example of cloning, Sir, justified my assertion that there is a third possibility between being superfluous and pernicious–and I have already responded to your attempt to get around it.

Actually the very silence in scripture about cloning renders it as irrelevant to the dilemma as your dogs are.

The “agree” or “disagree” is in reference to what Scripture say, not to what it don’t say.

Let us not waste any more time irrelevant tangents.

This dilemma is this: Any Human Teaching Authority pondering divine truth must end up agreeing or disagreeing with God’s truth revealed in Scripture.

There is no third possibility. Partial agreement is disagreement.

If Magisterium Teaching Authority offers alternative “truth” to that of God found in Scripture, all believing such contradictory or contrary to God “truth” will suffer eternal loss and therefore injury, for all eternity. Therefore, the Teaching Authority that caused such pain is pernicious.

If said Teaching Authority proposes truth that is in agreement with God’s truth revealed in Scripture, then the needless duplication renders the need for a separate authority zero, it is Superfluous.
 
Addendum to first:

Change

Non sequitur. Your examples are irrelevant and immaterial to the (RCC’s) dilemma.

The statement of the dilemma concerns God’s truth, the act of agreeing or disagreeing with it. There is no third possibility, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. One is either with God or not with Him.

While in relativistic truth “versions of truth” may coexist as absolute truth is never known.

Not so with God’s absolute truth, its either His way or the broad way that leads off into destruction.

To read:

Non sequitur. Your examples are irrelevant and immaterial to the (RCC’s) dilemma.

The statement of the dilemma concerns God’s truth that exists in Scripture. It has nothing to say about “truth” that does not exist in Scripture.

Therefore, your examples are irrelevant.

I agree in relativistic truth “versions of truth” may coexist as absolute truth is never known.

Not so with God’s absolute truth, its either His way or the broad way that leads off into destruction.

The dilemma is concerned only about revealed truth and if a Teaching Authority’s pronouncements agree or disagree with such.

It has nothing to do with things or concepts not mentioned in scripture.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
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! 🙂
Click to expand...
I asked you to post your four questions and endless accusations I am de-scripturalizing the NT etc on another thread.

I would respond to your “points” once and after that happily let you and others post how dumb I am, endlessly ad infinitum.

But you confuse things by posting your material here and I will not respond to it.
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Re: The OT can make wise unto salvation
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsObeyChrist
Quote:
*Scripture is clear enough to be made wise unto salvation. *
I’ve spoken with a man who uses this very argument as “proof” that the OT ALONE is sufficient for our salvation. Is this what you believe?
Click to expand...
Was it the title that gave me away?
Those who understand neither the OT or NT imagine the OT insufficient for the faith. However it is the only book the Church of Peter had for many years yet many were saved!

We all have problems with reading comprehension, I have lessened mine by rereading at least 10 times what is being said to me. Even then I sometimes leap to conclusions as to what it said and only after a while see I missed the point.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Was it the title that gave me away?
Those who understand neither the OT or NT imagine the OT insufficient for the faith. However it is the only book the Church of Peter had for many years yet many were saved!
Wow.
Click to expand...
***They were saved by grace through faith in Christ’s saving work, not by reading the OT. Am I misunderstanding your position? ***

It’s interesting that this is yet another area of disagreement among sola Scripturists.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Was it the title that gave me away?
Those who understand neither the OT or NT imagine the OT insufficient for the faith. However it is the only book the Church of Peter had for many years yet many were saved!
Click to expand...
So then, all the teaching of Our Lord to his Apostles can be dispensed with?

Doubtful; very doubtful.

One wonders why the Apostles made such a big deal about believing that Jesus Christ is Lord if the OT was sufficient.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
**LetsObeyChrist:
Was it the title that gave me away?
Those who understand neither the OT or NT imagine the OT insufficient for the faith. However it is the only book the Church of Peter had for many years yet many were saved!

We all have problems with reading comprehension, I have lessened mine by rereading at least 10 times what is being said to me. Even then I sometimes leap to conclusions as to what it said and only after a while see I missed the point.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the OT at the time was seperated into scrolls. I do not believe there were complete leather bound Bibles sold in the market. Most people relied on the spoken word (rhema) which was also mixed with traditions handed down from the fathers of the apostles like the "seat of Moses’…‘body of Moses’…

As I stated earlier from Kurt Godel’s "Inconsistancy theory"…

Self-referential statements are notorious for making statements (Bible Alone is the rule of faith, Sola Scriptura) which are logically improvable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false. So, “sola scriptura” as the rule of faith without an external referent is illogical. I might challenge you to look into the (Liars Paradox) utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Reply to David Brown: #65

“Disagree” is an antonym of “Agree,” “1 : to fail to agree”
…

The form of my argument is valid and sound. In context “Agree” is the opposite of “disagree,” it is irrelevant these words elsewhere may not be opposites. In this context they are.

In this context they are antonyms, there aren’t other possibilities.

However for the sake of argument I proposed we follow your schema and construct a dilemma using contraries.

It just occurred to me, prove your premises by citing infallible RCC magisterial pronouncements that both agree and disagree with Scripture yet never disagree with Scripture

Which of the many magisterial pronouncements of the RCC are contrary to scripture (dissenting only partially) without rendering it pernicious.

‘Disagreeing with God (even a little) is pernicious,’ as even that results in injury to believers in the day of God’s Judgment.

"Example 1: Does the color red agree or disagree with Scripture? If it agrees, please show me chapter and verse. If it disagrees, please show me chapter and verse. Example 2: Does calculus agree or disagree with Scripture? Again, chapter and verse for your answer. Example 3, my two corgis are named “Theo” and “Cara,” does that agree or disagree with Scripture? Chapter and verse please–I don’t want to be un-Scriptural in naming my dogs. If “agrees” and “disagrees” are contradictories, then they must be contradictories in every case (and applicable in every case).

Non sequitur. Your examples are irrelevant and immaterial to the (RCC’s) dilemma.

Let’s try again. While one of the possible meanings for “disagree” is “fail to agree,” (1) that is not the only possible meaning for the term, and (2) that is not the way you are using the term. You are using, and must you to try to get your argument off the ground, “disagree” to mean “contradict” or “go against,” which is not “fail to agree.” This is not the definition of the term as you just gave it, so you are equivocating. Moreover, you fail to see the possibility that something can agree in one way but “fail” in another. By the way, it is always bad philosophy to use a dictionary to prove anything–something I constantly remind my first-year philosophy students.

Your “However…” and “It just occured to me…” don’t make any sense. I gave no “schema.” I was just doing basic first-semester logic. And your challenge doesn’t make any sense. I quoted and referred to the passage in the Catechism where it said that the Magisterium “is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.” Your challenge assumes a false view of what the Magisterium is claimed to be by Catholics. So what you said is really no more than “Assume a false view of the Magisterium and then show me how Catholics can make it true” This is absurd.

My examples, which I noticed you didn’t respond to, are perfect. If we take “P” to be “yellow”, then the contradictories are “Yellow” and “not Yellow.” This pair, as is true for every pair of contradictories, can divide anything and everything. Let’s take “God,” for an example. Then, according to the logic of contradictories, “Either God is yellow or not yellow.” And, of course the answer is “God is not yellow.” Try it for “justice,” “love,” “dogs,” or anything you like. It works. It is relevant. Contradictories divide the universe into two and only two categories (try a Venn diagram). Your so-called contradictories don’t work because they are not contradictories.

So far, I have tried to help you with the logic of your arguments in the hope that you could form a logically coherent argument that could then be discussed–I haven’t even bothered with the “truth” of your conclusions, which others have been much bothered about. I have obviously failed.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top