The OT can make wise unto salvation

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Addendum to first:

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.

Let’s try still again. My examples were very relevant as I explained in post # 81.

Now you go back to “God’s truth that exists in Scripture.” But what about the “Spirit” of the text and a proper understanding, both of which you added earlier? “It has nothing to say about ‘truth’ that does not exist in Scripture”? Then Scripture is incomplete because there is other “truth.” Worse still, you already pronounced “Scripture” in reference to cloning in post # 53. And you said in that post: “All teaching either agrees or disagrees with Scripture…even in the cloning and Trinity examples you [meaning “David”] cite.” So have you now retreated to saying only that “God’s truth” is in Scripture? Certainly not all God’s truth is in the text as God’s truth exists outside the text (“graphe”) too: in nature (Romans 1 and 2), in Jesus (John 14:6), the Holy Spirit (John 15:26), and elsewhere. Yes they are mentioned in Scripture but they are not “graphe” (a Use/mention fallacy is lurking here).

Did the Holy Spirit finish leading us into “all truth” (John 16:13). If so, give chapter and verse. If not, there is still truth out there. By the way, that verse said “all truth” not “all of the special kind of truth we call God’s truth.” Why was this necessary, in any case, if you are right that “The OT can make wise unto salvation.” If it can, we don’t need the NT; if it can’t, then the OT is not complete.

Where did you get the “relavitistic truth” stuff? By the way “God’s absolute truth” means one thing “as God knows it” but quite another when we talk about “as humans know it.” It matters.

In any case, you have now retreated from (#53) “all teaching either agrees or disagrees with Scripture” to “all teaching about God’s truth…”. Need I mention that you haven’t said what “God’s truth” is supposed to be–what are the limits of the term? How do you know? Is cloning now out? Then where does a Christian go? If cloning is still in, even though they text doesn’t mention cloning, then why this new term? How do we know what “God’s truth” is when it goes outside the text? We are back to “Who says?” If it doesn’t go outside the text, then there is a lot of things we can’t talk about anymore. Again, who is to say?

Again, since you seem to forget. It is your argument that is incoherent and illogical and not your conclusion. You need a better formulated argument.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Reply to David Brown: #65 continued:

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.
.

How do you now say “the very silence in scripture about cloning renders it irrelevant” when you yourself tried to show it was relevant in post #53? You even gave me Genesis 1:22, 28 as a proof text and went on to talk about murder and stealing (presumably the Ten Commandments).

Sorry you think trying to get a logically coherent argument is an “irrelevant tangent.” (Trying to get clear and cogent arguments is what I do for a living, so I might be biased. Since school starts in a couple of weeks, I won’t bother you much longer.)

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:
How do you now say “the very silence in scripture about cloning renders it irrelevant” when you yourself tried to show it was relevant in post #53? You even gave me Genesis 1:22, 28 as a proof text and went on to talk about murder and stealing (presumably the Ten Commandments).

Sorry you think trying to get a logically coherent argument is an “irrelevant tangent.” (Trying to get clear and cogent arguments is what I do for a living, so I might be biased. Since school starts in a couple of weeks, I won’t bother you much longer.)

Cloning per se isn’t just as the names of our dogs or favorite color aren’t.

Only those aspects about cloning that can found in the Scripture would be relevant.

Your magisterium is NOT going to discuss cloning in the abstract, it will explore and rule upon the morality of creating life only to kill and rob from it. When it does the latter than it must either agree or disagree with scripture.

Colors, the names of your dogs, cloning, are not relevant unless they are put in a context that touches upon the Spirit or letter of God’s laws.

Only then does the question if they agree or disagree arise and the applicability of the dilemma arise.

Its logical coherence is accepted as its form is that of French Abbe’ Sieye’s argument against dual legislatures, how they either wasted time or caused difficulty when they agreed or disagreed.

I am not aware of successful attack on his argument, are you?

I am glad we have a couple of weeks left, I find your posts intellectually stimulating, not always a feature of apologetic tit for tat.

Oops, I have answered your last post, I will now view the earlier responses.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Cloning per se isn’t just as the names of our dogs or favorite color aren’t.

Only those aspects about cloning that can found in the Scripture would be relevant.

Your magisterium is NOT going to discuss cloning in the abstract, it will explore and rule upon the morality of creating life only to kill and rob from it. When it does the latter than it must either agree or disagree with scripture.

Colors, the names of your dogs, cloning, are not relevant unless they are put in a context that touches upon the Spirit or letter of God’s laws.

Only then does the question if they agree or disagree arise and the applicability of the dilemma arise.

Its logical coherence is accepted as its form is that of French Abbe’ Sieye’s argument against dual legislatures, how they either wasted time or caused difficulty when they agreed or disagreed.

I am not aware of successful attack on his argument, are you?

I am glad we have a couple of weeks left, I find your posts intellectually stimulating, not always a feature of apologetic tit for tat.

Oops, I have answered your last post, I will now view the earlier responses.

Ok. If it is now “only those ascpets,” then what about other aspects? What about a more complete picture? Surely not superfluous, surely not pernicious. Perhaps even useful or necessary. Unless you think that only the Scriptural aspects are necessary. Who determines what “aspects” are covered or not? Some Christians wouldn’t find cloning in the passages you mentioned, others claim not to find passages appparently relevant to abortion, euthanasia, and a whole host of other things. A question of authority, not “God’s/Scripture’s” authority, but how we know it.

I am not familair with Sieye’s agrument. Do you have a reference so I could read the argument?

Dilemmas, a note. A dilemma is not necessarily based on contradictories. All that is required is a limitation to two choices. The usual form of a dilemma is (simply) “If you assume X, then you must accept Y or Z” (dilemmas are conditionals, “–>”, and therefore hypotheticals). One of the ways of avoiding Y and Z is to not assume X (or to deny it). Contradictories, however, like “yellow” and “not yellow” apply to everything that can be named (as I said previously).

Diagramatically, the way of seeing it is to take a sheet of paper. The sheet represents everything. Draw a circle on the sheet. You are dividing the sheet into two areas: inside the circle and outside the circle. There is no third area. Let the circle represent any term, call it “P”. All things “P” go inside the circle, all things “not P” go outside. There is no third area. There is a third area between “superfluous” and “pernicious” (I have given examples previously), therefore they are not contradictories. They may be used in a dilemma if the proper conditionals can be formed. But if your opponent doesn’t accept or assert the antecedent of the condiitonal, the dilemma fails. To make the dilemma work (since it does not use contradictories) is to formulate a hypothesis that your opponent must accept (not a false version of what you think they accept). Since, as I have repeated before, the Catechism does not say everything must agree or disagree (in your sense of those words) with Scripture (in fact it denies it), there is no reason for a Catholic to take the dilemma.

Sorry if I get touchy at times.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

First of two Reply to David Brown: #81

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.

Not equivocation, you are reading extraneous meaning into my usage. The context of the dilemma is using them as logical opposites.

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.

The dictionary was cited only to prove it is possible they are logical opposites just as my dilemma used them.

As for failing to see, on the contrary I noted agree and disagree might be in contrary relationship elsewhere.

However I defy your attempt to import such equivocation here.

Nothing in the context connotes or denotes a disagreement that is not in precise logical opposition of agreement.

Reasserting unsound exegesis doesn’t make it true, it is non sequitur possible meaning elsewhere renders these terms equivocal here. Context proves that claim false.

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.

Not so, you argued as agree and disagree can be logically less than opposites they are so here. That is non sequitur, context makes impossible such meaning exists here and renders your suggestion “eisegesis.”

Grammatically speaking your argument diagramed a relationship (schema) between these words that does not exist in the dilemma.

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.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Continued

As the dilemma treats reality, I avoided the confusion of accepting mere statement as though it is accomplished reality.

The anathemas of Trent make clear the RCC is not subservient to the natural meaning of the text regardless of any profession it is.

It has added unnatural senses to the text while denying these exclude other meanings.

This RCC practice of ruling a certain sense exists in a text is, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of writing scripture, rendering it a dual legislature, equal to Scripture.

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.

I never mentioned the contradictions I have in mind, I only discussed your examples of them and contraries. Hence you cannot possibly know if they “work” or not.

However it is possible we cite examples where the RCC ruled as infallibly correct ideas that only partly disagree with the some of the letter or spirit of God’s law. In these instances it is pernicious having caused injury to their followers via God’s Judgment.

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.

The argument is logically coherent. Nothing you said indicated it is not.

By the way French Abbe’ Sieye’ used the same dilemma against dual legislatures and as far as I know no one ever questioned its logical coherence.

I agree if any successfully did then their argument would be sound against it here. Perhaps your students might discover that for us.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Addendum, evidently I misread your words:

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.

Change:

I never mentioned the contradictions I have in mind, I only discussed your examples of them and contraries. Hence you cannot possibly know if they “work” or not.

To:

In context Agree and disagree does work. God is not yellow. One either agrees with this or disagrees. Same with your other examples, any dual legislation affirming these things will either be in agreement or disagreement.

 

[BobCatholic]

LOC is so desperate to bash the Catholic Church, he is de-scripturizing the NT.

This is quite sad, LOC. You can come up with MUCH better arguments without de-scripturizing the NT.

I’m still waiting for why we have to accept the Magisterium of LOC (your interpretation of Scripture) and your claim that any magisterium is superflouous and may even be bad, for basically both claims contradict each other.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

First of two Reply to David Brown: #81

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.

Not equivocation, you are reading extraneous meaning into my usage. The context of the dilemma is using them as logical opposites.

Equivocation means to use a term with more that one meaning. The dictionary defintion you gave “fail to agree” is “opposite” does not have the negative connotation you gave to “disagree”. If you now claim that “disagree” only means “fail to agree,” then you cannot also say it means “contradicts,” “goes against,” or “is pernicious” because “fail to agree” is innocuous. Therefore, you must use the term one way in using the dictionary and another way in your argument or your argument fails. That is equivocation or a bad argument.

In the dictionary version of the word you gave, “calculus” can be said to “disagree” with Scripture because it fails to agree with Scripture as there is no Scriptural text for it to agree with. Does “yellow” agree or disagree with 'justice"? If agree and disagree are contradictories, then they can be placed in one or the other category. The category doesn’t apply to “yellow,” then the terms are not contradictory. The relevance of the category has nothing to do with the logic of contradictories–the logic of contradictories is not about relevance of terms but about division of terms. “Yellow” would seem to not be a relevant category with reference to “God” but “God” can be put in the contradictory “Yellow/Not Yellow” under the “Not Yellow” category.

 

[Philthy]

LOC-

Another great thread! Although tempers are flaring once again I won’t be pulled into the frey (spelling?). I think you are genuinely in search of the Truth yet simultaneously confident that you are also in possession of it - we all like to feel that way but unfortunately they are mutually exclusive! I’m probably not much different than you in that respect. Lets obey Christ and “love one another” as we wrestle with ths stuff…

I haven’t read all the threads but wanted to comment on your original supposition that:
"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." LOC

The problem with this statement is that it is an overstatement of what one is logically capable of concluding from the verses you cited. Lets start with your first conclusion from verses 3.16-17:
"God revealed to Paul why He wrote Scripture with every verse of it profitable for doctrine, in order that men of God be completely equipped for every good work.“LOC
The way you have stated your conclusion doesn’t actually say what I think you wanted it to. You should have written it as follows:
“God revealed to Paul why He wrote Scripture with every verse of it profitable for doctrine -so that through Scripture alone men of God would be completely equipped for every good work.” And herein lies the problem: Paul isn’t saying that Scripture alone makes you complete for every good work - he’s only said that you can’t be complete without it! I don’t think you’ll get many arguments with the correctly stated version. I could be mistaken, but this is fairly basic logic. My conclusion, therefore is that you have a faulty premise. And, unfortunately, faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. IN ADDITION, we need to take into account some things that I mentioned in another thread to you on the same subject: Namely that Paul wrote the letters he wrote to Timothy to instruct him despite knowing that Timothy was completely well versed in Scripture. Let’s Review 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.” OK, 1. **Paul knows that Timothy knows Scripture very well **
Now onto:1Tim3.14-15:“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people are to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the Church of the Living God, the foundation and pillar of Truth.” OK, **2. Paul feels that Timothy is incomplete in his ability to instruct others on Christian conduct. **When you put together my 2 points above you reach the following conclusion:

Paul feels that Timothy is incomplete for instruction of Christian conduct despite knowing Scripture well. This is an unavoidable conclusion. Now if you don’t think our conduct as Christians is important to Christ we might have an insurmountable problem, but I’m sure do… Thanks again - Philthy

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

First of two Reply to David Brown: #81

The dictionary was cited only to prove it is possible they are logical opposites just as my dilemma used them.

As for failing to see, on the contrary I noted agree and disagree might be in contrary relationship elsewhere.

However I defy your attempt to import such equivocation here.

Nothing in the context connotes or denotes a disagreement that is not in precise logical opposition of agreement.

Reasserting unsound exegesis doesn’t make it true, it is non sequitur possible meaning elsewhere renders these terms equivocal here. Context proves that claim false.

If we assume it is possible for the terms to be so understood (I assume for the same of argument), it is still not so in your argument as I have argued above. “Fail to agree” is innocuous and doesn’t lead to “pernicious” except by changing the definition.

Worse still, you admitted a third possibility and contradicted yourself. For any pair of contradictories, there are two and only two possibilities for all reality… Anything you name can be put into one of the following contradictories:“Yellow” and “Not Yellow”. I have given several examples. You said in post #74 that “The ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ is in reference to what Scripture say, not to what it don’t say”. This means you have three categories: (1) Agree with Scripture; (2) Disagree with Scripture; and, (3) What Scriptures don’t say–i.e. not 1 or 2. Contradictories require 2 and only 2 possibilities, your use has 3. Since 3 is not 2, therefore you do not have contradictories.

I do not have to “import” equivocations when you have thoughtfully provided them for me to identify.

 

[jmm08]

Even if LOC wins this argument.

It is fairly obvious to me that being wise unto salvation is not the same thing as acting on that same wisdom.

Look at the Roman Governor Felix in Acts 23-24. Felix was wise unto salvation. But refused to act on that wisdom at that time. Instead, when it came to hearing Paul speak about more about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment (Acts 24:25), Felix was frightened, had a “shut up about it” attitude and left.

That is what it comes down to, isn’t it.
Whether we want to accept righteousness and self-restraint and get ready for the coming judgment.

Many do not want to because they love their sin too much.

So pray for me brothers. I’m starting RCIA soon. Thanks.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Continued

As the dilemma treats reality, I avoided the confusion of accepting mere statement as though it is accomplished reality.

The anathemas of Trent make clear the RCC is not subservient to the natural meaning of the text regardless of any profession it is.

It has added unnatural senses to the text while denying these exclude other meanings.

This RCC practice of ruling a certain sense exists in a text is, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of writing scripture, rendering it a dual legislature, equal to Scripture.

Your first sentence puzzles me. If your dilemma now “treats reality” what about the reality you said Scripture doesn’t treat (post #74)?

The “anathemas of Trent”…this is new. How does it make clear? You assert but don’t give reasons. Of course Catholics will disagree with your interpretation of Trent, so it is irrelevant as an argument unless you can show you have the “real truth” or “final word” on the matter. Your reference to the “natural meaning of the text” is (1) A rule not found in Scripture (chapter and verse, please); (2) Ambiguous between a natural reading for us today or for the original hearers or for those properly disposed or properly educated, etc.; (3) Impossible to determine without an appeal to some authority; (4) Assumes that this “natural meaning” is absolute and unchanging. While truth is (let’s say) absolute and unchanging, our grasp of it, our knowledge of it, is not. (5) Assumes what is natural for one person at one time and place is exactly the same as it is for everyone else, or evreyone else properly disposed (which then leads to problems with “proper disposition”).

It is my understanding that the CC recognizes several kinds of “sense” or “meaning” in Scripture. For example, CCC 115-118 gives four senses of Scripture and explains their relationship (and gives references to other explanations).

As for assuming that an understanding or proclamation is equivalent to Scripture, this must be done to talk of Scripture at all (or even preach a sermon). As a Protestant, let’s take Scripture to be it, the whole package–if you have it, you’ve got all you need. Nothing else. Adding to Scripture is wrong. Etc. Do you really have the Scripture? No. You have a translation, sometimes a translation of a transaltion. And as anyone with foreign language experience knows there is no “perfect” translation between any two languages. This means that the Bible translation you use is not the “actual” Scripture but an approximation. Even if you read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you are still translating and interpreting according to the opinions of others. You accept, I assume, translations of Scripture as Scripture (if not, your appeals to Scripture fail), Catholics do the same thing by doing that and by adding the Magisterium. So you can’t argue against them about “adding” their opinions to Scripture on principle but only claim that Catholics don’t do it right (which means you need to say and prove what is right).

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Continued

By the way French Abbe’ Sieye’ used the same dilemma against dual legislatures and as far as I know no one ever questioned its logical coherence.

I agree if any successfully did then their argument would be sound against it here. Perhaps your students might discover that for us.

I asked for a reference so I could see the argument. Unfortunately, having seen some of your previous arguments (missing middle term, improperly identified middle term, undistributed middle term, and all the rest), I can’t assume your view of Sieye’s argument. I assume, however, by “same dilemma” you mean “same form” and not “exactly the same terms in the same relationships.” If you mean “same form,” then we still have to see that your argument fits the form, and can be expressed in proper terms, and then determine the truth of the premises. If we were allowed to bet, I’d make a big one.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Addendum, evidently I misread your words:

…
Change:

I never mentioned the contradictions I have in mind, I only discussed your examples of them and contraries. Hence you cannot possibly know if they “work” or not.

To:

In context Agree and disagree does work. God is not yellow. One either agrees with this or disagrees. Same with your other examples, any dual legislation affirming these things will either be in agreement or disagreement.

.
What is this “dual legislation” you keep mentioning? I haven’t come across the term in philosophy or logic. Is is a political science term?

 

[jmm08]

“Beware the man of one book” - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Equivocation means to use a term with more that one meaning. The dictionary defintion you gave “fail to agree” is “opposite” does not have the negative connotation you gave to “disagree”. If you now claim that “disagree” only means “fail to agree,” then you cannot also say it means “contradicts,” “goes against,” or “is pernicious” because “fail to agree” is innocuous. Therefore, you must use the term one way in using the dictionary and another way in your argument or your argument fails.

I see “agree” or “disagree” as equally innocuous (binary) perhaps because the following implied premises are axiomatic:

“A Magisterium Teaching authority is pernicious when such disagree with Scripture because they are disagreeing with Sovereign God and all following such authority shall suffer injury in the day of God’s judgment.”

"A Magisterium Teaching authority is superfluous when such agree with Scripture because they are agreeing with Sovereign God who does not require their “second” for any of His teachings to take effect.

I perceive your criticism is sound without these premises protecting agree and disagree from denoting different things.

Do you agree the addition of these premises addresses your criticism?

Would not the addition of these also address your next statement re “calculus” or “yellow” etc. as these are not in scripture and therefore not part of the syllogism, it being distributed to the whole of Scripture only, universal.

I hope I am not taxing your patience, please make some allowance for the fact I am untrained in formal or informal logic having just begun to learn.

It is fascinating.

That is equivocation or a bad argument.

In the dictionary version of the word you gave, “calculus” can be said to “disagree” with Scripture because it fails to agree with Scripture as there is no Scriptural text for it to agree with. Does “yellow” agree or disagree with 'justice"? If agree and disagree are contradictories, then they can be placed in one or the other category. The category doesn’t apply to “yellow,” then the terms are not contradictory. The relevance of the category has nothing to do with the logic of contradictories–the logic of contradictories is not about relevance of terms but about division of terms. “Yellow” would seem to not be a relevant category with reference to “God” but “God” can be put in the contradictory “Yellow/Not Yellow” under the “Not Yellow” category.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

I see “agree” or “disagree” as equally innocuous (binary) perhaps because the following implied premises are axiomatic:

“A Magisterium Teaching authority is pernicious when such disagree with Scripture because they are disagreeing with Sovereign God and all following such authority shall suffer injury in the day of God’s judgment.”

We might not be able to get over this, but if you mean such authority is “pernicious” when it “contradicts” or “goes against,” then you would be correct in the first part. However, the second part, about suffering “injury”, does not follow. Assuming standard notions of moral responsibility (I assume you aren’t a strict Calvinist), a person could “follow” such a pernicious authority and not be responsible–say, if they didn’t know any better. Certainly, following a pernicious authority is bad but the “injury” doesn’t seem necessary. I don’t think it is essential to what you are saying in any case.

If we take an innocuous meaning for “disagree” by which I assume you mean your “fail to agree”, then it is far from certain that any such disagreement is necessarily pernicious. For example, as you previously acknowledged, there are things Scripture is silent about, and if a Teaching authority spoke about those things it would “disagree” in your innocuous sense but not necessarily be harmful (not unless everything outside of Scripture is harmful or bad or unhelpful or wrong). This was what the calculus and cloning type of example tried to show.

So, the first part of your claim would be correct on the stronger version of “disagree” but not necessarily on the weaker innocuous “fail to agree.” There needs to be a link between “pernicious” and to “disagree” to show that a particular kind of disagreement is pernicious (and, fo course, reasons for that qualification). The link cannot be that “disagree” is “pernicious” for then “disagree” is not taken innocuously.

LetsObeyChrist:

"A Magisterium Teaching authority is superfluous when such agree with Scripture because they are agreeing with Sovereign God who does not require their “second” for any of His teachings to take effect.

This statement seems to assume that “superfluous” is used in an absolute sense. However, something could be said in Scripture, but due to sin or human limitation, still needs to be expressed by a Teaching authority (Aquinas talked about his in his “Treatise on Law,” Summa I Q. 90f.). That is from our persepctive we don’t always know what God means by the words of Scripture (meaning is not a mechanical function of grammar and syntax).

“Superfluous” can be to simply to “repeat.” But, Scripture also talks about being reminded about things people already know as a good thing (Cf. I Cor. 15:1, 2Ti. 2:14; 2 Pet. 1:12; Jude 1:5). Scripture not only repeats itself, it commends repetition. Repetition is “superfluous” in a strict sense, but is not useless. But here “agree” doesn’t seem to mean “repeat.” You seem to have something like “agree” means “to go with the natural/correct meaning.” But this allows a Teaching authority, or any one else, to give the “meaning” of Scripture in a new way or in a new context, which could be very helpful–as we need to apply Scripture to modern daily life (or hold it as only historically relevant). It certainly raises questions about determining meaning from words–and doing so correctly.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

“A Magisterium Teaching authority is pernicious when such disagree with Scripture because they are disagreeing with Sovereign God and all following such authority shall suffer injury in the day of God’s judgment.”

"A Magisterium Teaching authority is superfluous when such agree with Scripture because they are agreeing with Sovereign God who does not require their “second” for any of His teachings to take effect.

Problem: How do you know if a teaching authority agrees/disagrees with Scripture, unless you know the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture, which you claim doesn’t exist.

Also, what about your teaching authority? Yes, you. Using your standard, your teaching authority is superfluous or pernicious.

 

[Philthy]

“A Magisterium Teaching authority is superfluous when such agree with Scripture because they are agreeing with Sovereign God who does not require their “second” for any of His teachings to take effect.” LOC
This is a rediculous statement. What does it say? That a magisterium is superflous to God in understanding Himself? Please read my earlier post on the subject. The magisterium is NOT SUPERFLUOUS when it confirms a truth of Scripture. The reason for this is simple: people don’t fully comprehend scripture - even when it’s “obvious”; even when they pray for such understanding; even when they are smart, even when a friend or enemy tells them. The magisterium functions to be the sacred interpreter of Scripture in situations where the need arises. Some one on another link used the anology of the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the USA. We have a constitution (analogous to Scripture) but still have the need for a Supreme Court (an authority analogous to the magisterium) to help us understand the constitution. When the Supreme Court it clarifies the meaning of the Constitution to those who didn’t understand it properly. The magisterium does exactly the same thing. The only possible sense of understanding the Magisterium as superfluous is for someone who already knows all of God’s intended meaning for all of Scripture that the magisterium comments on. Can we see a show of hands? Hmmm - a very small group indeed. This concept of superfluousness (is this a word?) points to a radical departure between Catholics and non-Catholics. Namely, the Catholic humbles himself under the teaching authority of the Church whereas others, under the mask of “Scripture” trust themselves, their ideas and their associates’ ideas above all else.
“Likewise you younger members be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in due time.” 1 Peter 5:5-6