The OT can make wise unto salvation

[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.”

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.

Evidently acting contrary to divine will results in injury even to one whom “knows (ginosko) not:”

**Luke 12:**47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

**Luke 12:**48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.-Douay Rheims

“Ignorance is no excuse” as divine will is revealed by God’s Spirit to everyone (Rm 1:20) via Creation and Scripture, therefore choice must be involved in such ignorance hence guilt exists and so does the penalty. The context implies choice (vs 47) is the reason why one knows or doesn’t know.

However your objection to “disagree” has merit, the term is not conveying the necessary sense of willfully “contradicts, choosing to go against.”

You are right, the syllogism is flawed.

“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)…

Superfluous referred to the deliberations of the dual authority only to achieve what was already decided, not just the act of repeating as you note is good thing. All believers are commanded to do exactly that when they preach the truth of Scripture to others.

Clearly I must rewrite the argument…“I’ll be back!”

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Evidently acting contrary to divine will results in injury even to one whom “knows (ginosko) not:”

**Luke 12:**47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

**Luke 12:**48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.-Douay Rheims

“Ignorance is no excuse” as divine will is revealed by God’s Spirit to everyone (Rm 1:20) via Creation and Scripture, therefore choice must be involved in such ignorance hence guilt exists and so does the penalty. The context implies choice (vs 47) is the reason why one knows or doesn’t know.

Clearly I must rewrite the argument…“I’ll be back!”

I don’t want to be argumentative, but I see the passage a bit differently. The passage seems to start in verse 41 and there are 3 examples. (1) The servant who deliberately did evil; (2) The servant who knowlingly didn’t do his master’s will; (3) The servant who unknowlingly didn’t do his master’s will.

You are right that (3) did get punished. However, it was a lighter punishment, so not knowing did make some difference. And it seems that only (1) was beaten and cast out with the “unfaithful” (v. 46), the other two srevants presumably were beaten and stayed with their master–(2) and (3) were not sent to the unfaithful like (1). What is the difference? Is (1) hell? If so, the (2) and (3) did not go to hell. Certainly, (1) was the most evil and deserved the greatest punishment. What was it? In I Cor 3:10-15, Paul talks about a judgment where a person can suffer loss, “though he himself will be saved.” In the case of (2) and (3), aren’t they “saved”–remain with the master after their punishment?

I was thinking of the punishment of hell and that (3) wouldn’t deserve that punishment; but if, per verse 48, you mean that the unknowing get some punishment short of hell, and not as much as someone who did know, then you are right and I stand corrected.

I am glad you will be back.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:

I don’t want to be argumentative, but I see the passage a bit differently. The passage seems to start in verse 41 and there are 3 examples. (1) The servant who deliberately did evil; (2) The servant who knowlingly didn’t do his master’s will; (3) The servant who unknowlingly didn’t do his master’s will.

You are right that (3) did get punished. However, it was a lighter punishment, so not knowing did make some difference. And it seems that only (1) was beaten and cast out with the “unfaithful” (v. 46), the other two srevants presumably were beaten and stayed with their master–(2) and (3) were not sent to the unfaithful like (1). What is the difference? Is (1) hell? If so, the (2) and (3) did not go to hell. Certainly, (1) was the most evil and deserved the greatest punishment. What was it? In I Cor 3:10-15, Paul talks about a judgment where a person can suffer loss, “though he himself will be saved.” In the case of (2) and (3), aren’t they “saved”–remain with the master after their punishment?

I was thinking of the punishment of hell and that (3) wouldn’t deserve that punishment; but if, per verse 48, you mean that the unknowing get some punishment short of hell, and not as much as someone who did know, then you are right and I stand corrected.

I am glad you will be back.

Just a quick comment to chew on, I must go to work:

The servant received worse than hell, it is Gehenna the place of physical torment after the Judgement, after the resurrection of the body.

Whereas there are some resurrected from hell into life (1 Pt 4:6 cp Rv 20:15), there is no return from Gehenna the “second death” whose possible presence before God’s face (grace) is destroyed forever (2 Th 19). Death and Hell are cast into this place to symbolize they will never return.

It is a horrible place like a furnace of fire where the phyical bodies once used for sin now serve to transmit God’s wrath upon the souls trapped within, weeping and gnashing of teeth is symbolic of intense physical pain.

Not all in Gehenna are punished eternally however, some only until they paid their debt (Lk 12:59):

In the Talmud the Jews believed this taught the punishment would end for some in Gehenna:

**Malachi 4:3-4 **3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

Cp "the worst punishment is eternal torment therefore there must be lesser than eternal punishment or the threat has no meaning:

**Revelation 14:11 **11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

[BobCatholic]

Meanwhile LOC doesn’t explain why his personal magisterium is not pernicious or superfluous.

I wonder why

 

[kwitz]

LetsObeyChrist:

Just a quick comment to chew on, I must go to work:

The servant received worse than hell, it is Gehenna the place of physical torment after the Judgement, after the resurrection of the body.

Whereas there are some resurrected from hell into life (1 Pt 4:6 cp Rv 20:15), there is no return from Gehenna the “second death” whose possible presence before God’s face (grace) is destroyed forever (2 Th 19). Death and Hell are cast into this place to symbolize they will never return.

It is a horrible place like a furnace of fire where the phyical bodies once used for sin now serve to transmit God’s wrath upon the souls trapped within, weeping and gnashing of teeth is symbolic of intense physical pain.

Not all in Gehenna are punished eternally however, some only until they paid their debt (Lk 12:59):

In the Talmud the Jews believed this taught the punishment would end for some in Gehenna:

**Malachi 4:3-4 **3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

Cp "the worst punishment is eternal torment therefore there must be lesser than eternal punishment or the threat has no meaning:

**Revelation 14:11 **11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

You know if you tweak that arguement just right, you might have just explained purgatory . Although I much prefer that purgatory is a cleansing process, the idea that it’s a place is also possible.

Kris

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

BobCatholic:

Meanwhile LOC doesn’t explain why his personal magisterium is not pernicious or superfluous.

I wonder why

Scripture,Tradition,Magisterium are thought to be the one stream of God’s Word flowing from the Holy Spirit.

Only the very unwise would make themselves channels of God’s Word on par with Scripture.

**Deuteronomy 4:2 **2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish *ought *from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Running where even the arch angels including Michael dare not tread! They show what is noted in God’s Word, they don’t add to it nor take away from it as do unwise magisterium:

**Daniel 10:**21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and *there is *none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

Scripture,Tradition,Magisterium are thought to be the one stream of God’s Word flowing from the Holy Spirit.

Only the very unwise would make themselves channels of God’s Word on par with Scripture.

**Deuteronomy 4:2 **2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish *ought *from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Using this interpretation of scripture of yours, you’d better be a Sadducee.

Tradition and Scripture are God’s Word, and the Magisterium is the interpreter of God’s Word, not a channel of God’s word.

In fact, you have SUBTRACTED from the Word of God, written AND oral! It is you who are in danger Not only that, your de-scripturizing of the NT is basically aggravating the situation you’re in You’re not helping your argument.

Running where even the arch angels including Michael dare not tread! They show what is noted in God’s Word, they don’t add to it nor take away from it as do unwise magisterium:

**Daniel 10:**21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and *there is *none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

You still didn’t explain why YOUR PERSONAL MAGISTERIUM is not superfluous or pernicious. You’ve got a lot to say about the RCC’s Magisterium but ZERO to say about YOUR Magisterium - your personal interpretation of scripture, which you admit is not infallible.

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Scripture,Tradition,Magisterium are thought to be the one stream of God’s Word flowing from the Holy Spirit.

Only the very unwise would make themselves channels of God’s Word on par with Scripture.

**Deuteronomy 4:2 **2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish *ought *from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

LOC, please forgive my copying my post from from your “Christ Taught Sola Scriptura.,” but in case others here didn’t see it, a response to what you seem to assume–“Word of God = Scripture”:

Today, 11:49 AM
David Brown
Regular Member Join Date: May 21, 2004
Location: St. Peters, MO
Posts: 30

Re: Christ taught Sola Scriptura using Moses’ seat

---

Hello again, LOC

I thought I would stick my head in this thread too. A minor first quibble: Scripture is not the supreme authority, God is.

From some of the above posts and other threads you seem to assume:

Word of God = Scripture

If you don’t assume this, then the Word of God could include things not in the text (or meaning properly understood) of Scripture. This would open the door to much of the criticism of others above.

If you do assume this, and limit the Word of God to only Scripture, then you have other problems. Among the Scriptural problems:

1. The Word of God is in nature, literally. Genesis 1 and 2–yes they record what God said but a record of a saying is not the saying itself (Was it God’s speaking that made the heavens and earth or that Moses recorded it later?). Also Romans 1 and 2 claims this is sufficient for us to know God and to be judged by God.
2. Jesus is called the Word of God (John 1). Hebrews 1:1 tells us that God has spoken “in Son” (lit.). Scripture records this fact but is not this fact.
3. The Holy Spirit will “speak” to us “whatever he hears” (John 16:13). Did the Holy Spirit get this Word of God from the text of Scripture? Since he is to lead us “into all the truth” (“aletheia pasa”) it seems to be more than just the NT canon.
4. Heb. 1:1 (cited above) also said God has spoken through His prophets. The prophets spoke, their words (or some of them) were recorded later in Scripture but, again, Scripture recorded the Word of God which was spoken.
5. God speaks in visions (Gen. 15: 1, Luke 3:2, for example).
6. God speaks in dreams and in pain (Job 33:14f.).
7. Jesus did (and presumably said) more than is recorded in Scripture (John 20:30, 21:25). Were the words and teachings of Jesus not recorded in Scripture still the Word of God? Even the words Jesus spoke which are recorded in Scripture are the Word of God because Jesus spoke them and not because they were recorded.

Any one of the above is enough to show that “Word of God” does not equal “Scripture” (“Scripture” understood as the Bible). And this again opens the doors to much of the criticism of others above.

Affirm or deny: Word of God = Scripture, there are problems to deal with.

A dilemma? You decide.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

David Brown:

LOC, please forgive my copying my post from from your “Christ Taught Sola Scriptura.,” but in case others here didn’t see it, a response to what you seem to assume–“Word of God = Scripture”:

.

This is a question that I have posed to many sola Scripturists over the years, yet there doesn’t seem to be a Scriptural answer. I’ve received answers like “where else would it be?” but that doesn’t really answer the question at all.

The notion that the term “word of God”, as used in Scripture, always and only is a reference to the WRITTEN word is merely an assumption. If we look at what scripture, itself, has to say about the “word of God” we see that it says that the word of God is to be listened to, heard, not neglected, received, proclaimed, taught, preached, and spoken. Missing are any suggestion, let alone any command that it must be always and only, written or read.

If any Protestant can help me understand (not agree with, mind you, but understand) why you believe “word of God” to be a reference always and only to the written word I’d really appreciate it. Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[BobCatholic]

Catholic4aReasn:

The notion that the term “word of God”, as used in Scripture, always and only is a reference to the WRITTEN word is merely an assumption.

Not just an assumption, but an interpretation of scripture.

Which is found nowhere in scripture.

In other words: protestant Tradition

 

[Michael_Howard]

=LetsObeyChrist]
Only the very unwise would make themselves channels of God’s Word on par with Scripture

I have a question for anyone reading this post. I am not sure if this has been covered but I’ll throw it out there anyway. Would it be fair to say that in order for the fathers of the church to determine which scriptures were true to the teachings of the apostles in the midst of all the various writings of the time considered to be ‘scripture’…apostolic tradition would have had to play a key role in determining which scriptures were true to what the apostles taught? Just curious what ya’ll think about this
Michael

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Michael Howard:

I have a question for anyone reading this post. I am not sure if this has been covered but I’ll throw it out there anyway. Would it be fair to say that in order for the fathers of the church to determine which scriptures were true to the teachings of the apostles in the midst of all the various writings of the time considered to be ‘scripture’…apostolic tradition would have had to play a key role in determining which scriptures were true to what the apostles taught? Just curious what ya’ll think about this
Michael

Of course they had to, and of course they did. That’s why, except among the (Protestant) whackos of the “Jesus Seminar,” the Gospel of Thomas (along with other spurious texts) is ignored.

Have you noticed that sola scriptura has led to a very diverse set of doctrines among Protestants? Lutherans hold to real presence (through the error of “consubstantiation,” but they still hold to it), while Baptists get apoplectic at the thought of it. Some Protestants baptize infants; others (Baptists) do not recognize those baptisms; some (Salvationists) don’t baptize at all.

For all the claims of “conflict” between Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, there is never any mention of the many evident differences in doctrine between those who hold to sola scripture. One wonders why.

In the end, a doctrine that is to be found in neither Holy Scripture nor Apostolic Tradition can be expected to produce nothing other than the discord noted above.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

…you might have just explained purgatory . Although I much prefer that purgatory is a cleansing process, the idea that it’s a place is also possible.

Kris

The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory apparently is a corruption of the apostolic doctrine of hell taught in Scripture. Believers are saved by the infinite merit of Christ (Heb 1:3) who saves them to the uttermost (Hb 7:25), purgatory or torments in hell is for unbelievers, not believers (1 Pt 4:6). Any purgation of sin there must occur in an instant of time:

1 Corinthians 15:52-53 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

They are given new consciences by the same Spirit that raised Jesus up from the dead (1 Pt 3:21) so they enter into paradise immediately upon death just as the sinner on the cross did (Lk 23:43) which is in 3 heaven above the earth.

Below this is hell, separated from it by a great chasm and it is divided into levels, torments increasing the lower one goes.

Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

2 Cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

When Christ returns He will “scoop these in Paradise up” during His descent and iin a twinkling of an eye those alive at His PAROUSIA are changed and meet the LORD in the air as He continues onto earth with His Holy thousands:

Jude 1:14-15 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

kwitz:

…you might have just explained purgatory . Although I much prefer that purgatory is a cleansing process, the idea that it’s a place is also possible.Kris

The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is likely a corruption of the apostolic doctrine of hell taught in Scripture. Believers are saved by the infinite merit of Christ (Heb 1:3) who saves them to the uttermost (Hb 7:25), purgatory or torments in hell is for unbelievers, not believers (1 Pt 4:6).

Any purgation of a believer’s sin is accomplished in an instant of time while on their way to the presence of the LORD 2 Cor 5:6ff compare:

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

They are given clean consciences by the same Spirit that raised Jesus up from the dead (1 Pt 3:21) so they enter into paradise immediately upon death just as the sinner on the cross did (Lk 23:43) which is in 3 heaven above the earth.

Below this is hell, separated from it by a great chasm and it is divided into levels, torments increasing the lower one goes.

Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

2 Cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

When Christ returns He will “scoop these in Paradise up” during His descent and iin a twinkling of an eye those alive at His PAROUSIA are changed and meet the LORD in the air as He continues onto earth with His Holy thousands:

Jude 1:14-15 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Cor 15:52

 

[Michael_Howard]

LOC,

It seems that you are ignoring my posts? My above challenge still stands friend. God bless.

Michael

 

[Michael_Howard]

LOC,

** THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY **

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the *holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. *

[1031](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1031.htm’) The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, *speaks of a cleansing fire:607 *

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. *From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
*[1032](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1032.htm’) This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:
LOC, please forgive my copying my post from from your “Christ Taught Sola Scriptura.,” but in case others here didn’t see it, a response to what you seem to assume–“Word of God = Scripture”:

…

Hello again, LOC

I thought I would stick my head in this thread too. A minor first quibble: Scripture is not the supreme authority, God is.I could have saved you lots of work, you are right.

Now one must determine where God speaks today.

I maintain that only occurs in Scripture:

**Hebrews 4:**12 For the word of God *is *quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and *is *a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things *are *naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

IT is impossible to divide the body of Christ into have and have nots (1 Cor 12:12f), all from the least to greatest ar promised wisdom by God:

**Hebrews 8:11 **11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

God the Holy Spirit makes scripture alive to His children and they are guided, corrected, reproved instructed (&c.) thereby.

**2 Timothy 3:16-17 **16 All scripture *is *given by inspiration of God, and *is *profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul noticed all scripture is profitable for doctrine and concluded that must be WHY God wrote it, “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

In the past when I challenged folks to prove God spoke elsewhere, perhaps through RCC tradition or magisterium, nothing objective was cited as proof.

In other words, Scripture is the perfect empirical experiment proving it was impossible for humans to create it. For more on this see Josh McDowel’s “evidence that demands a verdict” and similar expositions.

The RCC magisterium and tradition does not manifest similar evidence the word of God is contained within it:

**Matthew 7:20 **20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

In fact I see extremely precise compartmentalization is required in RCC Magisterium and Tradition that allows, for example, it to apologize for errors and yet claim their church never erred.

While Catholics have no problems with the semantics necessary to keep reality from contradicting belief, folks like myself who observe similar devices are not required to maintain Scriptures “diviness” are no so easily convinced.

If God is the author of Magisterial and RCC tradition then it will manifest similar form and content as Scripture.

Non Catholics like I consider these dissimilarities proof the author of Scripture has not spoken though the RCC Magisterium or its tradition.

 

[Michael_Howard]

LOC, (Here is a previous post)

Why you do not respond is a mystery…

The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a* visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.*"184 The Church is at the same time:

• a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
• the visible society and the spiritual community;
• the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185

These dimensions together constitute *“one complex reality *which comes together from a *human and a divine element”:186 *

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.18

Scripture and the church cannot be seperated because as the Cathechism states Christ and the people of God form “one complex realtiy”. The church is an extension of what God did through the incarnation. The divine merged with flesh and became one reality. Just as all the fullness of the deity dwelt in bodily form, that same Godhead resides in One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic church, not churches or bodies, one only!

I think what is hard for some folks like yourself to understand simply for the fact that ‘prots’ tend to think of everything in newtonian terms, is that the church is

"visible but endowed with invisible realities*. "*

I think that Protestants get this mixed up often by stating that the church is “invisible” rather than visible. The Gnostic heresies and other types of heretical sects always seemed to want to make a great divide between the visible and the invisible, flesh was bad, spirit good and so on…

And for centuries the church fought these heresies especially as they concerned the nature of God. The Catholic church does not claim to be over the sacred scriptures, but only it’s servant. The Church remains it’s instrument, it’s guide, protecting and safeguarding what has been transmitted through the apostles, the apostolic gift being passed onto “trusted men” who would preserve sound doctrine.
In Christ Michael

 

[pnewton]

I came back to this thread after a while and discovered LOC is still beggin the question. In the last post he actually quotes the scripture he is trying to say proves Sola Scriptura in order to prove Sola Scriptura.

For those reading, this is a classic example of begging the question.

The rest of his scriptures are a big “duh”. Oh course we Catholics believe that the word of God is powerful. Of course we believe that " by their fruits you shall know them." (Mother Theresa).

What I am wondering is, why doesn’t this man’s mentor (John MacArthur) have a newsgroup or forum where LOC can go post his contradictions and logical fallacies.

 

[kepha1]

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION MADE EASY

Allow me to explain how the bible was proven to be inspired in the 3rd century, not the 15TH OR THE 21st., using the facts of history. There is a summary below.

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work.
It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired.
From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.

Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the

(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the (1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.