The OT can make wise unto salvation

[kepha1]

Dizzy? This SUMMARY of a summary of a summary should clarify:

1. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5. and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

I took most of the information from catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted it for the sake of simplicity.

Which is more appealing?

Plausibility (private judgment) or the rock of reason and the facts of history?

kepha

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

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

Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation.
LetsObeyChrist - 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.

**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.

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:

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.

Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

 

[BobCatholic]

LOC still hasn’t answered why his personal magisterium is not pernicious or superfluous.

I’m talking about his interpretation of scripture.

LOC, don’t make me WHOMP you with pillows!

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

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:

If that is so, then the Word of God today is not what it once was. Since it was more then just Scripture, it is now less than what it was in its fullest sense.

Also, in my post I cited various meanings for the Word of God (among which):

1. In Creation (Gen. 1 and Ro. 1 and 2)
2. In Holy Spirit speaking to us (John 16:13
3. By prophets
4. In visions (Gen 15:1)
   5 In Dreams (Job 33:14)
5. In pain (Job 33:19)

Do you mean that God no longer uses these? Chapter and verse on when they stopped being the Word of God available to us, please. Do you mean that God can no longer speak to us in any other way? For example, the Holy Spirit can’t speak to our hearts any more?

 

[Michael_Howard]

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.

And this one seems to bolster our position qute nicely don’t ya think?

**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!

Praise God for the “living” church of Jesus Christ, the Holy, Apostolic catholic church where His word remains alive and active for He is the God of the living and His LIVING WORD destroys all arguements forme against it!

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

David Brown:
If that is so, then the Word of God today is not what it once was. Since it was more then just Scripture, it is now less than what it was in its fullest sense.

Also, in my post I cited various meanings for the Word of God (among which):

1. In Creation (Gen. 1 and Ro. 1 and 2)
2. In Holy Spirit speaking to us (John 16:13
3. By prophets
4. In visions (Gen 15:1)

5 In Dreams (Job 33:14)

1. In pain (Job 33:19)

Do you mean that God no longer uses these? Chapter and verse on when they stopped being the Word of God available to us, please. Do you mean that God can no longer speak to us in any other way? For example, the Holy Spirit can’t speak to our hearts any more?Let us not confuse POSSIBLE channels of God’s revelation with what actually is God’s revelation.

While it is possible the Word of God arrive apart from Scripture via visions, dreams, creation or any other medium one might imagine, it is not possible such contradict what is in Scripture and still be the “word of God.”

Indeed, the notion Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterium are one expression of the same Spirit is rendered impossible by the fact God cannot lie, make mistakes or change what He has proposed:

Num 23:19

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Sam 15:29

29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.-kjv

No theory doctrine developes over time can explain the conceptual gulf between the revelation as it comes to us in Scripture and what the RCC avers was received through its authoritative Tradition and Magisterium.

Such theories can only be maintained by force of will, not fact.

The question is not “couldn’t God,” rather “did He through the RCC?”

Only by precise comparison with the known Word of God (Scripture) can we identify His Word that may exist elsewhere via dream, vision, prophet, magisterium, etc.

Jer 23:25-40

25 I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.

29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?-kjv

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

Let us not confuse POSSIBLE channels of God’s revelation with what actually is God’s revelation.

While it is possible the Word of God arrive apart from Scripture via visions, dreams, creation or any other medium one might imagine, it is not possible such contradict what is in Scripture and still be the “word of God.”

LOC,

It is not just possible but actual that the Word of God came in those other ways. God’s revelation is actually in creation (Ro. 1 and 2); God actually revealed himself in visions, dreams, etc. I know because Scripture tells me so.

Also, your reponse shows that the Word of God is manifested in Scripture not that it is (only) Scripture. In any case, the Word of God cannot primarily refer to Scripture because it refers in its highest and fullest sense to Jesus.

Further, that “it is possible” for God to speak in other ways means that Scripture is not necessarily the only Word of God. To prove that you must say that “it is possible” but that God never ever spoke in those ways (or never ever since…).

The Catechism agrees (CCC 84f.) that the Magisterium is the “servant of the Word of God” and hence does not contradict Scripture (of course it could contradict your private interpretation but that just shows that either the Church is right or you are).

By the way, your new definition, using “contradicts”, allows that calculus is OK because it doesn’t contradict Scripture, it also allows for addtions/extensions/applications of Scripture to be OK as long as there is no “contradiction.” (I assume you mean “contradicts” a correct interpretation of Scripture and not just contradicts the literal words.)

 

[David_Brown]

LetsObeyChrist:

No theory doctrine developes over time can explain the conceptual gulf between the revelation as it comes to us in Scripture and what the RCC avers was received through its authoritative Tradition and Magisterium.

Such theories can only be maintained by force of will, not fact.

The question is not “couldn’t God,” rather “did He through the RCC?”

Only by precise comparison with the known Word of God (Scripture) can we identify His Word that may exist elsewhere via dream, vision, prophet, magisterium, etc.

Jer 23:25-40

LOC,
What is this “conceptual gulf”? It has not been part of the criteria you previsouly used. Further, a “conceptual gulf” does not imply or require a contradiction–so it doesn’t prove your point. A “conceptual gulf” requires there being an understanding of the relevant concepts. This means it can’t be just Scripture you refer to but to its meaning–and you must claim that somehow you have been given this meaning; you must also claim that you know the meaning of the Magisterium and Tradition in order to compare concepts. A small problem: You haven’t done this. All you have done is express your interpretation. It doesn’t really matter if your interpretation of Scripture conflicts with the Magisterium–Catholics have no reason to accept your interpretation.

As far as being maintained by “force of will, not fact,” the same could be said of you, if you are just name-calling. I have seen the Catholics post using Scripture, history, etc., so why do they not have facts, but when you use Scripture you do?

Actually, the question was “could God” which you seemed to deny (Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture” or “Scripture alone” not Scripture first or as final authority). Now that you seem to admit other modes of the Word of God, you have to say that God can speak in all kinds of ways (including giving you the correct interpretation of Scripture) but not through the Catholic Church. Several posts have given Scripture and references to the Early Church Fathers to support the Catholic claim. You have, mostly, said “It is not so” and then it goes back and forth getting nowhere.

“Only by precise comparision with the known Word of God”…implies a precise knowledge. Again, your interpretation versus the Church’s–no Catholic has the slightest reason for taking your interpretation (No other Protestant does either, and you will find any number who disagree with you on any number of interpretations). To compare something proposed for our assent (a possible object of knowledge) it is necessary to compare it with what we already know–You are doing good philosophy here. For Catholics the “known Word of God” includes Scripture and Tradition (and Magisterium) to which the individual should submit their opinions. Your comparision can only be to the Word of God as known by you (or by you and those you choose to listen to) and since you reject anything outside the text as an authoriattive guide, you must assume you have the correct interpretation on your own. An assumption is not, however, a proof.

To successfully argue against a position, you need a valid (or good) form of argument and premises that will be accepted. You are right: If a Catholic accepts your interpretation, then they will see that they must reject the Catholic view which conflicts with it–but there is not the slightest reason in the world for any Catholic to accept your interpretation over that of the Church and they have good reason (Scripture and the testimony of the Fathers for example) to reject it.

 

[Therese_Martin]

**Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.**