Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Trib, I have to say, I don’t know what you believe. Could you (when you get a chance) tell me your beliefs on the following?

Heaven
Hell
The future for the earth
Original purpose for mankind
Trinity

I have heard from Brother Chris, but I can’t say I have heard this from you.
[/quote]
This is as close as any non divinely inspired work will ever get and I don’t necessarily go along with every single syllable here either. All the stuff you will have hair raising questions about I absolutely do hold though. All the big stuff has not found a more thoroughly biblical expression anywhere.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Not sure why I didn’t realise that.

You say 1 Cor 4:6 proves sola Scripture:

4:6 starts out with the phrase “learned by us” this is an appeal to listen to the shepherds of the Church and live according to their example (4:16; 11:1).

Now to the phrase “not to go beyond what is written,” as it were Paul cautions believes to stay within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures. He is referring specifically to the string of OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter (1:19, 31; 3:19-20). Paul’s purpose here is to halt the damaging effects of arrogance in Corinth, as indicated by the clarification that follows. Interpretations of this verse that suggest Paul is restricting the basis for Christian doctrine and morals to what is explicitly set forth in the books of the Bible (sola Scriptura) are misleading and untenable. Nothing in the context points to such a broad concern, and in any case Paul insists elsewhere that even the inspired preaching of the apostles is on a par the written word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< No, I don’t speak on what God’s will is, sorry. >>>[/quote]I don’t either, but He sure does. 1st John 3:10; [quote]By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. >>>[/quote] [quote]Brother Chris wrote:I can speak on what God has done, but not on his will or your conscious. >>>[/quote] His word gives us guidelines by which it can be known who is NOT presently His. Nobody can know, except for themselves, who the elect are for certain .(lotsa scripture on this) [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Do you condemn reasoning faculties?[/quote]I don’t know what you mean by this

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not sure why I didn’t realise that.

You say 1 Cor 4:6 proves sola Scripture:

4:6 starts out with the phrase “learned by us” this is an appeal to listen to the shepherds of the Church and live according to their example (4:16; 11:1).

Now to the phrase “not to go beyond what is written,” as it were Paul cautions believes to stay within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures. He is referring specifically to the string of OT warnings about boasting quoted earlier in the letter (1:19, 31; 3:19-20). Paul’s purpose here is to halt the damaging effects of arrogance in Corinth, as indicated by the clarification that follows. Interpretations of this verse that suggest Paul is restricting the basis for Christian doctrine and morals to what is explicitly set forth in the books of the Bible (sola Scriptura) are misleading and untenable. Nothing in the context points to such a broad concern, and in any case Paul insists elsewhere that even the inspired preaching of the apostles is on a par the written word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).[/quote]You just put your head in a noose I have been waiting for the right time to hand you (as a friend… seriously), but you saved me the trouble =] It’ll have to wait til tonight though

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< and in any case Paul insists elsewhere that even the inspired preaching of the apostles is on a par the written word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).[/quote]And Peter flatly declares Paul’s writings as scripture. 2 Peter 3:15ff As I said you just put your head in a noose I have been waiting for the right moment to hand you (lovingly of course), but you have done it for me =]. Have to be later though

This was a double post I edited

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)[/quote]
Only the pope is infallible and that only when speaking ex-cathedra which rarely happens. Common misconception. Chris will certainly have a more complete answer.

Tiribulus, I’ll ask you the same question that you asked Chris. Do you believe he will be saved?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)[/quote]
Only the pope is infallible and that only when speaking ex-cathedra which rarely happens. Common misconception. Chris will certainly have a more complete answer.[/quote]

Wasn’t the claim made by the Church in the 13th century that the Sun went around the Earth, and then in 1992 Pope John Paull II conceded that that was wrong. That was a stance by the church and it was wrong. Doesn’t that disprove Papal infallibility?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, I’ll ask you the same question that you asked Chris. Do you believe he will be saved?[/quote]I don’t know. I hope so with all that I am. That was a future tense question you asked me.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)[/quote]

You are correct, infallibility has nothing to do with sinfulness. Paul spoke infallibly and he was Chief of sinners.

"As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences â?? unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)[/quote]
Only the pope is infallible and that only when speaking ex-cathedra which rarely happens. Common misconception. Chris will certainly have a more complete answer.[/quote]

Wasn’t the claim made by the Church in the 13th century that the Sun went around the Earth, and then in 1992 Pope John Paull II conceded that that was wrong. That was a stance by the church and it was wrong. Doesn’t that disprove Papal infallibility?[/quote]

The Sun has nothing really to do with faith and morals(I guess you could make a logical argument for it, but it is a matter of science), and no it did not declare their stance to be infallible. Just like their current stance about evolution is not infallible because it is a matter of science, even though the Church is heavily involved in science all around the world as well.

P.S. The Church’s stance is that the faithful are not required to believe in whatever is not evolution (I have not clue what you’d call that).

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< and in any case Paul insists elsewhere that even the inspired preaching of the apostles is on a par the written word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).[/quote]And Peter flatly declares Paul’s writings as scripture. 2 Peter 3:15ff As I said you just put your head in a noose I have been waiting for the right moment to hand you (lovingly of course), but you have done it for me =]. Have to be later though

This was a double post I edited
[/quote]

You mean 2 Peter 3:14-18? 15 doesn’t say much itself. Well you go ahead and try to, I’ll point out lovingly that what I write on here is private opinions, if it matches with the Catholic Church so be it, but I do not have the authority to teach infallibly as I’m not a bishop.

The reason why I don’t judge on where a man will go is because, 1 Cor 4:4-5:

“It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.”

Paul is saying he is not justified just because no one has complaint on him. Paul’s conscience is clear in the face of criticisms, though not necessarily correct. The final verdict pronounced on his ministry must await the Judgement, when God lays bare the secrets of the “heart” (4:5; cf. Rom 2:16; CCC 678). Before then, pronouncing a definitive judgment on the work of others-and even ourselves-can be hazardous and quite inaccurate.

If one is ill behaviored, there is nothing wrong with pulling him aside and telling him so; his heart my be pure, but his actions faulty. However, saying one is going to hell when we don’t know one’s heart (I’d say that our vision is not even good enough to know our own hearts) and the faith in his works is something we should not do.

Just as a philosopher can speak on what is moral and what is not moral in fullness including intentions and motives that go along with one’s actions, but a philosopher cannot say that a moral action is in fact moral, as one may have immoral intentions or motives to do that act, making the act itself immoral, or not perfect.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, I’ll ask you the same question that you asked Chris. Do you believe he will be saved?[/quote]I don’t know. I hope so with all that I am. That was a future tense question you asked me.
[/quote]

That’s true, I’ll clarify my question.

Do you think Chris would be saved if he died today, given his fervent devotion to the Catholic church, which you consider to be corrupt? You’ve said millions of Catholics will be damned, so I’m wondering if that extends to Catholics like Chris?

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Do you think Chris would be saved if he died today, given his fervent devotion to the Catholic church, which you consider to be corrupt? You’ve said millions of Catholics will be damned, so I’m wondering if that extends to Catholics like Chris?[/quote]I was wondering how long it would take somebody to do this and I suspect you have nefarious motives in so asking, but…

No, and if he were consistent with what his church once taught he wouldn’t believe I would be either. I would sincerely respect that. Devotion to the catholic church is a symptom. God does not damn anybody because they belong to any certain church or not. We’re all born damned. False religions simply facilitate a state of affairs in one’s life where any other thing conceivable than the simple true saving gospel is believed and we stay that way. It is the satanic spirit of the pharisees. Busy, busy, busy with “God’s work”, but a rather polite and unintrusive relationship with personal sins of the heart where God dwells in His children.

This is no “thus saith the Lord.” I could be wrong in his case and would be elated for that to be true. I can only go by what I see and hear. I will say that not one of the elect body of Christ can possibly die before their authentic conversion to new life in Him. I spend a considerable amount of time praying this is Chris (and you too). Yep, that makes perfect sense even if everybody’s predestined.

I will likely be compelled to comment further on this, but I have stuff to do now. Life is not always fun, but God is always just.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

How is it that the pope can be called infallible? I understand it to mean that the Pope, and the body of bishops cannot be wrong. (not that they don’t sin) How is it that they can say this, and still believe that they are staying “within the limits of personal humility defined by the Scriptures”? (yes this is a tangent, but since you brought it up…)[/quote]

Papal infallibility is a declaration. If I am not mistaken, it was last use in 1854?? It was the the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It has nothing to do with the Pope being wrong as a person or what not. It mean that when ex cathadra is declared it is a dogma of the church. It is the most misunderstood thing about the pope. It has nothing to do with human perfection.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Do you think Chris would be saved if he died today, given his fervent devotion to the Catholic church, which you consider to be corrupt? You’ve said millions of Catholics will be damned, so I’m wondering if that extends to Catholics like Chris?[/quote]I was wondering how long it would take somebody to do this and I suspect you have nefarious motives in so asking, but…

No, and if he were consistent with what his church once taught he wouldn’t believe I would be either. I would sincerely respect that. Devotion to the catholic church is a symptom. God does not damn anybody because they belong to any certain church or not. We’re all born damned. False religions simply facilitate a state of affairs in one’s life where any other thing conceivable than the simple true saving gospel is believed and we stay that way. It is the satanic spirit of the pharisees. Busy, busy, busy with “God’s work”, but a rather polite and unintrusive relationship with personal sins of the heart where God dwells in His children.

This is no “thus saith the Lord.” I could be wrong in his case and would be elated for that to be true. I can only go by what I see and hear. I will say that not one of the elect body of Christ can possibly die before their authentic conversion to new life in Him. I spend a considerable amount of time praying this is Chris (and you too). Yep, that makes perfect sense even if everybody’s predestined.

I will likely be compelled to comment further on this, but I have stuff to do now. Life is not always fun, but God is always just.
[/quote]

How do you know you are right tirib? We Catholics are scriptural to. If you think those who hold fast to evangelical tradition are better, more important or higher on the totem pole than anybody else is full of shit.
I tell you this, if God were as big a jerk as you make him out to be, I would have no use for him. But he’s not and I know it…

[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, I’ll ask you the same question that you asked Chris. Do you believe he will be saved?[/quote]

I think you will be saved. There is something about the love of God you can’t ignore and that will save you. I don’t care who you bone.

If I go to hell for my faith, I await all you to join me…Futher I gladly accept it for I know I am right, not in my sinfulness, but in my faith.