Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[Roy]

Not really. "Teaching" does not have to be oral. cf MOOCs.

There are two points about that.

First is, Christ founded a Church. The locus provided says it cannot cease even for one day. That means it cannot shift position on even one essential...

'fraid not. Apart from the minor point that the locus provided may not be infallible, there is a massive difference between continuity and continuity with no change. The various Christian churches historically have shifted positions on essentials - such as the role of the monarchy, or the relative importance of works vs belief.

In any case, the locus provided does not say that teaching cannot cease for even one day, only that the Church will not cease.

Second is, teaching actually has to be oral in a continuous community. It is not exclusively oral, it backs up its oral teaching on a set of writings, but the oral teaching cannot cease unless the community ceases - which is precisely what the prophecy in Matthew 28:20, second half, excludes.

It's not a prophecy.

[hansgeorg]

'fraid not. Apart from the minor point that the locus provided may not be infallible, there is a massive difference between continuity and continuity with no change. The various Christian churches historically have shifted positions on essentials - such as the role of the monarchy, or the relative importance of works vs belief.

That is a description of Reformation, not of Catholic Church. Monarchy in secular state is a non-essential, precisely as democracy.

In any case, the locus provided does not say that teaching cannot cease for even one day, only that the Church will not cease.

The Church not ceasing even for one day implies it doesn't even for one day lack teachers. OK, they could be not teaching on one Holy Saturday, or a certain priest could be teaching on Sundays only and so on, but it remains true the Church cannot lack teachers and therefore cannot get rid of what was oral tradition.

Especially, since Matthew 28:20 was adressed, not to all faithful, but to all eleven major teachers of the Church.

It's not a prophecy.

It is a promise by God Himself, a Christian would be most illogical if not regarding it as absolute prophecy.

[Roy]

It's not a prophecy.

It is a promise by God Himself, a Christian would be most illogical if not regarding it as absolute prophecy.

You can regard it as a prophecy if you wish, but it's not a prophecy.

[hansgeorg]

You can regard it as a prophecy if you wish, but it's not a prophecy.

Notwithstanding, a Protestant can't take that Atheist copout for Protestantism. A Protestant is obliged to take it as prophecy.

[One Bad Pig]

The "basic orbital dynamics" you speak about hasn't been tested for being the true cause of day, month, year and of periods less concerned with earth (like orbit of Pluto).

Angelic movers are a fair alternative and with Tychonian orbits are giving a very beautiful piece of choreography.

And stars either being alive themselves OR, especially with a reference to St John of Damascus, moved by angels (since he excluded them being alive themselves, which Bishop Tempier of Paris confirmed in his condemnations of Laetare Sunday in Late 1276 or Early 1277) is clearly at least one major option of interpretation of certain words in the Bible.

IF St. John of Damascus speculated that stars were moved by angels (which I'll not accept absent a cited quote), it wasn't more than speculation; it was nothing more than John attempting to explain what he saw by the science of his day. The saints were not infallible, especially in speculation on minor matters.

I don't consider Thomas Aquinas a saint.

[hansgeorg]

You are a sloppy reader.

IF St. John of Damascus speculated that stars were moved by angels (which I'll not accept absent a cited quote),

I didn't say he did.

What he did say is stars don't have souls, aren't living beings. I also said this decided between the alternatives living beings vs moved by angels which a very direct reading of Bible passages endorses - like cited Baruch 3:34-35.

it wasn't more than speculation; it was nothing more than John attempting to explain what he saw by the science of his day.

You are a sloppy historian as well. The concept of "science of his day" is per contrast with what we call "science of our day". The concept of "modern science" didn't exist back then. It's as anachronistic as defining Geocentrism as believing "Earth is centre of Solar System" by contrast with Heliocentric/Acentric "Sun is centre of Solar system". Geocentrism is not historically into considering Sun, Moon and Planets as a solar system among many like ones, it is about considering Universe (at least under Empyrean Heaven, where God has His throne) as moving around Earth.

All Church Fathers who commented considered Earth as being still.

Some as it being a globe, in the centre of the universe, St Athanasius as most probably a disc posed on a globe of water in the centre of the Universe.
Some as universe moving together bringing stars and planets (that includes Sun and Moon by the way) along, some preferring celestial bodies being individually moved to the West. St Augustine refused to take sides on that.
None as Earth turning inside a universe having no daily movement at all.

The saints were not infallible, especially in speculation on minor matters.

Unless agreeing universally on a thing.

I don't consider Thomas Aquinas a saint.

I don't recall if it was St Basil or someone else who made a list of heresies, one was theocatagnostic heresy. Your attitude against St Thomas Aquinas at least materially falls under that.

[One Bad Pig]

You are a sloppy reader.



I didn't say he did.

What he did say is stars don't have souls, aren't living beings. I also said this decided between the alternatives living beings vs moved by angels which a very direct reading of Bible passages endorses - like cited Baruch 3:34-35.

Thank you for clearing that up. What you said earlier wasn't clear, which is why I responded at all.

I don't recall if it was St Basil or someone else who made a list of heresies, one was theocatagnostic heresy. Your attitude against St Thomas Aquinas at least materially falls under that.

You might perhaps do me the courtesy of asking why I do not think Thomas Aquinas is a saint before accusing me of anything.

[hansgeorg]

You might perhaps do me the courtesy of asking why I do not think Thomas Aquinas is a saint before accusing me of anything.

The words "at least materially" were meant to n o t imply direct accusation, feel free to answer the question you suggested to me. Before doing so, check my preliminary answer on some points:

He was Papist? So was Photius, he believed Pope Zachary could rescind the already occurred Constantinople IV.
He believed in Original Sin? Damnation of unbaptised infants? So did Gregory Palamas and Avvakum.
He believed in filioque? So did St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Gregory and St Augustine (whom Photius counted as "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" in Vivlijothiki).
He used azymes? I have an idea about why Christ would have used them one day earlier than the Jews rejecting him : he had seen the new moon of Nisan one evening before its sighting by the Temple and the beacons announcing the sighting (which was too late even possibly) would not have reached through Samaria to Galilaea on 1st of Nisan, and since he came to Jerusalem from the North on 7 / 8 of Nisan (Lazarus Saturday would have been 7 Nisan, Palm Sunday 8 of Nisan) he would have been obeying the law based on observation rather than information.

Any more, or any consideration I didn't back up enough?

[Roy]

Notwithstanding, a Protestant can't take that Atheist copout for Protestantism. A Protestant is obliged to take it as prophecy.

No atheist copout here. It's not a prophecy because it's a promise, not a prediction.

It's also so vague and open-ended that it's impossible to determine whether it is true.

[hansgeorg]

No atheist copout here. It's not a prophecy because it's a promise, not a prediction.

A promise from a mere man - as you atheists believe Him to have been, except mythicists - is not a prediction. A promise by God Almighty is a prediction. And God Almighty, not just we Catholics, but also Protestants take Him to be.

It's also so vague and open-ended that it's impossible to determine whether it is true.

The word "every day" and the fact it was directed to the eleven men he had given most teaching authority among His disciples during His lifetime (among them the man He had given t h e most authority) a clear minimum is His Church always having successors of these eleven supreme teachers able to continue the teaching orally as originally.

It precludes things like a gap of fifty years without bishops all over the world (bishops being what the successors of the eleven are technically called by Catholics and Orthodox). It precludes there being a thing like fifty years of bishops so bungling the teaching, that it becomes useless and has to be replaced by purely accessing the written texts.

Therefore, whether Atheism or Catholicism is right, whether Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox is a true Orthodox believer of the Catholic Church, clearly Protestants do not have a good case. They are refuted by their own authority.

[Roy]

You are a sloppy reader... I don't recall if it was St Basil or someone else who made a list of heresies, one was theocatagnostic heresy. Your attitude against St Thomas Aquinas at least materially falls under that.

AFAICT there is no such thing as "theocatagnostic heresy".

You are a sloppy writer.

[One Bad Pig]

The words "at least materially" were meant to n o t imply direct accusation, feel free to answer the question you suggested to me. Before doing so, check my preliminary answer on some points:

He was Papist? So was Photius, he believed Pope Zachary could rescind the already occurred Constantinople IV.
He believed in Original Sin? Damnation of unbaptised infants? So did Gregory Palamas and Avvakum.
He believed in filioque? So did St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Gregory and St Augustine (whom Photius counted as "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" in Vivlijothiki).
He used azymes? I have an idea about why Christ would have used them one day earlier than the Jews rejecting him : he had seen the new moon of Nisan one evening before its sighting by the Temple and the beacons announcing the sighting (which was too late even possibly) would not have reached through Samaria to Galilaea on 1st of Nisan, and since he came to Jerusalem from the North on 7 / 8 of Nisan (Lazarus Saturday would have been 7 Nisan, Palm Sunday 8 of Nisan) he would have been obeying the law based on observation rather than information.

Any more, or any consideration I didn't back up enough?

No offense, but you're nutty enough that I'm not going to debate finer points of theology with you. And you backed none of this up.

[Roy]

A promise from a mere man - as you atheists believe Him to have been, except mythicists - is not a prediction. A promise by God Almighty is a prediction.

This has nothing to do with any belief or otherwise. The statement in Matt 28:20 is not a prophecy because it is not foreknowledge of future events. The only way have that passage be a prophecy is to redefince "prophecy".

It's also so vague and open-ended that it's impossible to determine whether it is true.

The word "every day" and the fact it was directed to the eleven men he had given most teaching authority among His disciples during His lifetime (among them the man He had given t h e most authority) a clear minimum is His Church always having successors of these eleven supreme teachers able to continue the teaching orally as originally.

It precludes things like a gap of fifty years without bishops all over the world (bishops being what the successors of the eleven are technically called by Catholics and Orthodox). It precludes there being a thing like fifty years of bishops so bungling the teaching, that it becomes useless and has to be replaced by purely accessing the written texts.

That verse does not say what you think it says.

[hansgeorg]

AFAICT there is no such thing as "theocatagnostic heresy".

You are a sloppy writer.

Not very, no. And you are a sloppy historian, since there is such a thing as theocatagnostic heresy.

One Church Father, but it was five to ten years ago, no, more, I am no longer sure it was St Basil, made a list of 100 or so heresies, one of them being the theocatagnostic one.

Criticising God or His saints (that includes St Thomas Aquinas) for their words or deeds.

No offense, but you're nutty enough that I'm not going to debate finer points of theology with you. And you backed none of this up.

I am backing each thing up, as soon as you challenge it.

Your motive is a neat copout for you, as for similar minded Pharisees.

The statement in Matt 28:20 is not a prophecy because it is not foreknowledge of future events. The only way have that passage be a prophecy is to redefince "prophecy".

According to Christian Faith, God has complete power to keep His promises and complete foreknowledge of what to us is the future. That means, God's promises are prophetic. No matter how you turn it, it will involve God's foreknowledge of His keeping His promises. AND according to the Christian Faith the man who uttered the words was, precisely, God. Therefore, His promise is also prophecy.

That verse does not say what you think it says.

Exactly how can "not even a day off" be compatible with "fifty years off"?

[One Bad Pig]

I am backing each thing up, as soon as you challenge it.

A string of unsupported assertions is not backup.