Is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 an ideal passage to discredit the anti-polygynists?

[Mark C]

After my encounter with this RC guy, I think 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 is an ideal passage to discredit anti-polygynists.

True, but there are MANY such.

The ultimate problem with the RCC is that they do not, as a matter of doctrine, accept that primacy of Scripture. Their 'trump card' response is, ultimately, that the pope changed that ('apostolic authority/succession') and thus it is 'now irrelevant.' Which is why they still require that "laity" have a 'real priest' to INTERPRET all of it for them.

I contend that the only ultimate blow is Matthew 5:17-19. (Supported by all of the 'old' Testament Writing about the parameters of the 'prophet like unto Moses.') If the Messiah Himself said HE would not change His own Word, on what 'authority' do they claim to do it for Him? (They have a pat answer; but it falls apart in context.)

 

[Joleneakamama]

'apostolic authority/succession

It's the same with the LDS. The Bible is really of no authority because of their "priesthood."
They claim the Book of Mormon is the foundation of their religion but its really that claim to divine authority/priesthood. The Catholics claim is from descent through Peter, the mormons claim is from restoration....also from Peter (James and John too)

 

[frederick]

The guy I spoke with was a convert to the RC religion, and someone well read on religion generally. The thing is, he is a guy dead in trespasses and sins, walking according to the course of this world, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind just as it is written. Being blind to the truth of the gospel I had to find his weak spot about the RC religion and the changes they had made to get him to search the scriptures. He needs to encounter the truth so that he would see his error. Like most people he had never had to think about and now answer the questions he was confronted with. We are praying first of all that he might be saved from his sin and then be open to the truth about everything else.

 

[FollowingHim]

The ultimate problem with the RCC is that they do not, as a matter of doctrine, accept that primacy of Scripture. Their 'trump card' response is, ultimately, that the pope changed that ('apostolic authority/succession') and thus it is 'now irrelevant.'

If that were the case it would be easily argued against, but I think you're misunderstanding their position. More accurately, in RC and Orthodox thought, when it comes to a competition between church tradition and scripture, tradition wins. Tradition has primacy over scripture simply because it is tradition that chose scripture in the first place - the collection of books we have in the Bible, and the notion that they are divinely inspired and others are not, is church tradition. Therefore tradition comes before the Bible and is superior to it.

I'm not saying the argument is correct - but I must admit they have enough of a point to make it rather more difficult to argue against.

 

[frederick]

I'm not saying the argument is correct - but I must admit they have enough of a point to make it rather more difficult to argue against.

Exactly. So I chose a topic I was reasonably confident he knew nothing about to shake his RC foundation.

 

[Mark C]

If that were the case it would be easily argued against, but I think you're misunderstanding their position. More accurately, in RC and Orthodox thought, when it comes to a competition between church tradition and scripture, tradition wins.

Actually, I was referring to "papal infallibility," as the so-called 'vicar of christ.'

I'm not saying the argument is correct - but I must admit they have enough of a point to make it rather more difficult to argue against.

Impossible, if you accept that (flawed) hypothesis. (Or, postulate.)

But it is why I don't tend to argue with devout catholics. If they accept that 'the Pope' (subject to their arcane rules) can over-ride YHVH Himself, there simply IS no argument. Whether it's polygyny, or sun-god-day, or fish on Friday (maybe) - if 'the universal church' changed His Word, then what Scripture says is ultimately irrelevant.

 

[OttoM]

Matthew 5:17-19 is very good. This would obviously apply to the Apostle Peter. Peter had a chance to change the food laws - his vision for unclean animals - three times he received - three times he said no. Then three gentiles came to his door, and the written word tells us that the meaning of the vision was not to call the gentile people un-clean - which is a Talmudic tradition and not based on Torah (love the foreigner).

Another scripture that gives us authority to reject the changes done by the RC is found here:

2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

You'll frequently see a statue of Mary in a garden with children bowing down to her. There's plenty of scripture to choose from that 2 Timothy 3:16 gives us authority to correct those walking contrary to the Truth.

 

[FollowingHim]

But you're missing the point I was making @Earth_is-.

2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

And which books are scripture? The ones church tradition says are scripture - however we debate it, it really does come down to that on some level, because there is no list of which books are scripture in the Bible itself. This is why the Catholic view is that tradition trumps scripture.

There may be a good answer to this, but I honestly do not know what it is. I must admit there is a degree of circular reasoning here - we believe a certain book is inspired scripture because we have been taught it is inspired scripture - in other words, because tradition says it is inspired - and therefore we accept that everything it says is true. So then when church tradition says something that disagrees with that scripture, we think the tradition is wrong - but we'd never think it was wrong in the first place if we had not first accepted the same tradition which tells us that book is scripture! At least the catholics are consistent.

If someone has a good answer to this - by which I mean one that is logically sound and not circular - please tell me.

 

[frederick]

If someone has a good answer to this - by which I mean one that is logically sound and not circular - please tell me.

You are quite right regarding the RC reasoning and that's what I was dealing with. He used those very arguments for defending his position as a convert to the RC religion. Until someone comes to that point where they regard Scripture as the highest authority, we're banging our heads against a brick wall. It is only going to be the power of the Word that transforms that sinner into a Saint.

 

[FollowingHim]

Until someone comes to that point where they regard Scripture as the highest authority

Is there a reason for someone to come to that point, which is not itself based upon church tradition?

The most convincing internal reason I can think of is the ELS codes that @Mark C has discussed elsewhere, but I am unclear whether they apply to anything other than the Torah itself - and am equally unsure whether such a kabbalistic system is a valid basis for Christian thought in the first place.

 

[frederick]

Is there a reason for someone to come to that point, which is not itself based upon church tradition?

Yes, it's called salvation where the one who was dead in trespasses and sins has been made alive together with Christ. I'm not trying to be funny, just acknowledging our dependence upon the work of God in their lives. Only the Word of God can call dead sinners to life in Christ, and only those who have been made alive will have the highest regard for His Word.

 

[Mark C]

But you're missing the point I was making @Earth_is-.

And which books are scripture? The ones church tradition says are scripture - however we debate it, it really does come down to that on some level, because there is no list of which books are scripture in the Bible itself. This is why the Catholic view is that tradition trumps scripture.

There may be a good answer to this, but I honestly do not know what it is. I must admit there is a degree of circular reasoning here...

If someone has a good answer to this - by which I mean one that is logically sound and not circular - please tell me.

Absolutely.

But you hit the nail on the head with the question "What is 'Scripture'? " And how do we KNOW it is His Truth, or something else?

(And, the fact that these discussions get censored is a part of the issue I have with iron not consistently being allowed to 'sharpen iron.')

There is a "Rock", and He makes that clear, "In the Beginning." EVERYTHING else must be built on that, "line by line," and "precept by precept."

The non-circular foundation is how I learned to deal long ago with, first, agnostics. It consists of TWO parts:
- Is there a 'God'?
- And, then, and only then, did He Write a Book? And how can we know that?

The first part is easy, even "self-evident" - look at a single bird's wing, an eyeball, or a single self-replicating and DNA. They could not have 'just happened.'

The second is tougher. What convinced me was the literally DIVINE 'consistency' - from "Bereshiet to Maps." But it's ONLY there in the Original Language. (Translation errors, accidental or deliberate, and linguistic issues distort the pattern, among other things. "Study, to show yourself approved.")

Non-believers tend to see through the circular smoke.

Yes, the 'Torah codes' are one, interesting, even conclusive, part. So is the "Alef-Tav" - Who is there "from the Beginning," and is literally part of the grammar ('et' - pointer to the direct object, but sometimes it/He is there when not grammatically necessary. There are many, MANY, more such - not conclusive in themselves, but collectively compelling.

And Fundamental there is the very nature of "The Rock." He is a firm Foundation, He 'changes not,' is the "same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow." The parameters for how we would KNOW and be able to identify Him, the "prophet like unto Moses," are laid out definitively.

And the single key is this: If some "prophet, or dreamer of dreams" claims to have changed even the TINIEST part of what He Wrote, then we know a fake. Which is why He was SO clear, and unequivocal, in Matthew 5:17-19, and also elsewhere. Anything less is "another jesus, whom we have not preached."

The only way to avoid, and reveal, the 'circular argument,' is to realize that what we find as a result must be utterly, totally, internally consistent. Divinely so!

 

[NBTX11]

And which books are scripture? The ones church tradition says are scripture - however we debate it,

The books we have are scripture because the early first century church (before Catholicism) recognized them as authoritative scripture written from the pen of Paul (for example). Most of the books were recognized instantly as scripture and were passed around from church to church. Others, like Revelation, struggled to get in for a while, but were ultimately accepted as authoritative. God gave the first century church a special responsibility to be the guardians and gatekeepers of His Word, and they did that. They also knew which were true and which were fakes and frauds. They rejected the frauds because they knew they were not from the hand of those with intimate knowledge of Christ either first hand or second hand. This is also why second century gospels were rejected. The church recognized that they were not authoritative.

 

[Michael Moon]

The books we have are scripture because the early first century church (before Catholicism) recognized them as authoritative scripture written from the pen of Paul (for example). Most of the books were recognized instantly as scripture and were passed around from church to church. Others, like Revelation, struggled to get in for a while, but were ultimately accepted as authoritative. God gave the first century church a special responsibility to be the guardians and gatekeepers of His Word, and they did that. They also knew which were true and which were fakes and frauds. They rejected the frauds because they knew they were not from the hand of those with intimate knowledge of Christ either first hand or second hand. This is also why second century gospels were rejected. The church recognized that they were not authoritative.

This statement is true* (*according to church tradition).

 

[NBTX11]

This statement is true* (*according to church tradition).

Which part of what I said is false and why. We had to get the Bible somehow. It didn’t just float out of the sky.

 

[OttoM]

How did the Bereans test Paul? From the scripture - the law, the writings, and the prophets. This is established scripture - known as the “Old Testament.”

John 5:46 NLT
If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. 47 But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”

The Messiah is all over the Old Testament. In Ezekiel 34 - Yahuah says I myself will be the shepherd that retrieves my lost sheep that have gone astray.

How about Zechariah 12:10

They will look on me (Yahuah), the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child

Proverbs 30:4 mentions the Father and Son.

Psalm 110:1
A Psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

How about Isaiah 53:5? Pierced for our transgressions.

These are the type of scriptures that the Bereans were most likely reading - and seeing that the Messiah - perfectly fulfilled them.

Luke 16:29
But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’

The apostles taught and quoted from the law, the writings, and the prophets. They weren’t introducing anything new - besides the Lamb of Yahuah that was promised:

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

It’s not rocket science. It’s not a new religion. Simply keep his commandments. Don’t add or take away from them. But guard them. And keep them through faith and love in the Son of Yahuah - Yahushua - who was the lamb that was sacrificed for our lawlessness - so now we can be slaves to righteousness, instead of slaves to sin.

 

[OttoM]

The verse in Ezekiel 34:11-12 NLT

For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search and find my sheep. 12 I will be like a shepherd looking for his scattered flock. I will find my sheep and rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on that dark and cloudy day.

 

[FollowingHim]

Which part of what I said is false and why. We had to get the Bible somehow. It didn’t just float out of the sky.

Everything you said is true.
And what you described is church tradition.

As you said, the early church was not handed a list of authoritative books from God. They gradually came to a collective agreement on what books were scriptural, which ultimately became settled tradition. That is not false, it is not wrong - it is exactly how we got the Bible. Through church tradition. We have faith that the early church was inspired to make the right decision here - which means we have faith in church tradition (at least in the tradition of the early church of the first few centuries).

 

[NBTX11]

Everything you said is true.
And what you described is church tradition.

As you said, the early church was not handed a list of authoritative books from God. They gradually came to a collective agreement on what books were scriptural, which ultimately became settled tradition. That is not false, it is not wrong - it is exactly how we got the Bible. Through church tradition. We have faith that the early church was inspired to make the right decision here - which means we have faith in church tradition (at least in the tradition of the early church of the first few centuries).

Is all tradition bad? There can be good tradition and bad tradition. Right tradition and wrong tradition. Just because church tradition had an influence in which books we have, does not mean they got it wrong.

Tradition is only bad when it runs contrary to scripture or creates new doctrine. The Baptists (denomination I came from) have a tradition on how they run their services and do things. Does that mean it’s all wrong? BTW a lot of what they do is wrong, but is wrong based on scripture.

 

[FollowingHim]

Of course, much tradition - even most tradition - is good. We all agree we should accept the Bible - even the most anti-traditionalists here accept that to some degree - so we all agree with church tradition to some extent.

The issue is simply when it comes to using scripture to contradict other church traditions. This does introduce a degree of circular reasoning, which will be immediately pointed out by a catholic. I am wondering whether there is a good answer to this objection.