BringYourTruth

@farmingandJesus It is not possible for you to read a whole passage of scripture within it's frame of reference. You ALWAYS take things out of context.

Oh that’s easy. Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

@farmingandJesus that's not the trinitarian formulation. He's definitely in Hell according to your beliefs.

If this is true and genuine, absolutely

A little preview of the debate I did Thursday night on the Trinity. Should be released in full in the next week or two. Big thanks to Colton Miller on this. He got exactly the point I made.

@ThoughtfulSaint Theoretically, Could the formulation of the Trinity be a result of the great Apostasy?

That would be your theological interpretation of the Bible. You will not find anywhere in the Biblical text where three persons(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are existing as one eternally divine being or essence. If you have found it you would be the very first. Please do share. There are several sources friendly to your position that also admit that the Trinity is not in the bible. Here's some sources: “The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.”-Catholic theologian Edmund J. Fortman(The Triune God) "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament". -Harper's Bible Dictionary "Our opponents sometime claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture...but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels"-Graham Green(Catholic Scholar) "One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, son, and Spirit within a divine unity"-Anchor Bible Dictionary "This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes...It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still on of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian Faith" -Trinitarian Millard J. Ericson(Research Professor of Theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary(Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity, "God in Three Persons")

The Trinity is found all the way back in Genesis 1 , which opens with God and the spirit and his word all acting in concert. Explains how God Can Be Love In the words of John because love requires a community of persons. Explains how man is created in the image of god, male and female, which is an image of the Trinity because the love between the two is so real that they become one and from that Oneness New Life proceeds from them. Each one of us husband and wife is a small image of the Trinity with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the love of the father and the son. It is intrinsic to christianity, and actually very implicit in judaism.

Joe Heschmeyer @ShamelessPopery is now publicly claiming I lied and lured him into a debate about the papacy. I figured I needed to respond to that claim. I am many things but I can assure you I was not being dishonest and I hope this video clarifies things. (With that said I don't hold anything against Joe or @CapturingChrist)

Just to consolidate the conversation I'll respond here to your other points. Thank you for clarifying these points. Firstly, you said, "Both, just no prophetic revelation. If you are curious, you can read Pastor Aeternus from Vatican 1 and the relevant parts of the Catechism." Now there is no debate on whether Catholics believe this, but now you have to justify if your belief is scriptural by interpretation or plain reading. Where would you find that? I have read Vatican 1 and the parts pertaining to revelation. Maybe you had a different portion in mind? I point you to specifically Chapter 4:6 Where it reads "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles." I would raise that this is using suggestive language about what they would hope the successors would not make new doctrine by the Holy Spirit's revelation but only defend the current faith. The C4:6 statement reads as normative and restrictive of what they want the Successors to accomplish with the Holy Ghost instead of what they want the Holy Spirit to accomplish with the Successors. It shackles the Successor into ignoring any new revelation by the Holy Spirit if it brings about doctrinal changes. C4:6 attempts to define in advance what the Holy Spirit is not permitted to do through Successors. In regards to “Acts 15 shows an exercise of the Petrine office that is binding without any new revelation.” Your claim collapses under a reading of the text. The action given in Acts 15:28 explicitly mentions the Holy Spirit. It shows authority exercised through revelatory guidance. This is charismatic discernment, not a dry legal decree from understandings of previous revelation or doctrine. This is new guidance or revelation to the new gentile believers. Lastly, You asked "Do you believe divine revelation is infallible?" I believe divine revelation is infallible when coming from God, but the divine revelation can be skewed by the interpretation of the imperfect human receiving it. Just to obtain clarity on your position of Vatican 1, Where does Scripture itself teach that the apostolic office continues while the apostolic capacity to receive divine revelation does not?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Do you believe divine revelation is infallible?

Considering I asked where Scripture says that. The statement would need to answer the question "Where does Scripture teach that revelation ended?". Not just a cherry picked verse that is out of context of a situation. My theology denying inerrancy isn't something I was challenging. This wasn't a question about if Scripture is true, but a question about what scripture actually says, not just an interpretation of it. Your answer has essentially been "Our Belief that revelation ended comes from Catholic interpretive tradition, not an explicit scriptural statement." I’m not asking you to abandon Catholic tradition or accept mine. I’m asking a narrower question: where does Scripture itself teach that God will no longer reveal doctrine after the apostles die? If the answer is “Scripture doesn’t say this directly, but the Church later discerned it,” then we at least have clarity on where the disagreement actually lies.

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint I'm not sure that it's possible for a Catholic and Mormon to have a fruitful Biblical debate. We interpret it through different traditions, and you deny its inerrancy. What kind of statement would you require to believe that revelation did end?

@RobertWeidner11 @ShamelessPopery Would that count as "losing part of his authority"?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery Yes. And No. The only “power” if you could call it that is public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The Mormon belief in the great apostasy is clearly false. It's contrary to both scripture and history. Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/4apMq3U

I understand that you believe it's a false dilemma. I'm pointing out structural discontinuity. Peter demonstrated: 1. Direction Revelation 2. Binding Authority 3. Doctrinal decisions under revelatory guidance 4. Ongoing Prophetic direction The Pope is said to have: 1. Authority without revelation 2. Infallibility without inspiration 3. Guidance without disclosure 4. Succession without identical powers This forces a very real question: What exactly is being succeeded? Office alone, or office plus divine charism?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Another false dilemma, option 1 is not the Catholic understanding of Apostolic Succession or the Papal Charism.

@savonarolafan @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Where does Scripture say that "Revelation ends" or that "when the apostles die, God will stop giving new doctrines"? I'm open to see your interpretation if you can provide the interpretation matching the context of the verse(s).

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Both of these truths are pointed to in scripture.

Is that declaration of cessation simply "guidance" through private interpretation or "revelation" for the whole body of believers? Do you believe the Pope is in apostolic succession to Peter and has all of the powers provided to that seat? Or do you believe the powers of receiving revelation were lost when Peter & the Apostles died?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint The Catholic Church has declared revelation ceased, and nobody but heretics have claimed to receive divine revelation since the Apostolic age.

@savonarolafan @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint That's an interesting claim, Do you care to provide your version of Theological proof and "Historical Fact" that revelation?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Yes. There are also revelations that point to revelation ending. The end of revelation is a theological and a historical fact. This puts it into a different category.

If authority to declare the end of public revelation does not come from revelation itself, then it must come from institutional authority alone. But institutional authority can govern and interpret past revelation, it cannot define the limits of God’s future self-disclosure. Either the declaration that revelation has ended is itself revealed (in which case revelation has not ended), or it is not revealed (in which case it is merely tradition and fallible). Calling this a “false dilemma” doesn’t introduce a third option, it avoids the question. Do you believe the Pope has authority to interpret scripture but not receive revelation?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Authority does not lie in divine revelation alone. That is a false dilemma.

@ThoughtfulSaint Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all :)

Are you suggesting that "the faith was delivered once and for all" means that no more revelation would be given? Jude is talking about defending the Gospel's message against false teachers, not defining the end of God providing revelation. This is about content preservation, not revelatory cessation. Read it in it's context. He's telling other believers to fight for the faith. If you are correct about Jude 1:3, We should expect that any additional revelation from Pope's would just be assertions and private interpretations and not church wide public revelation. Correct?

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Scripture itself tells you that the faith was delivered once and for all. Jude says that explicitly.

I believe you confuse public revelation with perpetual revelation. My question wasn’t whether God needs ongoing revelation to sustain His Church. It was whether the Pope has authority to declare the end of public revelation without receiving revelation himself. If that declaration is not revelation, it is merely institutional tradition. And if it is revelation, then public revelation has not ended. Appealing to “not required” avoids the epistemological problem rather than answering it.

@ryan_bein @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint No, because perpetual divine revelation (God's disclosure of His knowledge) is not required for God to sustain His Church.

@ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint /2 Does that cut his own legs out from under him to lead what is claimed to be Christ's Church?

@ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint What if the Pope claimed that there would be no new public revelation prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ? Does he have the authority to receive public revelation for the Church(Institution).

Woohoo!