Replies

All theologians and Biblical scholars must submit to the authority of the Sacred Magisterium to interpret and to teach from Tradition and Scripture. Each Christian should read or listen to the Bible, learning directly from the text. But each Christian should also form his understanding of the text according to the teachings of the Magisterium.

Only God is infallible. Anyone who asserts otherwise is satanic and anti-Christ.

Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium Ping!

More of the same....

We say it, so you must believe us.

Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:

quote==>

Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:

Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham's obedience to God's specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. "Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore." Abraham's righteousness was "fulfilled" when "he believed God" in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not site this as the "fulfillment" of Abraham's righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:

Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with "righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Here's the timeline:

1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15

2) circumcision = Ge.17

3) Isaac incident = Ge.22

But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is "complete" as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don't hear God say "stop!"? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness"? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not "completely" credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?

Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham "was considered righteous for what he did". He also claims in verse twenty two that "his faith was made complete by what he did." So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - "a person is [being] justified by what he does". (Even though the "being" is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.

The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous "for what he did." Paul confirms this in Romans:

Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, "what he did"], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.

<==/quote

As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Moses and Paul.

This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.

This proves that there are serious questions about the legitimacy of the Sacred Magisterium and the NT canon.

Sorry, but this is just a bunch of gobbledygook.

“Did God REALLY say.....?”

1. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity.

Interesting proposition. It has a nice feel to it.

2. Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” (Dei Verbum, n. 2).

Poor edit from the Die Verbum. Here's the full quote.

This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them.

Actually it's a horrible edit from the Die Verbum and destroys the article.

Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is the deeds of the Infallible and Most Holy Trinity.

I have no idea where this assertion comes from. The words proclaim the deeds. The deeds are not an oral tradition, but taken from scripture. No need to even think about the infallible part because sacred tradition is not equal to the deeds wrought by God.

2. Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” (Dei Verbum, n. 2).

This statement is directly contradicted by the Die Verbum.

n. 10 Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God

Sacred tradition is word.

n. 2 This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity

Deeds are not words.

n. 2 the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them

So no, sacred tradition is not the deeds wrought by God. Sacred tradition should proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery.

Mormons have some entertaining fictions too.