Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw

One of the more commonly shared experiences of Protestant converts to the Catholic Church is the discovery of verses “we never saw.” Even after years of studying, preaching, and teaching the Bible, sometimes from cover to cover, all of a sudden a verse “we never saw” appears as if by magic and becomes an “Aha!” mind-opening, life-altering messenger of spiritual “doom”! Sometimes it’s just recognizing an alternate, clearer meaning of a familiar verse, but often, as with some of the verses mentioned below, it literally seems as if some Catholic had snuck in during the night and somehow put that verse there in the text!

The list of these surprise verses is endless, depending especially on a convert’s former religious tradition, but the following are a few key verses that turned my heart toward home. This article is a reprint from the topic I covered on the July 31, 2006 broadcast of The Journey Home on EWTN.

1. Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

Ever since my adult re-awakening (read “born-again experience”) at age 21, this Proverb has been my “life verse.” It rang true as a guide for all aspects of my life and ministry, but then during my nine years as a Presbyterian minister, I became desperately frustrated by the confusion of Protestantism. I loved Jesus and believed that the Word of God was the one trustworthy, infallible rule of faith. But so did lots of the non-Presbyterian ministers and laymen I knew: Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Congregationalists, etc., etc., etc . . . The problem was that we all came up with different conclusions, sometimes radically different, from the same verses. How does one “trust in the Lord with all your heart”? How can you make sure your not “leaning on your own understanding”? We all had different opinions and lists of requirements. A verse I had always trusted suddenly became nebulous, immeasurable, and unreachable.

2. 1 Timothy 3: 14-15
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Scott Hahn pulled this one on me. “So, Marc, what is the pillar and foundation of truth?” I answered, “The Bible, of course.” “Oh yeah? But what does the Bible say?” “What do you mean?” When he told me to look up this verse, I suspected nothing. I had taught and preached through First Timothy many times. But when I read this verse, it was as if it had suddenly appeared from nowhere, and my jaw dropped. The Church!? Not the Bible? This alone sent my mind and essentially my whole life reeling; the question of which Church was one I was not ready to broach.

3. 2 Timothy 3:14-17
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Verses 16-17 were the texts I and others had always turned to buttress our belief in sola Scriptura, so to this I quickly turned my attention. Among many things, three important things became very clear, for the first time: (1) when Paul used the term “scripture” in this verse, he could only have meant when we call the Old Testament. The New Testament canon would not be established for another 300 years! (2) “All” scripture does not mean “only” scripture nor specifically what we have in our modern bibles. And (3), the emphasis in the context of this verse (vereses 14-15) is the trustworthiness of the oral tradition Timothy had received from his mother and others—not sola Scriptura!

4. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

This was another “too-hot-to-handle” verse Scott threw in my lap. The traditions (Dare I say, traditions) that these early Christian were to hold fast to were not just the written letters and Gospels that would eventually make up the New Testament, but the oral tradition. And even more significant, the context of Paul’s letters indicates that his normal, preferred way of passing along “what he had received” was orally; his written letters were an accidental, sometimes unplanned add-on, dealing with immediate problems—leaving unsaid so much of what they had learned through oral teaching.

5. Matthew 16:13-19
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

There is so much to discuss in this verse, so much I never saw. I always knew that Catholics used this to argue Petrine authority but I wasn’t convinced. To the naively ignorant, the English words “Peter” and “rock” are so different that it’s obvious that Jesus was referring to the faith Simon Peter received as a gift from the Father. For the more informed seminary educated Bible students, like myself, I knew that behind the English was the Greek, where one discovered that Peter is the translation of petros, meaning little pebble, and rock is the translation of petra, large boulder. Again an obvious disconnect, so so for years I believed and taught specifically against Petrine authority. Then, through the reading of Karl Keating’s wonderful book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, I realized the implications of something I knew all along: behind the Greek was the Aramaic which Jesus originally spoke, in which the word for Peter and rock are identical—kepha. Once I saw that Jesus had said essentially “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church,” I knew I was in trouble.

6. Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!"

For years, as a Calvinist preacher, I recited this verse in every funeral graveside service. I believed and taught sola fide and discounting any place for works in the process of our salvation. But then, after my last funeral service as a minister, a family member of the deceased cornered me. He asked, with a tremble in his voice, “What did you mean that Bill’s deeds follow him?” I don’t remember my response, but this was the first time I became aware of what I had been saying. This began a long study on what the New Testament and then the Early Church Fathers taught about the mysterious but necessary synergistic connection between our faith and our works.

7. Romans 10:14-15
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?

I had always used these verses to defend the central importance of preaching and why I, therefore, had given up my engineering career for seminary and the great privilege of becoming a preacher of the Gospel! And I was never bothered by the last phrase about the need of being “sent,” because I could point to my ordination where a cackle of local ministers, elders, deacons, and laymen laid their hands on my sweaty head to send me forth in the Name of Jesus. But then, first through my reading of the history and writings of the Early Church Fathers and second through my re-reading of the scriptural context of Paul’s letters, I realized that Paul emphasized the necessity of being “sent” because the occasion of his letters was to combat the negative, heretical influences of self-appointed false teachers. I had never thought of myself as a false teacher, but by what authority did those people send me forth? Who sent them? In this I realized the importance of Apostolic [those who have been sent] succession.

8. John 15:4 and 6:56
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
The book of the Bible I most preached on was the Gospel of John and my most preached on section John 15, the analogy of the vine and the branches. I bombarded my congregations with the need to “abide” or “remain” in Christ. But what does this mean? I always had an answer, but when I saw “for the first time” the only verse where Jesus himself defines clearly what we must do to abide in Him, I was floored. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” This led me to study a boatload of verses in John 6 “I had never seen before,” and in the end, when it came accepting Jesus at His word on the Eucharist, I had only one answer: “Where else can we go? Only you have the words of life.”

9. Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

I don’t know if I purposely avoided this or just blindly missed it, but for the first 40-years of my life I never saw this verse. And to be honest, when I finally saw it, I still didn’t know what to do with it. Nothing in my Lutheran, Congregationalist, or Presbyterian backgrounds helped me understand how I or anyone could rejoice in suffering, and especially why anything was needed to complete the suffering of Christ: nothing was lacking! Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection were sufficient and complete! To say anything less was to attack the omnipotent completeness of God’s sovereign grace. But then again, this was the apostle Paul speaking in inerrant, infallible Scripture. And we were to imitate him as he imitated Jesus. It took a reading of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on the meaning of suffering to open my eyes to the beautiful mystery of redemptive suffering.

10. Luke 1:46-49
“And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’”

Finally the hardest hurdle for so many Protestant converts to get over: our Blessed Mother Mary. For most of my life, the only place Mary came into the picture was at Christmas—and dare I say, as a statue! But I never referred to her as “blessed.” Yet Scripture says all generations will call her blessed. Why wasn’t I? This led me to see other verses for the first time, including John 17 where from the cross Jesus giave his mother into the keeping of John, rather than any supposed siblings, and by grace I began, in imitation of my Lord and Savior and eternal brother Jesus, to recognize her, too, as my loving Mother.

You write: “For every hyper-Catholic verse in the scripture there is a Protestant commentary that explains it away. Still, these are verses the direct reading of which is Catholic. You have to strain to arrive at a non-Catholic meaning.”

No.

Scripture is not that hard to read, except for the lost.

2 Tim 3 has, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

“...so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”!

If Scripture is useful “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”, then what it teaches is sufficient for salvation, and for every critical doctrine. It is sufficient.

To write that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” is NOT to write that it is the truth itself, replacing the God-breathed words that Jesus says ARE the truth.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” does NOT mean that Paul had a separate teaching he taught orally, but not in his letters, nor does it mean that this secret meaning has been passed down Bishop to Bishop, whispered from lip to ear for 2000 years. However, it DOES mean that we should reject the “unfolding” done by the Magisterium for the last 2000 years, that first drove away the Orthodox and latter drove away the Reformers.

There is a reason the medieval Catholic Church FEARED commoners getting their hands on scripture, and it WASN’T because scripture supported the Catholic Church - which would make the scriptures the pillar, and the Church the truth.

They feared it because every time people got their hands on scripture, they started leaving the Catholic Church in droves. Wycliffe knew this in the 1300s, which is why his followers concentrated on distributing scripture. It made their case for them. That is why Luther translated it into common German, with over 100,000 copies sold within 40 years.

At least the medieval Catholic Church didn’t pretend otherwise. They publicly said scripture was too hard for the common man to understand, and that only doctors of the church could interpret it in light of the Magisterium’s definition of sacred tradition. And in fact, is it not true that even today the Catholic Church says that individuals need the Catholic Church to give the interpretation? That anything I read in the text is merely “MOPIOS” - My Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture - and not to be trusted?

Protestants fought and died to get scripture into the hands of commoners. If “these are verses the direct reading of which is Catholic. You have to strain to arrive at a non-Catholic meaning”, then why did my spiritual forefathers die to make them available? Why did Catholic saints like Thomas More violently oppose them for doing so?

Here is a hint: It wasn’t because the scriptures so obviously support Catholic doctrine...

If Scripture is useful “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”, then what it teaches is sufficient for salvation

Not at all. If St. Paul wanted to say that it is sufficient -- including the scripture not yet written -- he would have said so, and he didn't. Don't spin, read.

To write that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” is NOT to write that it is the truth itself, replacing the God-breathed words that Jesus says ARE the truth.

What does that have to do with anything? Indeed, Jesus is the truth, but who, according to St. Matthew and St. Paul is the foundation on which we resolve disputes about the meaning of what He said?

[the Scripture] does NOT mean that Paul had a separate teaching he taught orally

Of course not. No one alleged that, either.

it DOES mean that we should reject the “unfolding” done by the Magisterium for the last 2000 years

How?

drove away the Orthodox and latter drove away the Reformers.

The "reformers" should go. They should convert or stop pretending they obey the Scripture. The Orthodox are with us on Sola Scriptura, and on all matters of doctrine important to us. Our disagreements are marginal.

is it not true that even today the Catholic Church says that individuals need the Catholic Church to give the interpretation?

Yes. Ther scripture says so, and it is the point made in the article.

Salvation,
You asked me a simple question, “How Old Is Your Church?”

While it is an interesting question, I don’t believe
it is the most meaningful question Scripturally, nor
the question that every man must answer.

... but you asked.

My Church is as old (in earth years) as the moment
the Savior drew the first man to Himself. In reality,
it is much older! It predates time as we understand
the term and extends back to eternity past. Back before
the foundations of the world were created. That’s what
a “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace” I serve. And I hope you belong to the
same Church!

Ephesians 1:3-4.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us
in him before the foundation of the world . . .”

blessings,
ampu

You wrote:

“You did?”

Yes, I did.

“I must have missed it...”

You’ve apparently missed a lot.

“Where does the Scripture say that Jesus saves the unborn?”

Where did I say scripture said that?

“I don’t evade questions like anti-Catholics always seem to.”

Yeah, actually you do.

“On the contrary, Christians look to the Bible and the Words of Christ and answer directly, rather than the Cliff Notes edition called the Catechism and hide behind the robes of men hidden in edifices.”

We too look to the Bible. In fcat we actually know the Bible whereas Protestants have little knowledge of it. After all Protestants excise entire books from the Bible and think nothing of it. Also, when you say the CCC is cliffnotes of the Bible, you’re still admitting its true. Thanks for undercutting your own argument. Public school grad?

“If it did not then how could you suffer in this life?”

Two reasons:

First,

“5And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” - Hebrews 12

This is NOT temporal punishment, cleansing us from our sin. Discipline is not punishment. I may discipline my horses, but I do not punish them. A horse that wants to go the wrong way, or that shies from something scary has not sinned. She has no guilt. However, I do need to teach her to focus on me, not the circumstances on the ride. So I will push her a bit, making her get closer to the scary thing, or requiring her to turn in the direction I want. With time, she learns I have her best interest at heart, and willingly obeys.

Temporal punishment is not discipline. The merit of another horse can not be transferred to the sacred horse, and ‘merit’ from the good deeds of others cannot discipline us. That only makes sense if you believe in an accounting system of good and bad, with good deeds able to cancel out bad deeds.

Nor does discipline occur years after the fact. I don’t beat my daughter today to discipline her for wrongdoing when she was 5. PUNISHMENT can follow years later. A prison sentence for murder can be imposed 40 years after the murder, but DISCIPLINE cannot.

God disciplines us in this life. He has no need to do so in the next. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment...”

Second,

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake...” - Phil 1:29

We have suffering in this world for the sake of Jesus. As Barnes explains

“But also to suffer for his sake. Here it is represented as a privilege to suffer in the cause of the Redeemer—a declaration which may sound strange to the world. Yet this sentiment frequently occurs in the New Testament. Thus it is said of the apostles, Acts 5:41, that “they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” Colossians 1:24: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you.” 1 Peter 4:13: “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings.” Comp. James 1:2; Mark 10:30. See Barnes “Acts 5:41”. It is a privilege thus to suffer in the cause of Christ, because

(1.) we then resemble the Lord Jesus, and are united with him in trials;

(2.) because we have evidence that we are his, if trials come upon us in his cause;

(3.) because we are engaged in a good cause, and the privilege of maintaining such a cause is worth much of suffering; and

(4.) because it will be connected with a brighter crown and more exalted honour in heaven.”

But scripture is clear - our suffering has nothing to do with removing our guilt for sin. There is discipline when we go the wrong way, so we can learn, like a horse, how to listen to the master and how to trust him. And suffering shows the world and the heavens we belong to Him, and follow Him.

But it does NOT remove guilt. That was done once for all at Calvary. And the justification there applies to all of me, making me already perfect in God’s eyes, and already in Heaven with Christ, so far as God is concerned.

“14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” - Hebrews 10 We ARE BEING sanctified, but He “has perfected” us - past tense - “for all time”.

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive [past tense] together with Christ— by grace you have been saved [past tense] — 6 and raised us up [past tense] with him and seated us [past tense] with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...8 For by grace you have been saved [past tense] through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2

As usual you miss the point.

Does temporal punishment exist? Do people suffer in this life? Yes or no? Yes is clearly the answer. It is then punishment. It cannot be simply discipline because it is suffering that only through our choice can be made to be disciplinary. In other words, only when you accept it as discipline does it become disciplinary in a way that we can become better. Also, punishment is part of discipline so your point is meaningless anyway.

“This is NOT temporal punishment, cleansing us from our sin. Discipline is not punishment.”

Punishment is part of discipline.

“I may discipline my horses, but I do not punish them.”

You’re going to use horses when we’re talking about souls? ever raise any children? Does God treat us more like children or horses? He treats us more like children. People who believe in disciplining their child will most certainly punish them as necessary.

“A horse that wants to go the wrong way, or that shies from something scary has not sinned. She has no guilt. However, I do need to teach her to focus on me, not the circumstances on the ride. So I will push her a bit, making her get closer to the scary thing, or requiring her to turn in the direction I want. With time, she learns I have her best interest at heart, and willingly obeys.”

But a child you would send to his room, or spank him or send him to be without dinner, etc. Those are all punishments. Your horse is an irrational beast. There’s no point to punishing something that was made to be shod and ridden, or eaten and made into glue. It’s a horse. They don’t think. They can’t sin.

If it weren’t for your horse, you wouldn’t have gone to Purgatory. (If you have no idea what I’m talking about, then you didn’t read the whole thread).

You write, “If St. Paul wanted to say that it is sufficient — including the scripture not yet written — he would have said so, and he didn’t. Don’t spin, read.”

I did read, Tornado. He wrote that it teaches and rebukes “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. That defines sufficient. I use the word because it is easier than writing out all the full quote of Paul. If a manual teaches you well enough that you could be thoroughly equipped to perform a deed, is it sufficient to teach you the deed? That isn’t spin or interpretation, just basic English.

“but who, according to St. Matthew and St. Paul is the foundation on which we resolve disputes about the meaning of what He said?”

According to Paul, we should take our doctrinal disputes to the overseer. “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Notice, they had already taught the trustworthy word needed for sound doctrine. They didn’t need to wait for 500-2000 years for the Magisterium to unfold new meaning. Paul had already passed it on. As he told the overseers in Acts, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

Jesus doesn’t address correcting church doctrine, but since you mention Matthew, I assume you are reading Matthew 18 out of context. Also, realize the word translated ‘church’ means ‘assembly’. It had started to take on religious tones, so ‘congregation’ would be a better translation than ‘church’. We’ve been stuck with church since the KJV, where King James, for political reasons, order the translators to use church instead.

I wrote, “it DOES mean that we should reject the “unfolding” done by the Magisterium for the last 2000 years”. When you reply “How?”, I assume you mean how does it mean that, not how does one do it. And it means that because if Paul taught the full counsel of God, then it would either be found in what was written, or in an oral tradition passed on from bishop to bishop - NOT discovered or ‘unfolded’ by men hundreds of years later. If it was the FULL counsel of God in 60 AD, it didn’t need men to find more in 1200 AD.

Where did I say scripture said that?

That was the question I asked; you have not answered it. Where in the Scripture does it say Christ saves the unborn?

In fcat we actually know the Bible whereas Protestants have little knowledge of it.

Apparently you don't know the Bible; you have to get spoon-fed by an ever-shifting cabal in Rome to be told what to believe.

Also, when you say the CCC is cliffnotes of the Bible, you’re still admitting its true. Thanks for undercutting your own argument.

The verses included within are true; the spirit of the Bible is not present, just like the Cliff Notes for any book loses the spirit and main meaning of the book. Wouldn't expect you to pick up on the subtlety, though...

Public school grad?

Eight years at St. Alphonsus, and 4 years at Bishop O'Dea High School. Catholic. Apparently a bit above your level since subtle innuendo escapes your grasp. I guess the Christian Brothers of Ireland are a bit more dry than the Jesuits you're used to?

You wrote:

“That was the question I asked; you have not answered it.”

The question you asked was already answered by me in post #75. This is at least the 3rd time I have pointed that out and at least the second time I pointed out the specific post #.

“Where in the Scripture does it say Christ saves the unborn?”

Already answered...again...in post #75.

“Apparently you don’t know the Bible; you have to get spoon-fed by an ever-shifting cabal in Rome to be told what to believe.”

Uh, no. There is not an “ever-shifting cabal in Rome”. That phrase tells us more about you then it does about the Church.

“The verses included within are true; the spirit of the Bible is not present, just like the Cliff Notes for any book loses the spirit and main meaning of the book. Wouldn’t expect you to pick up on the subtlety, though...”

And you’re still wrong. I picked up on the fact that you’re still wrong. That’s not subtle. It’s glaringly obvious.

“Eight years at St. Alphonsus, and 4 years at Bishop O’Dea High School. Catholic. Apparently a bit above your level since subtle innuendo escapes your grasp.”

No, you seem to think like a public school grad no matter where you originally went to school. If you can’t read post #75, then you have serious issues.

“I guess the Christian Brothers of Ireland are a bit more dry than the Jesuits you’re used to?”

Never had Jesuits of teachers. At least they could read post #75, however.

“so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. That defines sufficient.

It does say that the clergyman is thoroughly equipped, but it does not say he is so solely because of the scripture.

should take our doctrinal disputes to the overseer

That is spin already: the word for "overseer" is bishop (episcopos, Titus 1:7f, from where you quote), that is a man of the Church, which is also directly indicated in Matthew 18:17f.

the word translated ‘church’ means ‘assembly’

Not in Matthew 18, where the "ekklesia" is capable of rendering definitive judgement: it is "two of you", the apostles, not for example, the offending brother and the assembly of HIS choosing. For Matthew 18:17-18 to make sense the "ekklesia" has to be not just any assembly, but an established one, lead by a bishop.

They didn’t need to wait for 500-2000 years for the Magisterium to unfold new meaning [...] if Paul taught the full counsel of God, then it would either be found in what was written, or in an oral tradition passed on from bishop to bishop - NOT discovered or ‘unfolded’

What new meaning? It is not the task of the Magisterium to develop any new meanings. What the Evangelists and the Apostles taught (not just St. Paul alone) orally or when neccessary in writing formed the Church, which since then is pillar and ground of truth. The Church explains doctrines and applies them to the new times, but she does not depart from the Sacred Deposit of Faith "once delivered to the saints".

The question you asked was already answered by me in post #75. This is at least the 3rd time I have pointed that out and at least the second time I pointed out the specific post #.

OK, let's look at 1 Peter 3:19:

through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison

Nope, no reference to unborn babies there! If that's your answer, you definitely fail...

Uh, no. There is not an “ever-shifting cabal in Rome”. That phrase tells us more about you then it does about the Church.

So that group is never-shifting? The Magisterium is immortal, the Pope never dies? Wow, I guess Sister Mary Elizabeth was wrong - some men DO live forever!

And you’re still wrong. I picked up on the fact that you’re still wrong. That’s not subtle. It’s glaringly obvious.

Yes, I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong, no evidence or Scripture to the contrary. You believe it, ergo it is true. In the face of such withering attack and logic, a tower of intellect and reason, why I have no choice but to concede!

Never had Jesuits of teachers. At least they could read post #75, however.

I'm not denying they could read 1 Peter 3:19; however, how they get the salvation of unborn babies from that verse is apparently quite unknown.

Must have been handed down by the eternal cabal in Rome, that way as to avoid that messy reading and learning of the Bible...

You wrote:

“Nope, no reference to unborn babies there! If that’s your answer, you definitely fail...”

Can you read? Seriously, can you? Read post 75 all the way through. ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

“So that group is never-shifting? The Magisterium is immortal, the Pope never dies? Wow, I guess Sister Mary Elizabeth was wrong - some men DO live forever!”

Ever-shifting cabal. The Vatican is not a cabal. The people in it are not a cabal. The Vatican is not ever-shifting. The people in it are not ever-shifting. The White House has a cabal - since those in it are literally part of ONE party. It changes every four to eight years. That’s ever-shifting.

“Yes, I’m wrong because you say I’m wrong, no evidence or Scripture to the contrary.”

Your errors require little evidence other than common sense to show.

“You believe it, ergo it is true. In the face of such withering attack and logic, a tower of intellect and reason, why I have no choice but to concede!”

If you can’t even read post 75, you mights as well concede.

“I’m not denying they could read 1 Peter 3:19; however, how they get the salvation of unborn babies from that verse is apparently quite unknown.”

Anbd who claimed that? I posted the comment about 1 Peter because of WHAT YOU CLAIMED. Again, read post 75 ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

“Must have been handed down by the eternal cabal in Rome, that way as to avoid that messy reading and learning of the Bible...”

Keep embarrassing yourself. I don’t mind. When you actually read post 75, let me know.

“Does temporal punishment exist? Do people suffer in this life? Yes or no?”

You are mixing two separate subjects. People suffer. Yes. Is it punishment for sin. For non-believers, yes. For believers, no. “ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Punishment is not a part of discipline. A horse who shies is not guilty of sin. No crime has been committed. There is no reason to punish her, since she is innocent. There may be less pleasant consequences for certain actions, but she isn’t guilty - she just doesn’t understand. She is a horse, for goodness sakes! And we are much lower to God than a horse is to us, in terms of understanding.

When your church talks about transferring merit to another to cancel out temporal punishment, it is using an accounting system of good and evil. Good deeds are a positive deposit. Bad deeds must be covered by the good deeds, so they are like a withdrawal.

But Jesus taught that God doesn’t do an accounting system. To break one law is to break all. To obey a law does no good, unless you are born again. If you are born again, you do not fall under condemnation any more.

“Does God treat us more like children or horses?”

More like horses, although what we do with children doesn’t remove any guilt from sin for them. Discipline is not about guilt. I discipline a child (had 3, now frequently care for a granddaughter) who doesn’t know they are doing wrong. Someone who doesn’t know they are doing wrong isn’t guilty of anything. They haven’t ‘sinned’ against me. However, their behavior may still be unacceptable, and require discipline to teach them it is wrong.

A few years ago, I might have written some of the same stuff you are writing now, from a Protestant perspective. The last few years of trying to train dogs and horses has led me to do a lot of reading and thinking about discipline vs. punishment. And to a certain extent, we are talking past each other.

Punishment CAN be used to mean the unpleasant results that teach a child, dog or horse that obeying a rule is better. It can also mean the penalty for sin or crime. Used in the first sense, God does punish his children and we do punish ours and I do punish my horses & dogs.

However, if it is punishment to requite guilt, then it doesn’t need to be timely or to teach better behavior. A man who steals or kills will be punished when caught. If it takes 40 years, the guilt remains and so will the punishment.

Discipline uses ‘punishment’ differently, since it is meant to teach. If it isn’t done immediately, it doesn’t happen. I can’t teach someone a year later.

When God punishes a child of His, He does it to teach, not to cancel out our guilt. Our guilt for sin was paid in full at Calvary. It was once for all, and perfected us forever - so far as guilt goes.

I find the difference important for horses, dogs - AND my youngest daughter and granddaughter. Punishment for a crime focuses me on how to make them unhappy, and that they are ‘bad’. Discipline, using ‘pressure’, as a lot of trainers now put it, focuses me on teaching. It focuses me on what they CAN BE, rather than making me think they are bad. The difference is huge in my attitude and the results I see.

I only wish I had tried teaching horses as a young man. Perhaps I would have done a better job of raising my oldest kids, although they have proven to be fairly forgiving of my faults as a father. In particular, I find our Arabian mare Mia is teaching me more about being a father and man than I am teaching her about being ridden past wind chimes and strange garbage cans.

You write - without animosity, I’m sure, “Your horse is an irrational beast. There’s no point to punishing something that was made to be shod and ridden, or eaten and made into glue. It’s a horse. They don’t think. They can’t sin.”

If you could meet Mia (and to a lesser extent, Trooper and Lilly), you would find you are wrong. Mia is teaching me a lot, and my family has noticed the difference!

http://www.vailbs.com/horses

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.