tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614598828379683929.post7606408877369683026..comments2022-03-25T17:08:21.822-06:00Comments on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part IIILudovicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16477445913114324303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614598828379683929.post-46555167728166013352009-06-17T12:55:01.242-06:002009-06-17T12:55:01.242-06:00Certainly my comment was not explicitly disagreein...Certainly my comment was not explicitly disagreeing with yours; there could have been an implicit disagreement, if your comment was implying that the two statements do not disagree with one another at face value.<br /><br />I do not use face value to ONLY mean without textual context; this is only one possible scenario. In fact people do take quotes from Scripture out of context to prove their positions, whether that be textual context, or the broader scriptural context and/or the context of tradition and Church teaching. That is precisely the point I was making.<br /><br />If your point is that the two statements are not contradictory, and that evidence can be given for them not being contradictory with only a little effort, that is true of a lot of quotes that people take out of context; more or less so in different cases, but nevertheless always so.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000454887945611703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614598828379683929.post-41992464692513309862009-06-17T00:20:20.929-06:002009-06-17T00:20:20.929-06:00You seem to be taking my comment as though it were...You seem to be taking my comment as though it were disagreeing with what you had said. Why? You said "Jesus <i>seems</i> to say the opposite," and I simply pointed out that <i>in fact</i> each statement logically implies the other.<br /><br />I find the statement "There are two Ways: a Way of Life and a Way of Death, and there is a great difference between these two Ways" quite significant. Similarly "There are two Ways: a Way with me and a Way against me" is a significant statement.<br /><br />Though you explicitly contrast a face value interpretation with an interpretation "in light of tradition and the teaching authority of the Church", you seem in fact to use "face value" interpretation to mean an interpretation without textual context. (The context in Matthew does not seem to lend itself to a reference to an "uncommitted group who neither seem to be against Christ, nor seem to be for Christ." It seems to in the first place have reference to those who see Christ's work, but are unwilling to recognize the Spirit by which he casts out demons... hardly a matter of apparent indifference.)<br /><br />Comparing the context in which the two statements come up (casting out of demons) gives a certain indication that both are expressing the <i>same</i> teaching of Christ.Josephhttp://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614598828379683929.post-6217182854930754752009-06-16T17:57:28.517-06:002009-06-16T17:57:28.517-06:00The problem is that we naturally expect people to ...The problem is that we naturally expect people to be saying something significant when they speak. Thus, the statement "He who is not with me is against me," is interpreted at face value as saying, "Those men who don't seem to be against me, nevertheless are against me, because they are not with me." Likewise the statement "He that is not against us is for us," is interpreted at face value as saying, "Those men who don't seem to be for us, nevertheless are for us, because they are not against us."<br /><br />Thus in both statements the subject is the same group of men, an uncommitted group who neither seem to be against Christ, nor seem to be for Christ. Nevertheless, contrary predicates seem to be said of this one group of men, namely, they are against Christ, and they are for Christ.<br /><br />This is why I said that if one reads these passages at face value, one could use them as arguments for contrary things.Ludovicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16477445913114324303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614598828379683929.post-18433637332566190022009-06-16T14:19:43.389-06:002009-06-16T14:19:43.389-06:00Leaving aside the difference between "me"...Leaving aside the difference between "me" and "with", and "for" and "us," the two statements "He who is not with me is against me" and "he that is not against us is for us" are not only not contradictory, but each logically implies the other.Josephhttp://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/noreply@blogger.com