As far as I know, he was. I hear that Tolkein could never bring him the rest of the way!
My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director.
We believe that God allows us to use our intelligence and powers of the mind to make decisions, guided by the will that is led by the Spirit. God provided the visible evidence that led to only one conclusion on each epistle. Thus, there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us. We believe that God is more behind the scenes, so to speak, then a glorified vision that gave the Bible's table of contents. God COULD do it that way, but no one reported that this is how it happened.
I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God
I disagree with that definition of cooperation. That is a human definition, and would apply between two humans. But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming. Biologically speaking, a baby will not form without the two coming together (ordinarily. Let's leave out the artificial stuff for now). Thus, we are secondary causes - although God makes it possible by creating us with our respective parts.
God gives us free will in the sense that WE are secondary causes of our actions. We are not puppets. But free will does NOT ignore that God is the primary cause of all. As St. Augustine said, "God merely crowns the gifts that He has given man". God rewards His own gifts and their utilization by us as secondary causes.
By realizing that men are secondary causes, that we are operative and have free will to choose - but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.
Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?
That is true. And you does not protect each individual's set of beliefs. You have admitted as such very recently regarding OSAS. Who's to say you are incorrect on the Eucharist, if you base you beliefs on your OWN understanding (alone) of Scripture? As to your disagreement, [still trying to "catch" me :)], again, I will say I cannot make that judgment because I don't know you "knowledge" of the Catholic faith and your understanding. Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant". You have been raised in a particular background, taught particular things. It takes time to overcome such biases and ideas. So I can't say the reasons for your rejection of the faith. I would speculate that you still have not received the evidence to overcome the hurdles placed before you.
I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require.
God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves?? I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be better, not being one where we CAN'T know the truth about God. Men disagree. Without an authority, we can KNOW little about God. Christ came to give us knowledge of the truth, not to confuse us with the opinions of men. Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about? How will the Gates of Hell not prevail against the Church?
Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples
As I explained, God GUARDS His DEPOSIT, the teaching of the Church, not the individual's life regarding sin. No one is impeccable (sinless). At what point would you say "OK, that Pope is 'acceptable'? Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infalliblity? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods. The Apostles believed this in their writings. Is this based on the Apostles' superior ability or on God? Why does God stop protecting His Church from error???
My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines.
And so why did God allow Adolf Hitler to be born? I am not comparing the Reformation to Hitler, but you will get the point. Our ways are not God's ways...
But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians
Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that. Only when we understand that the Church of Christ subsists within the Roman Catholic Church are we REQUIRED to join it. Beyond that, I can't answer for individuals. We believe that God saves ALL, Muslims, people in the Amazons, and even Protestants THROUGH the Body of Christ, the Church, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. God, in His infinite mercy, does not ABSOLUTELY require that a person enter the visible Church - to even be baptised. God is not bound by the Sacraments and can save whom He will. I would say that God placed me in the Catholic Church because I need all the help I can get!
What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?
None of those are dogma of the faith, the Deposit of the Faith given by the Apostles. The are called disciplines, which are given by the Church of a particular time. The Mass was first said in Aramaic or Greek, not Latin. The idea of fasting is from the OT, although I don't know when Friday became operative. Reading the Bible has always been encouraged, although during the polemics during the Reformation, some in the Church were afraid that people would come up with their own ideas and leave the Church. We read the Scriptures WITH the Church.
I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.
Exactly. Which is why we don't rely on ourselves on the Deposit of Faith. It was given by God, and cannot be changed by our own ideas - Christianity is a revealed religion. Knowing that men make mistakes, WE don't make dogmatic declarations. How can we alone do that? And why should another person believe us if the "Spirit" speaks to them differently? I believe the Spirit speaks to us, but not in that way. There are too many people who make the claim and are wrong. Christ said that a Kingdom divided among itself must fall. Does the Spirit go against Christ's teachings and meaning of those teachings. Eucharist...
If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away
LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings. Pal clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures. But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!
My qustion regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripute is not self-attesting. We rely on OTHER PEOPLE to tell us that Philemon is Scripture.
Brother in Christ
BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE? :) That's my whole issue here. Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?
But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming.
But who is responsible? Where does the buck stop? Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants? When you say that we can't add anything, that sounds like you are agreeing with me. But, yet you say that we are secondary causes. Who earned the paycheck for the work? I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children. I was a vessel in their creation, but deserve no credit. I made no independent decision of my own merit. I do not think of myself as having cooperated. All the glory of God's creation goes to God, none to me. You might say that God gets all the credit, but you also say we are a cause. Are we a cause because we are used, or are we a cause because we added something from ourselves?
... but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.
OK, this makes it more clear to me. "Man used his own abilities". Therefore, man deserves some credit for writing and compiling the Bible. If true, then I just hope that the men did a good job. I suppose there is no way for us to know for sure if they did. I hope that whatever errors they made weren't "big ones" :)
Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant".
I can live with that. :)
FK: "I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require. "
God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves??
Can you show me how men routinely transferred supernatural abilities to other men? God certainly touched many people with special abilities, but I am not aware that it was common that these people then empowered other men. How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?
Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about?
Yes, Christ said that, but we disagree on the meaning of "Christ's Church". I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.
Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infallibility? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods.
The whole tenor of your argument sounds almost Protestant. :) Now, for the first time ever I have heard from a Catholic, God is willing to step in and prevent a human from screwing something up. I suppose I must assume that God is still fine with letting us doom ourselves to hell, but if the Deposit is on the line, then He will step in? Where is the free will?
FK: "But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians..."
Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that.
I know that! You're not being fair. Did you read my qualification? I followed with:
(I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)
You must believe that some self professing Protestants are lost just as you must believe that some self professing Catholics are lost. That is only reasonable. I was trying to discern whether your side thinks that most of my side is lost, or most are saved, or nobody knows, or whatever your view is.
LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings.Paul clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures.
When I say that you are "ordered", I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.
I'd like to take a quick look at whether Paul recognized anything in what is now the NT as "scripture". Consider the earlier writing in 1 Tim. 5:18 :
18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
Now let's look at Luke 10:7 :
7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?
But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!
I'm an evangelical Protestant, of course I believe in evangelism! :) Let's look at your passage and see if it has "nothing to do with the Bible".
Eph. 4:11-13 : "11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
So, I think I see how we view this passage differently. You might say that preparing God's people, reaching unity, becoming mature, and attaining the whole measure of Christ have nothing to do with the Bible, but these teachings are accomplished by men. (You said this passage has nothing to do with the Bible.) I would counter by saying that the scripture at the time (including available NT scripture) plus oral testimony that would later become the NT are what would accomplish all of these Godly goals.
My question regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripture is not self-attesting.
I am no scholar on Philemon. Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate? I'm not sure I can help you with that on a book-by-book basis. I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.