Since I am the big Bible defender, I cannot believe that God was confused. :) Do you equate "differ" with "contradict"? If so, can you give me an example in the resurrection accounts you cite above?
Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole!
I already answered this in the post you are responding to. Much of God's literal word requires interpretation. Jesus says so openly and with examples. These ideas do not conflict. I explained that I was using the word "literal" in a correct, but different sense than you are using it. I don't know what else to say.
The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it.
I disagree with the first sentence, and the second doesn't speak to the point we are discussing. God has decided to teach in a certain way, so He does. God knows us inside and out and knows that we respond to familiar stories well. Therefore, He uses them to instruct. It is fully by design and highly efficient. It has also proven to be highly effective. When they tried to trap Jesus about working on the Sabbath, He taught a common sense approach using an allegory, of course you rescue the animal. This is part of how God teaches us.
The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!
I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.
Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God.
I know that. :) When I said "lower regard" I did not mean "no regard", so I apologize if I gave offense. You just illustrated the point I was trying to make above, when you referred to the Bible as a supplement. To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.
Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations.
Well, I have to give you that you came up with a good example, but I wonder how much we really disagree. I'd like to take a look at these verses:
Rom. 3:28 : "28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."
Jas. 2:24 : "24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
As a fair test of interpretation, I won't look to whatever website to find out what I'm supposed to say. I'll just wing it. The Romans verse says to me that we are justified by faith, and not justified by following the law alone. Faith does beget salvation, but only following the law does not. This seems in perfect harmony with the whole message of Jesus and the new Covenant, as taught elsewhere in scripture.
The James verse clearly acknowledges that faith is required for salvation. James adds that works are also a part of the salvation picture. This seems in perfect harmony with your references to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says "This is what a saved person does". In scripture, He teaches righteous living.
So, putting the two together, they both require faith. The point of the first is to say that faith must be there, and if one only follows the law, he is lost. The second says that the fruit of true faith, works, must also be present. James does not say that works save, he says that faith saves, but not without further works.
All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?
IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??
Yes, there would be because human error is involved in receiving the clear signal. I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine. I can reasonably speak about the SB faith, but don't claim authority on others. If I was on the road and wanted to attend a service, and no SB church was available, I wouldn't have any worry about walking through the doors of most other Protestant churches. It has happened before and I have never been offended by the message.
I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here.
I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right! :) I believe that sanctification is very real. At every stage of my Christian walk I have learned new and better things, including on this thread. I wasn't a bad Christian before, I just didn't know yet. I learn, just as God intended. Hopefully, then I teach others, also as God intended.
Two good Christians disagree because both are still in the middle of their respective sanctification processes. I'm sure there are many times when both are wrong. That doesn't make them false Christians, that makes them children who are growing.
FK: All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.
I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities...
I know you have. This is just another point on the "cooperation" issue.
God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means.
I don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)
Of course there is only one truth, but I don't expect everyone to get all of it from the beginning. If they did, then who would need sanctification? I don't believe I am picking and choosing on my own authority, I believe I am being led by the Spirit. Sometimes, I get it wrong, but that's my fault. The Spirit will continue to work on me for the rest of my life to help me get it right more and more.
The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.
I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes. God knows this and we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. God knows how we learn, He is not surprised or disappointed in that there is disagreement on some things. We're humans, He gets it. Of course the goal is unity, and the seeking of the one real truth on any given matter. The elect will always be seeking for these truths, and be open to superior teaching when supported by scripture.
My stand on the Bible is that it is the perfect incarnation of God's literal words. He used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time. The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself. In many cases the word does need to be interpreted because, in part, God chose to use the technique of allegory to teach. The word also needs to be interpreted in many cases because in the specific contexts different points of the same general teaching are being highlighted. There can be confusion as to the whole teaching. The Bible as a whole helps us understand when this happens with other verses, in other contexts.
The Bible is totally self-contained and all Christians going through sanctification (with access to it) will continue to appropriate more and more of its single truth teachings throughout their lives. I see this as part of God's plan. He gave us an innate thirst for knowledge that the believer uses to know his Lord better and better.
If it needs interpretation, then it's not literal FK. That's what literal means.
We are not going to get into that "depends what is the meaning of 'is'" legal obfuscation thing, are we?
The Bible was never in God's explicit plan. Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.
Judaism was passed on as oral tradition until 500 BC. From Adam until approximately 6th century BC there was nothing in the form of inspired writing. Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.
Hebrew Scriptures do not agree en toto. Judaism was not monolithic. The Sadducees, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and some smaller groups deviated from each other in their beliefs and their Scriptures reflected that. Modern (rabbinical) Judaism was pretty much formed after Jamnia in 100 AD.
The Septuagint (LXX), the Qumran fragments, the Masoretic text all vary, in length, quantity and content, so it is really difficult to believe that humans could have passed on unaltered Scriptures from generation to generation by word of mouth if their written Scriptures differ.
The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.
Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.
There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.
That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world, in context and cultural setting, and could therefore correctly interpret what was passed on.
In doing so, we are assured that our understanding is not lost or corrupted. We can never achieve that simply by reading the Bible.
I am willing to listen to St. Ignatius and take his interpretations a little more seriously than say, the private interpretations of someone completely removed in time an culture and context from original Christinaity, just as I would take more seriously any impressions and interpretations of America of those who actually knew America and not some individual half way around the world who only read about it!
St. Ignatius was ordained bishop by St. Paul, the Apostle, in person! And St. Polycarp's words carry the same weight for the same reason, having been a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. If other bishops' writings and interpretations agree with those of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I would say that they have safeguarded the truths passed on by the Apostles and that what the Church believed then is what the Church believes now.
The Catholic Church believes that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They give us what God wants us to know - through human writers. The human writers, though, use their own conventions and theological points (guided by God) to say what God wants said. So in one Gospel, we have one angel at the tomb, another has two. Luke has two because it is a common theme of his - discipleship in pairs. Now, if God was directly dictating to men, would we have slightly different stories? Would the Words of Christ be slightly different in parallels of the Synoptics? No, they don't contradict, but they differ - for theological reasons - because we are not talking CNN here.
Much of God's literal word requires interpretation.
So if God says "Do this", you will first have to interpret "what does He really mean"? A literal meaning doesn't require spiritual thought - you follow exactly what is written.
I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.
I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? The Scripures recorded the oral words of the Apostles for later generations. They became revered because of their connection to these Apostles. Future generations knew the Apostles were given authority by Christ to teach - so their words were the Gospel - even if an angel should come to teach another Gospel, Paul told the Galatians, they were not to heed it. The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message. For example, many men of the Middle Ages knew the stories of the Bible from stain glass windows in cathedrals. The preachings of priests. The passed down traditions that reminded them of Christ. The Bible is not the only way that God speaks to men. Nor does the Bible call itself the sole source of Christian teaching. That is a man-made tradition.
To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.
We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church). We believe they all come from God and are guarded as such. So I suppose that Catholics hold more in higher regard.
All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?
Sure, we agree for the most past on James and Romans - but we have discussed the issues quite extensively. We have the experience of many other people before us who have read and expounded on faith and salvation and love. But Luther and the Catholic Church had a large disagreement over these verses, so much so that Luther wanted to get rid of James from the Bible altogether. He called it an Epistle of straw. My point is that two different people can come up with two strongly-held positions that completely contradict each other. The Bible doesn't clearly interpret itself. Look at Acts 8 and the Ethiopian. "Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31).
I have certainly given ample evidence that two people can read different meanings from the same Bible, not, the same VERSES! We are not talking about the existence of angels, or something like that. We are talking about Salvation. The Eucharist. Baptism. The role of the Church. These are important issues that we disagree on. Ask yourself - what good is a teacher if He leaves His students confused on what He meant? Was Jesus that poor of a teacher? That no one knew if Jesus was God, or whether Jesus was really present at the Eucharist? I find this as a ridiculous assertion. Thus, it should seem quite obvious that Christ left a Body of Teaching to an inner group of men who would be able to explain it to all. Later, this group of men wrote down SOME of these teachings - but not FULLY explaining it all - they left THAT job to the men they commissioned to continue the bringing of the Kingdom of God to men.
Is that such a difficult thing to understand or believe? The evidence clearly shows that is exactly what happened. History as we know it clearly points to the forming and development of the Church.
I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine
Sure, we agree on much. That is because Protestantism has not moved THAT far from its CATHOLIC roots! You probably continue to hold to the vast majority of the Nicean Creed, put together in 325 by the Catholic Church. But there really are a number of important issues where we differ. As far as I know, these are the pillars of Protestantism (most hold them): The Bible is the sole source of the faith. Man is saved by faith alone. Man is subject to his own private interpretation of Scripture as his ultimate authority.
As I have mentioned before, there is NO concept of these ideas until the Reformation. They were unheard by Christianity. And what about the sacrament? To us, they ARE God's graces coming to us through visible means. To you, they do not possess any grace. We believe that without love, we cannot be saved. We believe that men CAN fall away from the faith and NOT be saved for eternal life. We believe in Purgatory and intercessionary prayers to the saints. We believe that Mary has a special place in salvation history that exceeds her earthly position as the recepticle for the Word of God. We believe that man does have free will and can reject God's Graces. We FULLY believe in the Incarnation of Christ and all of its implications for US - we participate in Jesus' continuing work here on earth through this participation. We believe in the Real Presence of the Lord during the Eucharist, AND we believe that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary, allowing us in time to participate in receiving these graces. We believe in a ministrial priesthood in where Christ acts through these men to forgive sins or offer up His sacrifice to the Father.
Oh, there are some essentials that we disagree on, brother! And many Protestants do hold to some of the above teachings that you do not. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example.
I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right!
In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one? LOL! Being holy doesn't necessarily make one more correct! Only God can give us the truth WITHOUT DOUBT. He does this through the Church.
i don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)
We are still talking past one another. There are two levels of knowledge that the Spirit imparts. I agree on the first level, that we attain to know more about Christ as we become more holy, remove attachments, and follow His Word. However, their is a second level that the Spirit does NOT speak with us in. ONLY the Apostles and their successors were given the power to bind and loosen, to give the Teachings of Christ without error. Even the holiest of saints individually CAN be wrong. ST. Augustine AND St. Thomas Aquainas, to of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, were wrong on at least one issue...Thus, we cannot rely on our OWN selves to determine God's Revelation to MANKIND in its entire Truth. It is impossible to determine whether the Spirit is speaking or ourselves or the devil on such matters. No, I am sorry, but I don't trust ANY individual man on his own merits, nor do I trust a man who claims the Spirit to teach ALL of the Truth, because God doesn't act that way anymore. He teaches through a Body of men, the Bishops in unity with the Pope. THEY (not individually) are protected by the Spirit, as per Scripture.
I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes
So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? This is odd. I think God did better than that with the Apostles and their successors. God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone? How do we KNOW the Holy Spirit is speaking to us? If even the greatest of saints CAN be wrong, what hope do I have that I will become more holy, and thus more "correct" in "knowing" God? Is this not a reliance on yourself? I prefer to trust in the Church, the Body of Christ, to infallibly tell me God's teachings. I don't have to rely on my own sanctification to "know" if I am right or not about the Eucharist, or about Mass, or about Confession to Priests.
God used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time.
Illogical. Something perfect cannot come from imperfection. This is basic logic. Either God MADE these men to understand infallibly His teachings, or we cannot trust that these men put to paper God's Word. Let's face the cold, hard facts. How do you REALLY know the Bible is the Word of God, but not the Koran? Because we trust the witness of the Apostles and their successors. If we didn't believe them - we would not be convinced that the Bible on its own merits, is God's Word. Often times, individual books do not even make that claim. Thus, we either trust the men who put it together (that God was guiding them, of course) or we don't. Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand? Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book that no one could truly know what a given verse meant? If our American Forefathers knew enough to create a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, the Law of the Land, what makes you think God wasn't smart enough to duplicate that? Did God leave us orphans, not really knowing what His Book meant? Being holier doesn't mean we will know we are right on every issue.
In the end, a Protestant Pastor can NEVER REALLY know he is teaching his congregation what God intended to teach when he expounds on a Scripture. This is nearly UNAMINOUS among Protestant pastors who convert! That is what they all say! That is what primarily leads them back home. Because they know they are not infallible and they realize that they will never be. Thus, they cannot know if they are even teaching the truth about key essential matters of the faith. Good feelings inside of us do not mean that the Spirit is teaching us that the Eucharist is a symbol only.
The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself.
Many would disagree with that. Have you considered reading the Old Testament, and then the New Testament? Many Christians have thought that there were two different "Gods" found in these two sections of Scriptures, called Gnostics. What makes you think they are wrong, from Scripture ALONE?
The Bible is totally self-contained
What does that mean?
Regards