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
OK, I think I understand better now, thanks. I would just say that I don't see why God wouldn't have some differences in the gospels such as in your example. God, for His own reasons, took many writers from very different backgrounds and used them. People witness the same events and see them differently. You and I could attend the same baseball game and sit in very different seats. We would both report the same score, but the account of some of the details would be different. Both of us say the complete truth. I don't see why God wouldn't incorporate that into giving the writers the words to say. It's still all true.
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 didn't mean everything in the Bible needs interpretation. When Jesus says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." it is fairly obvious that the next words are a story used for illustration, not to be taken as a literal description of an event that happened. When God says "Do this...", I take that pretty literally.
I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? ... The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message.
Well, if you're talking about those 30 years or so, then sure. Of course it was also a while before there was wide dissemination. How in the world could you convey the Christian message without using what is in the Bible? Do you think you could make an effective witness by skipping the teachings in the Bible? What would you say instead? If you were witnessing to me over the phone and you said "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the only way to God", I would say you are using scriptures even if you paraphrase it.
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church).
I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
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).
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man. In disagreement with Catholics, we would say that happens all the time, so we evangelize.
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.
I agree that we disagree on important issues. I make no assertion that Jesus was a poor teacher. I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages. I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
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.
I would adjust this to say that God is the sole source of faith, the Bible is the authority on earth for us to develop our faith (sanctification). Man is saved by grace through faith, but the faith also comes solely from God. (I admit you will get some Protestant disagreement on this. I think, but am not positive that many Protestants will say that faith comes from man.) We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us. He knows how we learn and at what rate. And, we are capable of getting some things wrong, but such is the nature of learning and sanctification. All credit goes to the Spirit.
In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one?
No, not the holiest one. How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching. If you mean, for example, that some Protestants believe in double predestination and some don't, etc. then you would know by which teaching best matched the entirety of the Bible as the Spirit leads you.
So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? ... God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone?
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone? Besides, are you saying that you do not rely on God. I thought it was a mechanical difference that we had. I thought you believed that the Spirit specially empowers a very few, the Church, to instruct you. Our only difference is that you are throwing the Spirit through an extra filter of fallible men. After all, many Catholics do not follow the teachings of the Church.
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?
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God. You can have full hope if you believe that the Spirit Christ gave us is real and will help us. You don't believe the Spirit helps us to the degree we do. We do not rely on ourselves.
FK: "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.
You have my point backwards. The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand?
I suppose it makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand.
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?
That's what the Holy Spirit is for.
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?
Simple. Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
FK: "The Bible is totally self-contained."
What does that mean?
Just that the Bible contains everything we need to know from God. God will help us to understand that gift through the Spirit. The correct words are already there. We don't need to stretch them out of all possible proportion to arrive at truth ("All" does not mean "All").