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.
You replied : BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE?... Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?
God obviously takes our response into some sort of consideration OR He chooses whom He will for His own reasons. If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states. Again, it becomes more clear IF you recall that God sees all as one big NOW. God doesn't live within time. He doesn't "wait" for our response. He knows it already. Thus, it is pointless to argue about God "ensuring" things.
Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants?
Back to love, brother. Those who love DESIRE the loved to freely participate in actions. Thus, God DOES allow humans to participate in creating life. God DOES allow humans to participate in saving other men. Not because He needs us, because He desires us to participate in the divine nature. All in Scriptures.
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.
It is not "either/or", it is "AND". Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter? You need to think outside of the "pragmatic, utilitarian" box that Protestants put themselves into and realize that God does things out of love, not out of necessity. Our existence relies on God's love, not any necessity.
I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children
So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!! I smile when I write that, because I know that God DESIRES for me to participate in His work. This is love, brother.
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" :)
Our premise of inerrancy of the Scriptures is built on the argument that Christ was God and left an authoritative Church to continue His teachings - promising them that they would be protected. If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.
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?
By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands. By the passing of the mantle. Note in the Acts, ONLY those who had the elders lay their hands on them were considered legitimate teachers of the faith. In other words, you just didn't SEND YOURSELF. Apostle means sent. By someone else.
Ex. Acts 14:22 "and when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commanded them to the Lord."
"For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by the imposition of my hands" 2 Tim 1:6.
Neglect not the grace that is within thee: which was given thee by prophesy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Tim 4:14
"Impose not hands lightly on any man" 1 Tim 5:22
Power passed through the imposition of hands from one of the priesthood to another. As the Father had sent Christ, so He sent the Apostles - and they sent other men.
I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.
One should explore WHY they don't follow the "Catholic heirarchy" when it is the same heirarchy that gave us the Scriptures and the very teaching that Jesus was Lord...
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.
??? The whole concept of Papal infallibility PRESUMES that, doesn't it? I have already said that the Holy Spirit, not the Pope's inherent abilities, make him infallible. Thus, I am consistently saying that God steps in to ensure that the Apostolic Faith is transmitted without error. I think all Catholics would agree with that.
Where is the free will?
God desires that His teachings are truly available to people, to come to the knowledge of His truth. Knowing the Gospel, then we are free to decide to follow Him or not. If we COULDN'T know the truth (such as the typical Protestant), then how can we be assured that we even believe what God has taught? Sure, we know the Scriptures, but the same verse can be taken in different ways...
(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. :)
I apologize. What are you asking me here? Whether Protestants will enter heaven? Of course they will. Christ said that tax collectors and harlots would enter the Kingdom before the religiously self-righteous, so why would I expect holy Protestants who are ignornant of the Catholic Church's true claim will not be there? I can't even know if I myself will end up in heaven, absolutely speaking, so I can't answer for you. I would say that if all things were equal, a Catholic has more access to the "tools" that God has given the world to come to Him and receive His graces.
Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. There is nothing in opposition to the Catholic Church's teaachings that are salvific. A person can be saved IN SPITE of being a Protestant - because of his unknowing ties to the Catholic Church. I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.
I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.
Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing. Following the Church grants me MORE free will because I can learn more about what God has in mind for humanity by following her teachings. I can more effectively come to God through her.
Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?
Are you saying that Timothy was reading Luke while a youth? Otherwise, your argument is merely deviating from the whole point of my argument.
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.
When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostlic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!
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.
I would say you have absolutely NO evidence to make such a statement. That is a presumption based on "Bible alone". NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15
I find NO command within Scriptures that tell us to "do not follow Oral teachings no more". THAT, brother, is clearly a tradition of men invented during the Protestant Reformation. Can you show evidence to the contrary? That you are following a rule that is not even found in the Bible? That you disobey a command found in the Bible that was NEVER rescinded or abrogated?
Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate?
IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well. The Bible was not written as one big book, but is a compilation of letters taken from different writers of different times. For heaven's sake, we don't even KNOW WHO wrote most of the New Testament letters, without external witnesses of the Church! Were some forged? Paul specifically warns others of this possibility!
I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.
You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.
Regards