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
I agree with you here. :)
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.
I would say that if God loves some, He brings some home. From the human perspective, the elect experience God's love and make a "free" choice. To the elect, they "choose" God. But from God's perspective it was a sealed deal from the beginning. From our perspective, God chose us first for real, then the elect "chose" Him in their experience.
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?
Yes, I actually do remember it, and that was a long time ago! :) The mother obviously did not need the daughter but let her participate out of love. The daughter experienced that she was a help, but it wasn't real. The daughter may have smeared some dough on the sheet, but she certainly did not run the oven. All the important tasks were completed by the mother, and the mother was in 100% control at all times. The daughter had the very nice experience of appearing to help her mother, but it wasn't real. The mother gave the daughter this experience out of love, and God does the same for us.
FK: "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!!!
This goes right back to the cookies. I was obviously "there" and God let me have the experience of apparent helping (Thank you God! :) but it is God who gets all the credit for the creation of my children, just like the mother really gets all the credit for the making of the cookies.
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.
I suppose this is our disagreement. I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future. I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means. This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.
Given these contortions and stretches, no one could read the Bible and have any real idea what is going on. Now I don't blame the Church for discouraging its reading. The layman wouldn't have a chance. This makes God the most cryptic writer in history. The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.
FK: "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.
OK. We also having laying on of hands. One example I have witnessed is at the ceremony to ordain a new deacon. I suppose we would just define it differently. :)
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. ... 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.
No, I think you are doing a great job of explaining, and I appreciate it. :) I suppose we would say that God clears the acre for us because we have no tools.
Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing.
I do not understand this. Is free will not used to sin?
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 (Apostolic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!
But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture. I don't see that anywhere. Extra-Biblical teachings are fine if they match what the Bible says. Teachings that take the Bible and reverse its meaning 180 degrees on some verses are not fine. I don't see how God could approve of this as an alternate way to Him.
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[.]
But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible, then how can the Bible be the word of God? I know you'll say that tradition does not contradict the Bible and then it goes back to my argument that, therefore, God is the most cryptic author of all time. You would then have to say that the Bible really wasn't written for all men. It was only written to a selected few in the Catholic hierarchy. This I cannot accept.
IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well.
This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.
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.
I don't know what Luther said about it, and I am not bound by him. Luther was a fallible man, just like any Pope. I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.