I have no problem with God giving praise. He does it. My worries are about any prideful man thinking he has accomplished something good on his own account. You appear to be arguing that man deserves some, not all, credit. You appear to be saying that man deserves to be glorified partially from his own merit. That's what I disagree with.
[Quoting yourself from an earlier post:]"I had thought that common sense - having {dozens} of different denominations that all equally claim to be led by the Spirit - would be enough for you to determine that the Spirit does not lead on the dogmatic front to individuals."? The question to you remains the same. How does the Spirit lead Christians in diametrically opposed directions on key elements of the faith? The ONLY response is that the Spirit is NOT leading people in this manner.
I look at it from the other side. It seems so unlikely to me that if the Spirit doesn't speak to individuals that so many Protestants agree on so much. If the hundreds of millions of us were wandering around out there aimlessly, then there would be thousands (or more) of distinct denominations that have nothing to do with each other. Instead, most Protestants agree on most of the major points, even if they are reached by different means. That indicates to me that the Spirit is involved.
I told you already that oral traditions from the Apostles (such as infant baptism) ARE written down! What telephone game? We aren't relying on someone passing down a teaching by word of mouth!
Then all infallible teaching is written down? I didn't get that impression before. One example I thought you brought up was in liturgies.
However, I understand that you have been taught that everything must be in the Scriptures explicitly to be believed. What I am curious about is "where is that rule located at within the Scriptures?" Where is the "Table of Contents" in the Scriptures? Where does it say that men are saved by faith alone? Should we go on? There seems to be a double standard here. Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK.
The scriptures are the inspired word of God, and are therefore, trustworthy. Men are not trustworthy. Here are some verses that self-authenticate. They don't say one cannot believe anything else, but your side has beliefs that directly contradict what the scriptures actually say. That's why I can't accept them. Scripture must be butchered beyond all recognition in order for some tradition to even be POSSIBLE, nevermind actually being supported by scripture.
Ps. 12:6 : And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
Is. 55:11 : so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
John 5:39 Jesus said: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, ..."
You have been shown at least a dozen scriptures that show that man is saved by faith alone, and not of works. You are forced to interpret them all away to conform with your hierarchy, no matter what the words actually say. I'm not sure what you mean by "Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK". This must go back to our different views of scripture. I assume you're saying that any difference from the Catholic interpretation is not actually in scripture, regardless of what the words are. By that definition then, half of our beliefs would be unscriptural because of the Catholic revision of the meaning of the Bible to conform to Tradition.
Why should a Muslim take the Bible as superior to the Koran, when they have been raised with it and indoctrinated to follow it?
God will bring to the truth those whom He will. The Bible is nonsense to the lost.
Unless you are aware of its history and the witness of the Church, I don't see how you would be able to determine that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture but the Letter of Philemon is Scripture. You seem to evade that over and over again...
I'm not evading anything. God didn't touch me to decide what should go into the Bible. He touched other men. You would give credit to the men of the Church for being wise. I would give credit to God for loving us enough to give us a wonderful revelation. This is a recurring theme.
No, God gave His Word to particular men and women, who shared it with the community at large.
Yes, I have no problem with that part. My problem is with the interpretation and the meaning of those words. Only the Catholic hierarchy has the keys to these meanings, and I have seen time and time again how those keys are used to twist the plain meaning into its opposite. That's what bothers me, that's why I protest.
Utterly ridiculous. By reading the bible without any verification, you might as well be in the same category as the Muslims and Mormons, who "get a feeling in their bosom" to "know" they are reading the Word of God. They don't think they need outside verification, either.
As I have said before, I have nothing against outside verification. But, you have framed this whole part of the discussion to claim that only YOUR leaders can do the authenticating. I disagree with that. I must say that, because if I didn't, then I would have to accept all of the interpretations that change the meaning of the Bible into something else, a very different book.
Until you can prove to me WHY Philemon belongs in the Scriptures, is considered God's Word, based on its OWN merit, you might have something. We have gone over this over and over. How do you know Paul even wrote it???
So, is this the part where I say that Philemon belongs in the Bible because it's in the Bible? OK, fine. I believe that God alone determined what went into the Bible, not men. If men determined it, as you appear to argue, then I would have no case.
If you were to go into a court room today to prove that the Bible is the Word of God based on YOUR evidence, you'd be laughed out of court.
To a jury of unbelievers, I certainly would use outside evidence. But since I am a believer, I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me that the Bible is the word of God. That has been your claim.
You have contradicted yourself. YOU WERE TAUGHT! Thus, you didn't come to that conclusion yourself. The teachings of the Catholic Church came to you through Protestants and you discovered that the Bible IS REALLY the Word of God. You didn't come to that conclusion yourself, thus, the Bible is not self-authenticating.
Well of course I was taught, but there is no contradiction. When I accepted the Bible I had not yet come close to reading the whole thing, that came much later. I trusted a teaching that was confirmed when I did read the whole thing. What's wrong with that? I see you are seeking more credit for Catholic men in how I learned. That seems consistent. I would give the credit to God for revealing the truth to me.
FK, the catholic hierarchy held those views from the beginning of the Church to this very present day. They are no different now than they were back in 1 AD. What you see as catholic hierarchy today is not an outgrowth of a 16th century revolt by a local priest over selling indulgencies that grew out of proportion into a man-made "church", but the interpretations held by those whom the Apostles in person ordained bishops (+Ignatius, +Polycarp, etc.). If they were wrong, then the whole Church, including the Apostles, were wrong from the get go!
You keep harping on this sola scriptura nonsense. Let me tell you: there are two possibilities only. One, the Apsotles, and the Church that continued in their steps, as documented from the beginning, was wrong or you and all the Protestants are wrong. Either the Apostles were wrong or you are wrong.
You keep saying that yuou want to make sure that man's pride doesn't take over, yet that is precisely what the Protestants do -- they exalt individual interpretations over those held by Apostles and their disciples. You take it upon yourself to re-interept Apsotle's own teachings and those of their successors, simply by reading disconnected verses. Being one's own "pope", or your own "Peter" or "Paul" or "John" or "James," etc., i.e. relying on one's own interpretation (supposedly under the Holy Spirit) is the worst example of human pride and arrogance as I see it.