If true, wouldn't this be proof that God writes His law with clearer ink on the hearts of some rather than others? If God's ink was pure for all, then would not all be saved? Again, who would turn down God with full information?
Luther's Gospel is a poor interpretation of Scripture based on a misinterpretation of Romans 3:28, where he ASSUMED that Paul meant "we are saved by faith ALONE". The language does not force one to make that assumption! Paul merely wrote we are saved by faith, not by works of the law. But elsewhere, Paul makes it quite clear that we are saved by faith AND works of LOVE! Thus, faith ALONE is a contradiction to Paul's writings.
I'm not yet familiar enough with Luther's writings to declare with authority, but it would seem silly to me if he based everything on Rom. 3:28, when he had such a treasure trove of other passages to back up his ideas. For example, Eph. 2:8-9, or Rom. 5:1. To you, Paul seems to try to hold to very different theologies within his own writings. On the one hand, faith alone saves, on the other, faith plus good deeds saves. Catholicism does not appear to be able to resolve this other than by rewriting the verses to conform with the theology. Our side offers Perseverance of the Saints, which leaves the scripture alone, and restores Paul to credibility.
FK: "We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself."
You declare it? Under whose authority? Where did Christ give someone other than the Apostles such authority? It sounds like you are taking upon yourself authority that you don't have.
I would just use the same authority that you use, namely God. Specifically, the Spirit. You declare the authority of your leaders based on the fact that your leaders said they had authority and interpreted scripture to say that they had authority, and the ability to pass that authority down throughout time. My point, of course, is that I cannot simply declare authority of my own account. The Church does that and shuts out the rest of the world. I reject its self-claimed authority to do so.
You do realize that if 5 Baptists read the same chapter of Scripture, they'd get 7 interpretations among them, don't you? :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. ... :)
So you and the visible and Glorious Christ talk as you and I talk with each other? You sit down and eat with Him, He chews His food? The two of you go bowling?
We have a Two-O'Clock every other Wednesday. And, funny you should mention it, but Jesus is an amazing bowler. Even when he throws a gutter ball, he always gets a strike! Of course, I never say anything ...
"I didn't say you stole the car."
[various possible interpretations...]
Such a simple sentence, and you don't have a clue what I meant when I wrote it. And you are going to tell me that the Bible has only one meaning? That is pretty naive, frankly. ALL heresy comes from misinterpretating Scripture away from the writer's intent.
I understand what you are saying, but you are throwing out the plain meaning first, in order to consider the other options. I always take the plain meaning first, unless other scripture requires an interpretation to be consistent. Your side only takes the plain meaning when it does not interfere with both scripture and all of your Tradition. In those extra cases, the meaning of scripture must be massaged into a new form. My experience is showing that there are a multitude of those extra cases.
Paul is attacking the Jewish idea of salvation, not making some universal statement that all men are wicked (which would apparently include Christ, as Paul never makes that exception anywhere in Romans).
Oh Please... Sure, I'm saying that Paul meant in Romans that Jesus sinned because he didn't discount that idea in the Book of Romans. Paul was completely lying in many other Epistles where he expressly says that Jesus was sinless. (Of course, this is all through Catholic plain meaning.) This logic just doesn't hold water.
Peter himself wrote that we should beware when reading Paul, since many people have done damage to their faith by twisting it to their own detriment (oh, yes.)
Could you point me in the direction of the scripture where Peter tells us to beware of Paul's writings?
FK: "We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language."
Sounds like lip service to the party line. If it was written clearly in plain language, there would be no disagreements on key issues. But there is NUMEROUS issues where we disagree over. You are avoiding the reality on the ground.
What, I'm avoiding the reality on the ground that all your interpretations are right because you and your hierarchy say so? Yes, I suppose I am avoiding that "reality". I'm still invincibly ignorant, you know. :)
I never said that interpretation was never needed. I think both of us would agree that interpretation is proper when there is a "plain meaning" contradiction in scripture. The problem with you all is that you also have to interpret tons and tons of scripture to make it fit with your Tradition. After all of this, there doesn't seem to be much left of original scripture in plain meaning, at least on the important things. That makes scripture virtually useless to the layman, and subjugates it to tradition. Scripture is always twisted to fit Tradition, not the other way around.
That's not an issue. What is at issue is whether God gives everyone SUFFICIENT knowledge to be saved (not that He gives some more than others - that should be obvious that He does).
To you, Paul seems to try to hold to very different theologies within his own writings. On the one hand, faith alone saves, on the other, faith plus good deeds saves.
What??? Paul NEVER says that we are saved by faith alone. What are you talking about? Paul's Gospel is consistent. He never holds faith in contradistinction against love, like Luther did. If anyone holds to very different theologies, it is the Sola Fide group.
I would just use the same authority that you use, namely God. Specifically, the Spirit. You declare the authority of your leaders based on the fact that your leaders said they had authority and interpreted scripture to say that they had authority, and the ability to pass that authority down throughout time
There is a huge difference between declaring for yourself God's Authority (which smacks of arrogance, in my eyes) and recognizing that God has given His authority TO SOMEONE ELSE! What is ironic is that you ALSO accept the claim of these same men – such as that they have given us God’s Word unadulterated. What proof do you have besides their word?
And, funny you should mention it, but Jesus is an amazing bowler. Even when he throws a gutter ball, he always gets a strike!
LOL!
I understand what you are saying, but you are throwing out the plain meaning first, in order to consider the other options. I always take the plain meaning first, unless other scripture requires an interpretation to be consistent. Your side only takes the plain meaning when it does not interfere with both scripture and all of your Tradition. In those extra cases, the meaning of scripture must be massaged into a new form. My experience is showing that there are a multitude of those extra cases.
Still upset about Romans 3, aren't you... You don’t have much room for talk, after yesterday’s display of ignoring a number of plain-meaning Scriptures, such as John 20:23.
I could list many verses that Protestants twist around from the "plain meaning". EVERYONE looks at Scripture through a particular set of lenses, a paradigm. YOU look at it through the lenses of man being totally corrupt and being unable to do ANYTHING good, even WITH Christ. You look at Scripture through the notion that God does everything and we do nothing. With that in mind, you THEN approach Scriptures. I say that because early Christians did NOT look at Scripture that way. It is only the Protestant Reformation that first began THAT particular paradigm. We, on the other hand, HAD (meaning the first Christians) looked at the teachings of the Apostles - and with these in mind, then read the Scriptures a certain way to take into account the two sources - oral and written. This interpretation remains relatively constant. Consider the Eucharist. Two thousand years of consistent teaching that began with the first century.
Sure, I'm saying that Paul meant in Romans that Jesus sinned because he didn't discount that idea in the Book of Romans
EVEN IF we discount this language issue, I have plainly showed you enough evidence to indicate that Paul was attacking Judaizers, not making a universal statement about all men. MANY Psalms make it clear that men DO come to God. Thus, you would have Scripture contradicting itself. Go ahead. Read Psalm 119. And then read Romans 3 (or the Psalms that Paul is quoting, such as Psalm 15. Are you ready to say that the Word of God is contradicting itself, or does PAUL mean something else than what YOU claim? The context makes it clear that Paul is referring to proud Jews - especially when he talks about the Gentiles who have their own law (the Jews proudly waved around the Decalogue) and that even Gentiles were spiritual Jews (read the end of Chapter 2). Then, in Chapter 4, Paul attacks circumcision - which had nothing to do with being righteous.
I don't understand how you can get "universal evil" out of Paul's quoting from the OT when describing how Jews were often wicked. Have you not read the Historical Books? The Prophets? The majority of the time, it was JEWS who interfered with God's plan. THEY were the ones who disrupted God's prophetic Word. Thus, the Jews Paul is addressing have no right to be proud - they are acting just like the wicked men that David attacked in the Psalms that Paul quoted in Romans 3. And they, too, were blocking God’s will! Really, it seems pretty obvious that your explanation doesn't hold water with other Scripture.
Perhaps you still disagree with this interpretation. But can you show it to be false? That is a problem I run into with Protestants. When presented an interpretation that doesn’t fit their narrow view, they claim we are anti-Biblical – based on the fact that Protestants are naturally infallible and have a direct line to what God meant in every passage of Scripture. What is even worse is when they hold to interpretations that NO Christian held to on particular passages for 1500 years, as if Protestants were the first Christians to properly understand God’s word. It’s tiring…See my next sentence…
Could you point me in the direction of the scripture where Peter tells us to beware of Paul's writings?
"...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15b-16
Even in this writer's day, people were misinterpreting Paul's writings, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. Thank God for the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Now I can be sure what Paul meant.
The problem with you all is that you also have to interpret tons and tons of scripture to make it fit with your Tradition. After all of this, there doesn't seem to be much left of original scripture in plain meaning, at least on the important things.
Actually, the problem with me is that I don't pray as often as I should, or I sometimes am impatient with my kid... However, you seem to forget that the Scripture was PART of the Tradition given by the Apostles. Thus, the Scripture did not "form" the Tradition. Apostolic teachings were given in both forms. You also have forgotten that people didn't own their own Bibles back then. They relied on their priests and deacons and so forth to teach them the faith. Many men expounded on the faith in what we now call "the Church Fathers". All of this is interpretation of the Apostolic Teachings, both oral and written, that followed from the Apostles themselves.
Scripture was a PART of this revelation given to us by the Apostles. They did not set out to write a systematic theology book. They were writing letters to communities that had requested pastoral help. "What should we do about this man who took his father's wife for a lover?" (1 Cor 5). "What do we do about the Jewish dietary laws?" And so forth. Paul was not intending to write a treatise on faith. Later Christians treasured these writings, no matter how incomplete or confusing they sometimes appear to the reader. They came from the Apostles' hands! They heard the words of God themselves! Thus, you need to approach Scripture a bit differently then some all-encompassing book that Christianity GREW OUT OF! It was the other way around! Christianity produced the Bible through inspiration of God (so the claim that we make goes. The bible doesn't make that claim).
Thus, when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.
Regards