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
That's what I don't understand. How can someone with sufficient knowledge choose hell over heaven? If everyone got a 5-minute "sneak-peek" of both places, THAT would be sufficient. There are many other examples that would also be sufficient, but the way it is now doesn't really seem sufficient for the lost.
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.
Hey Paul, now how is it we are saved?:
Eph. 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (emphasis added)
Where does Paul mention man-generated love, man-generated good deeds, or man-generated anything?
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?
I suppose part of it is faith and part is necessity. Even with all of our differences, you and I and every other bona fide Christian has come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Even if we disagree on the exact path, we both had faith to get there. In addition, to me the alternative wipes out Christianity. I realize that the early Christians did not have the NT, but if both the OT and the NT never existed, and everything was always oral, I don't see how any faith could be maintained correctly throughout the centuries.
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.
I'll give you the part about being totally corrupt at birth, but when have I ever said that we can do no good, even WITH Christ? All the good that we do is with Christ. Yes, I give Him the credit, and I physically do the thing. I participate.
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?
I am ready to say neither. Where is the contradiction? I read Psalms 15 and 119 and saw no contradiction to my interpretation of Rom. 3:23. I also checked and noted that none, zero of the reference verses throughout either Psalm ever mention anything in Rom. 3. There were hundreds of verses, none in Rom. 3. I also notes that there were no reference verses in Rom. 3 that went back to Psalm 15. The plain meaning does not contradict, only through your lens is it even arguable.
Isn't it true that the only reason you have to change Paul's words is to save Mary? I still can't get over that the true meaning of the verse is that all lost people sin. Who didn't know that?
Perhaps you still disagree with this interpretation. But can you show it to be false? That is a problem I run into with Protestants.
Sure I can, but it would never be to your satisfaction. Imagine if there were somehow a lawsuit about this. The 12 jurors were all neither Catholic, nor Protestant. They were all religiously neutral. I would feel more than confident arguing my side.
2 Peter 3:15b-16
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "warning". Here is my version:
2 Pet. 3:15b-16 : ... just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
I don't think Peter is saying anything against Paul here, which is what I thought you meant. I agree with Peter that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. Thank God we have the Spirit to guide us.
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.
Unfortunately, it is very easy to forget that the two have anything to do with each other, given the interpretations I have heard from many. I would submit that no honest and unbiased reader of the Bible, no matter how smart or wise, could possibly read the Bible and come away with a consistently Catholic theology. The words just don't match the tradition. If they did match, then you wouldn't need much of a lens. Our lens is the Bible itself, not extra-Biblical teaching. Thus we say that the Bible interprets itself.
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.
I suppose the Church gave you what God's intentions were about the Bible? Did God tell the Church this and no one else? I suppose so since God only talks to the Catholic Church.
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.
How can you say just before this that the Bible is God's word, and then talk about the intent of the writers? Which is it? If the writers have any of their own intent, then the Bible cannot be God's word, it is a collaboration between God and each author, at best. Besides, if you open the Bible up to man's intent then you subjugate it to error. ... I understand why you say that the Bible was never intended to be interpreted outside of the Church. If your theology is right, no one would have a prayer of finding it in the Bible without that interpretation. :)