Well, yes, but that is a separate issue. As we have discussed, we define faith itself very differently. My understanding of your view is that faith is ULTIMATELY man-generated. That is free will. In addition, after free will faith is achieved or demonstrated, there is also the requirement of free will works (deeds) in order to achieve salvation after death on earth. You believe that one can have true faith, but not persevere. I completely disagree with that because I see faith as being solely a gift from God to the elect. With that faith comes also love and perseverance.
Anyone can say he has faith. It seems that you would accept that assumption and then look for works. I would never take the assumption.
The Scriptures THEMSELVES are Tradition.
So the words of men are equal to the words of God? Your three-legged stool just lost a leg. :)
As to Satan in the desert, he ALSO used Scriptures...
He ALSO used scriptures??? Let's take a look:
Matt. 4:4 : Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (See Deut. 8:3)
Matt. 4:7 : Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (See Deut. 6:16)
Matt. 4:10 : Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (See Deut. 6:13 and 10:20)
It sure looks like He used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition. In fact, NO tradition. What else do you think He used?
Paul calls the Bereans worthy because they, unlike the Thessalonians, were open to Paul's message!
So your interpretation is that when Paul praised the Bereans because they tested his say-so against scripture he didn't really mean that. Instead, he only meant to praise them because they gave Paul an honest hearing. I see. That silly scripture has confounded me again.
Acts 17:11 : Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
---------------
ALL Scripture reading is based on a particular traditional background reading, just like you read Scriptures with a tradition that claims that man has no responsibility for his actions and God condemns people without knowing if they would reject Him or not...
Putting aside your total error concerning our belief about man's responsibility, now I may understand why you keep talking about our supposed belief that God condemns people without knowing if they would reject Him or not. Until this minute I haven't understood why you have been pushing this. Is this an "order of salvation" issue? Are you talking about Supralapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism? I'd be happy to comment, but I'd like to know first if I'm on the right track. :)
FK: "Note also that it is axiomatic to you that the Church is the only authority on earth to interpret scripture."
I never said that only the Church can interpret Scriptures! I do it all the time.
You're dodging. :) I never said you couldn't interpret scripture either. I said that you think the Church is the only Authority, and gave you credit enough that you would not claim to be an Authority.
If I decided that God was a Duality rather than a Trinity, I would no longer be a Catholic. If I said that as a Protestant, what would happen to me? Nothing. I am the ultimate authority in Protestantism. If "the Spirit" leads me to believe their are only two persons in the Godhead, who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Protestantism is not monolithic. There is no club to be kicked out of. So what? Individual Protestants are not the authority in Protestantism, God always is. Not the Church, but God. If you were a Protestant and you felt that the Spirit had led you to believe that there were only two persons in the Godhead, then I would strongly counsel you, and show you the truth of what you must believe in as a Protestant, the Bible.
For example, I have the freedom to consider that Genesis 1 did not scientifically happen the way described. Or that Jonah was literally swallowed by an actual whale. YOUR fundamental stance PREVENTS that! And YOU tell ME that I am told how to interpret all of Scriptures? Come on, now.
What? Whose fundamental stance are you talking about. Mine as an individual? Mine as a Protestant? Mine as a Southern Baptist? In none of these cases am I told how to interpret scripture. None. You, OTOH, are commanded on how to interpret. You claim there are only a dozen or so verses set in stone, but that ignores the Catholic lens which you must peer through for any understanding. That lens affects ALL SCRIPTURE. Effectively, then, you have drastically less freedom than you attempt to portray.
Where did you get that idea from? Faith comes from God as a gift, as Eph 2:8-9 states, among others.
With that faith comes also love and perseverance.
Both Paul and James separate faith and love and persevernace. They do not come together. Thus, we say that love must be added to faith to achieve our eternal reward - which comes from God and accepted by man.
So the words of men are equal to the words of God? Your three-legged stool just lost a leg. :)
Are the teachings of the Apostles from men? If you can answer that question in the affirmative, as the Bible does, then you SHOULD be able to understand that oral Apostolic teachings are from GOD. Thus, coming from God, they bear the same "weight" as Scriptures. Scriptures do not contain the entire Word of God.
It sure looks like He [I am not sure if you are refering to Satan or Jesus here] used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition. In fact, NO tradition. What else do you think He used?
Look more closely. Note that the devil and Jesus both used Scriptures - that tells us that Scripture can be twisted to suit one's personal needs. Thus, the need for Tradition, which gives us the correct interpretation. Christ was giving us Tradition by stating the correct interpretation and utilization of the Scriptures.
So your interpretation is that when Paul praised the Bereans because they tested his say-so against scripture he didn't really mean that. Instead, he only meant to praise them because they gave Paul an honest hearing. I see. That silly scripture has confounded me again.
That's OK. No one is generally infallible. That is why I rely on the Church, which IS infallible in matters of faith and morals. The fact of the matter is that Scripture reading is not complimented, but the acceptance of the message. The Thessalonians ALSO read the Scriptures. So did other Jews. What happened? Isn't Scripture so clear for even a child can read it and understand it???
Putting aside your total error concerning our belief about man's responsibility
You have told me time and time again that God leads man infallibly to choose good or evil. If man has no free will, how is man responsible for his actions?
My discussion regarding reading Scriputes through a particular tradition is not complicated. We ALL have our ideas of the basics of the faith. Protestants believe that man is totally corrupt after the fall and remains in sin even AFTER his regeneration. Their is no REAL regeneration, we are merely covered with alien justice of Christ. With this paradigm, you read the Scriptures - thinking that man cannot possibly do anything to prepare or cooperate with salvation. Even when Scriptures clearly point out this is false, you change the meaning of the text or ignore it. Your paradigm, then, is based on the teachings of Calvin and Luther, not on the Scripture as taught by the Catholic Church from the Apostles.
I never said you couldn't interpret scripture either. I said that you think the Church is the only Authority, and gave you credit enough that you would not claim to be an Authority.
As I have just said, we look at Scripture through a particular paradigm. That there is an "analogy of Faith", or an "economy of salvation". For example, we know that God is a Trinity of Persons, but with one Divine Will. This is not explained fully in Scriptures, nor does the Scriptures make this clear UNLESS YOU ALREADY ARE AWARE OF THAT! You would NOT be able to come to that conclusion UNLESS you already were taught that and were pointed out the verses and how to read them a certain way, or ignore other verses that might contradict them. For example, there are many verses that an Adoptionist could point to and say that Jesus was the Adopted Son of God the Father - only taking up the mantle of divinity upon His Baptism. Or that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. WE know that this means something else - that Christ was only subordinate in terms of His humanity. But you won't come to that understanding with your King James Version by yourself.
Protestantism is not monolithic. There is no club to be kicked out of. So what? Individual Protestants are not the authority in Protestantism, God always is.
You're dodging! Basically what you are saying is "FK's belief are the Word of God"...When you say "Protestants are not the authority, God is", that is baloney, because God doesn't "speak" in that manner. You are presuming, along with all of your non-monolithic brothers, that God speaks to YOU personally - and often contradictorily. I would say that God is not speaking to all of you...
If you were a Protestant and you felt that the Spirit had led you to believe that there were only two persons in the Godhead, then I would strongly counsel you, and show you the truth of what you must believe in as a Protestant, the Bible.
And we'd argue and get nowhere, since you have no authority over me. Nor can you "take it to the Church", since there IS no "visible" Church in your eyes, just the invisible one. I could certainly bring out enough verses to prove that either the Spirit or the Son is NOT God. This is why Apostolic Tradition is so important.
What? Whose fundamental stance are you talking about. Mine as an individual? Mine as a Protestant? Mine as a Southern Baptist? In none of these cases am I told how to interpret scripture. None.
Yes you are. You are told that Genesis is to believed as literal history and CANNOT be taken as allegory. Otherwise, you are told, how can we know ANYTHING to be historical? Your whole concept of Biblical inerrancy comes to a crashing thud if your literal interpretation is disproved. Thus, this idiotic notion from Young Earth Creationists who desperately try to show that science proves the earth is 6000 years old - which the Bible NEVER states or even hints at! It is people like these who make Christians look like they are afraid of science and prefer to live in a dreamworld.
You claim there are only a dozen or so verses set in stone, but that ignores the Catholic lens which you must peer through for any understanding. That lens affects ALL SCRIPTURE. Effectively, then, you have drastically less freedom than you attempt to portray.
I have no problems with interpreting Genesis as allegory. I have no problem with seeing Jonah as a parable, or Esther as an historical novel. And on many other issues, the Church has not "defined" our faith precisely. Sure, the Church has defined many things. But we also realize that God works through His Church to bring us to the knowledge of the Truth. We are very appreciative when the Church defines something, since now we KNOW what is the Truth. You, on the other hand, cannot know if you are correct, or the guy across the street in the 2nd Baptist Church of Main Street is correct. This is quite scary, to be honest. Sure, there are some particulars that we are told is Truth. Is that a problem?
Regards