Yes, absolutely.
Thus, I conclude that it is GOD that IS verifying the oral teachings, when properly identified, as coming from Him - for example, infant baptism. We do not believe that God will allow error to creep into the Church on doctrinal issues, ...
You may have already answered this in a post subsequent to the one I'm answering, but if not, then how can God keep error out without violating free will?
Sorry to correct you again, I presume you mean Luke's opinion, not Paul's...
LOL!!! And I'm sorry to be wrong again. :) I must have Paul on the brain or something.
Livy didn't follow Julius Caesar around! Yet, we (I should say, "they") absolutely rely on such accounts that have been passed down orally and by partial manuscripts.
Yes, if that is the best information available, there is no choice but to rely on it, or take nothing. We are fortunate enough to have superior information.
Have you needed to write down for posterity's sake how to use a fork? Some things don't NEED to be written.
I haven't, but it is equally true that oral teaching has led to different results in even this area. In restaurants, I have literally seen grown men pick up their forks like we would a hammer. It sure isn't very often, but I have seen it. :) So, if every school child in America had been issued a "fork manual" in school, then there would be less error.
The Bible can speak "for itself" to only a very limited degree. Otherwise, it requires interpretation - presumably by the community that WROTE it! That would be the Church, correct?
Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Remember who you're talking to. :)
The writings of Christians of the first 1000 years NEVER mention anything that you would consider a pillar of Protestantism, thus making YOUR interpretations novel. I find this interesting - that IF Protestant interpretations were true and what the Bible REALLY means, then why do we not find any Church Fathers subscribing to Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, or Positive Reprobation, or man has no free will?
Why should I expect Catholic leaders to espouse Protestant themes? That wouldn't make any sense. If they ever had in great volume, there never would have been a need for the Reformation. The themes are there in the Bible, but cannot come through in Catholic theology in order to protect what IS NOT in the Bible.
At some point, and ever since, the circulation of the Bible exceeded the reach of Catholicism. At that point, the Bible becomes useless to all who have it, but do not have Catholicism to tell them what it means. Do you think this is an efficient means of spreading the Good News? I sure don't. In Catholicism, the Bible, by itself, is a relatively worthless book.
I do believe that the faith was accurately taught through oral tradition at least for a while after Pentecost. But, since I don't believe that such correctness can be passed down infallibly, I don't believe that those extra-scriptural, oral teachings could have remained inerrant through the ages.
With God, nothing is impossible. Didn't God Himself say that?
Yes, God said that, but you are talking about cannibalism, which is contrary to God's word. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have meant it in the literal sense. Any other sense involves a symbolic interpretation. Of course, in Catholicism, maybe "eat" and "flesh" do not mean "eat" and "flesh". I don't know how that "plain meaning" would be explained.
Then clearly, you believe that God ALSO causes men to commit sins. If you equate foreknowledge with foreordaining something, actively decreeing something, then you are saying that God is the author of sin. Remarkable.
No, I have always said that God actively causes what is good, like the writing of the Bible. God is not the author of evil. God knows what evil will happen as a result of His passing over the evildoers, but He is not responsible. I have been consistent. It is God's nature to be involved with good, and not His nature to be involved with evil.
FK: "I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants."
Yes, but He doesn't do it by directly interfering with the human writer.
If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?
But if the Bible was THE WORD OF GOD as in Islam, the actual voice of God transcribed onto paper as Mohemmed claimed, then you had better take literally EVERY word!
I've heard you say this before. Why do you think this? God can't use allegory if He wants to? Why not? Maybe God knows it works! Your side is the only one to bring Islam into this. I have never talked about Islam, and I could not care less about Islam, nor any comparison of myself to it. I don't think it's right for YOU to slap a label on me, and then demand that I defend that label. That's ridiculous.
You have so soon forgotten or ignored what I have said on this. I never said that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy. I said in matters of doctrinal decisions, the Church only leads the hierarchy to make a definite proclamation, based on what the Church as a whole ALREADY BELIEVES. It would be impossible otherwise - God doesn't come to man individually and give false, contradictory teachings, like you say He does to you vs. Episcopalians or Lutherans.
No, I haven't forgotten. This is what I was talking about, matters of faith and Biblical interpretation. The "big stuff". I know you would say that you have individually prayed for guidance on such and such a matter and have gotten it.
However, it is new to me for you to say that the Church as a whole leads the hierarchy based on what the Church already believes. Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if an honest poll was taken of the whole Church, that the majority would say that contraceptives should never be used? There is no way you can tell me that the hierarchy is in agreement with "the whole Church" on that one. It's possible that such a vote on abortion might even be very close. I actually think your hierarchy is way ahead of the whole Church on that.
You well know that I have never said that God gives false or contradictory teachings to anyone. I said that man misinterprets sometimes. And sometimes, even a majority of a whole denomination gets it wrong on important matters, such as the Episcopalians. (I really don't have much in common with them. :) Included with the group of all men who can misinterpret, I also place the Catholic hierarchy. Just as with the Episcopalians, even a majority of a faith can get it wrong.
Free will is about man's will, not the intellect. God's doctrines do not concern man's DECISION to choose right or wrong, but what IS right or wrong.
So, if every school child in America had been issued a "fork manual" in school, then there would be less error.
OR, they could have been better taught as a "youth" by their "Mother", the Church - if I may continue the parallelism.
Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Remember who you're talking to. :)
Can we agree that God wrote the Bible through men and their own latent abilities and knowledge?
Why should I expect Catholic leaders to espouse Protestant themes?
There was no "Protestant" themes, that is my point!!! Sola Fide is an idea, it is not something patented and trademarked by Protestantism that could only be utilized by its "inventor"! IF the idea was found in Scripture and believed by the Church as legitimate development, we would have seen something, don't you think? We are talking about men who had MEMORIZED the Bible, for heaven's sake! These guys LIVED Scriptures and were aware of it. But we don't find any sort of concept of what would LATER be called Protestantism. This is telling, to me, that the Protestant pillars were innovations, never thought of before.
At some point, and ever since, the circulation of the Bible exceeded the reach of Catholicism. At that point, the Bible becomes useless to all who have it, but do not have Catholicism to tell them what it means.
Not useless, but a source of heresy, unfortunately. Today in the Latin Rites Liturgical Lectionary, we read about the Eunich who asks Philip for interpretation: "How can I know without it being explained?"
Do you think this is an efficient means of spreading the Good News?
You mean passing out bibles and let others figure it out? No. Faith comes through hearing, not reading.
In Catholicism, the Bible, by itself, is a relatively worthless book.
I never said that. Catholics, though, have been taught a particular paradigm in understanding God's revelation - which comes through Tradition and Scriptures. Thus, a man certainly can take the Bible and read it - as long as they remember the paradigm, the totality of revelation. Certain things are to be understood a certain way, such as verses that talk about Christ's subordination to the Father... We realize that Jesus and the Father are equal outside of the Godhead.
I don't believe that such correctness can be passed down infallibly, I don't believe that those extra-scriptural, oral teachings could have remained inerrant through the ages.
Two things to remind you of...first, we believe God guides His Church so that it can REMAIN the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Secondly, the "oral" tradition DID get written down - by the Church Fathers or the Liturgy that we celebrate. It is not a 2000 year old telephone game.
Yes, God said that, but you are talking about cannibalism, which is contrary to God's word. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have meant it in the literal sense. Any other sense involves a symbolic interpretation. Of course, in Catholicism, maybe "eat" and "flesh" do not mean "eat" and "flesh". I don't know how that "plain meaning" would be explained.
Jesus is offering His sacramental flesh. We do not deny the symbolic interpretation. But neither do we deny the literal sense. Christ's glorified flesh, as the bread from the miracle immediately preceding the John 6 Discourse, was miraculously enough to feed the crowd - just as Christ's flesh is enough to feed the world. The Bread of Life that He gives for the world is His flesh (Jn 6:51) If you look at the Greek Version that follows, you will be convinced that Christ meant a literal sense. Chewing with teeth? Tearing flesh, as in animal eating? No, this is something more than "chewing on the Word of God in thought".
FK, this is something that ONLY the Spirit can enable us to comprehend. It is not something that can be explained and understood with the man of the flesh:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." John 6:63
This is not geometry, but a mystery that only God can reveal within us...
God is not the author of evil. God knows what evil will happen as a result of His passing over the evildoers, but He is not responsible.
Yes, you have said that, but then you contradict yourself when you say that man cannot choose good. If man has no free will to choose between good and evil, then God must do everything - you clearly say that man does not cooperate AT ALL. Thus, God, not man, is responsible for the good AND the bad that is done.
IF a person can ONLY do one thing, HOW is he responsible for not doing the other? Cannot a man rightly ask God "What do you expect? You FORCED me to choose evil! I cannot choose good! How can you then judge me, if I do what I was made to do?" Ask yourself honestly these questions - would God be righteous if man CANNOT but do one thing - sin - but is COMMANDED to do good that HE cannot do?
If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?
Hardly. You are forgetting God's foreknowledge and His ability to instill within a particular man the proper knowledge and ability to present HIS - GOD'S - inerrant word, whether it be in parable, allegory, novel, narrative, history, myth, or whatever literal genre He decides to present.
I have never talked about Islam, and I could not care less about Islam, nor any comparison of myself to it. I don't think it's right for YOU to slap a label on me, and then demand that I defend that label. That's ridiculous.
I apologize if I have offended you. Islam takes a literal interpretation to EVERY WORD of the Koran because God Himself has supposedly SAID it, not through a medium, like in the Judeo-Christian tradition... If a Christian takes a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible as if God spoke it, then we forget that God wrote the Bible for men of different eras, with man's take mixed in. A Holy War has a different meaning then it did for the Jews of 4000 years ago! Do we continue Paul's "law" of women not speaking in Church or having their heads covered? Fundamentalism, whether Islam or Christian, is very inflexible and is usually the cause of much suffering among the people who have to deal with their adherents. It is not God's intention that the People of God cause suffering among other people!
Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if an honest poll was taken of the whole Church, that the majority would say that contraceptives should never be used?
The majority of advisors to Pope Paul VI suggested to him in the early 1960's that the Catholic Church ALSO follow the lead of every other Protestant community and do away with the absolute use of condoms, allowing it in limited actions. The Spirit guided the Pope to go against this "poll" and say NO! Humanae Vitae, the so-called "birth control" encyclical of the 1960's, caused a HUGE stir in the American Catholic churches. Unfortuantely, the bishops were often part of the dissent! This is a fine example on how God works to maintain the teachings of the Church given by the Apostles, even in the face of popular whims of society. The Church is built on a Rock.
It is THIS teaching that the Church looks back upon, not the whims of Catholics TODAY! If the Church has "always believed, everywhere and from all time" a particular idea or concept, it must have been given by the Holy Spirit. Man is a fickle creature. It is impossible that he hold to a particular idea or concept for any length of time unless God is guiding him... Such things we call "universal principles".
I said that man misinterprets sometimes.
I agree. But God didn't desire that we be left in the dark. He gave us the Church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. God desires that all men be saved AND COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH! He gives us this ability through a God-guided Church, which consists of heirarchy AND the people within it. Even we, the lay, have a "sense of the faithful" that the Spirit guides within us. But this sense does not include merely one particular society or one era. The Church is timeless and transcendant to time, since its Head is also. We are united to the saints of ALL ages. Thus, the "sense of the faithful" expands to all time, all places. Because we have a screwed up generation here in America doesn't mean that the "sense of the faithful" is void.
Regards