No, the point is whether the linchpin of FINAL salvation is based on free will works or God's grace-given faith. The weight of scripture is clear that faith through grace is what ultimately saves. Works are absolutely part of the mix and are indispensable. There is no true faith without works, as James so clearly says. We say that for the elect God causes those good works. I take it that your view is that man's inner goodness and free will is to be credited for those good works. The independent reader will see passages plausibly supporting both sides. However, my assertion is that a major UNDERLYING BIBLICAL THEME is that God is sovereign, and that God's choices are the only ones that count.
[FK as quoted by Alex:] "This statement ["Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him"] speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset"
This statement is plain fact and plain scripture. You don't recognize it?
No, the obvious problem is "as if they were Him". Scripture is clear that when any of the Apostles (or their supporters) sought out higher distinction for themselves, Jesus slammed them down, rightfully so. Christ DID grant authority to some to speak His words with authority. It is a matter of debate whether this authority was magically passed down to both the worthy and unworthy through ritual.
FK: "I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary."
"Catholic" is the word you are looking for. Still, again I stated a plain fact: the New Testament for the most part is written to specific churches and individuals and avoid prophetic or theological-academic tone.
I can't believe this. :) This approach makes the NT a patchwork of throw-togethers with no theme. Are you kidding me? :) Do you seriously believe that Paul was not about clearly expressing very important theological truths?
Why, yes, -- perhaps not completely undecipherable, but allowing for multiple interpretations. It is in fact, said so in the scripture: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11); "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).
This does ZERO to disprove the perspicuity of scripture. In the same breath you decry "private interpretation" you champion "private revelation". We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically. This makes me wish that someone had done a study to identify all the passages that were "only meant" for the self-identified hierarchy.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspicuity:
"15 ... our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3).
Is the Catholic position that Paul is not to be taken seriously? I get the distinct impression that your view is that when Paul actually says something that can be construed as supporting Catholicism, then he's great, but for the vast majority of his writings he is basically a code-talker, to later be re-interpreted by people who knew much better than Paul what he actually meant.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspicuity:
You've said this twice recently. Are we to believe that one statement from Peter cancels out everything Paul wrote to the interpretations of men following him? That stance is incredibly weak. Peter did not dismiss Paul, he said that the teachings were difficult. I praise God for that and look forward to my further sanctification.
Regarding the profitability of the scripture versus the interpretation, is it your contention that the scripture remains profitable if it is incorrectly interpreted?
Scripture is profitable, period. If it is not correctly interpreted by a person, then it is not profitable (probably) to him at that time. God, and God alone controls all of this.
No, because both St. James and St. Paul refer to Abraham but they refer to the different parts of the story of Abraham. When St. Paul says that Abraham was saved not by works he speaks of circumcision instituted by God through Abraham; and when St. James speaks of Abraham saved by works, he speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac. This is the plain reading of the parts that seem to be in conflict only because you theorize too much about God's sovereignty -- which neither James or the Catholic Church deny.
the obvious problem is "as if they were Him". Scripture is clear that when any of the Apostles (or their supporters) sought out higher distinction for themselves, Jesus slammed them down, rightfully so. Christ DID grant authority to some to speak His words with authority. It is a matter of debate whether this authority was magically passed down to both the worthy and unworthy through ritual.
Yet, Christ did say that He sends the apostles as Himself; St. Paul does speak expressly with authority of Christ, and he does instruct Timothy who to ordain (supporting scripture available on demand). Under your theory the Church went rudderless as soon as the last apostle dies. Not so.
This approach makes the NT a patchwork of throw-togethers with no theme. Are you kidding me? :) Do you seriously believe that Paul was not about clearly expressing very important theological truths?
I believe that the evangelists, St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter and St. Jude clearly expressed very many clear theological truth lead by the Holy Ghost, both in the scripture and through tradition. What I don't believe is that they meant the scripture to be sufficient alone outside of the Church or open to individual interpretations.
In the same breath you decry "private interpretation" you champion "private revelation".
Really? Where? Private revelation is to remain a private affair, the Church teaches, -- one may take it or leave it.
We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically.
This is a strange belief. Is it common to all the Reformed? This sounds like that comical "In the Bible we learn about the Ten Suggestions".
Is the Catholic position that Paul is not to be taken seriously? I get the distinct impression that your view is that when Paul actually says something that can be construed as supporting Catholicism, then he's great, but for the vast majority of his writings he is basically a code-talker
It is in the Holy Scripture that Pauline Epistles are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), but so is much of the Scripture. There is nothing un-Catholic in any of St. Paul's writings, or in any other scripture. This is why we are Catholic: we don't pick and choose which scripture to believe. We also do not believe that all scripture is perspicuous, and I gave you a scriptural prooftext for this Catholic belief.