Then we believe it. When the author asserts the historical veracity of something, then so it happened. However, it is not so black and white in determining whether the author IS asserting the historical veracity of something. The Jews were not concerned like we are of such matters.
there are not many truths, just one. But, people apprehend the truth at different rates and times.
LOL! Yes, eventually people become Catholic at different times!
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
My problem with your statement is that some "truths" are diametrically opposed. Opposite. This is not a matter of different rates. We have the "Spirit" leading people in opposite directions, if we would believe every person who said "I am led by the Spirit"... Thus, I see this statement as self-serving. The only way we KNOW we are being led by the Spirit is by our works of love, our obedience to the Commandments (e.g. Acts 5:32 or Mat 7:21)
Apparently, this guarantee also does not apply to the Church, since different Apostolic faiths have different beliefs, AND, within the Latin Church anyway, some beliefs (truths) have been modified or changed over time. It appears that "the Church" learns in much the same way as individuals do, as the Spirit wills.
Nothing is changed over time, it is the understanding that improves, as you say. I still do not think that the Apostles knew the exact and total implications of what we now call "Trinity". They taught it in kernel form, implicitly. But I sincerely doubt that Peter or Paul taught that Jesus is a hypostatic union of God and man, or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father/Son and is equally God, different only in this procession from the Father and the Son.
You are correct that the Church learns more about God as time advances - since the Church IS the community. It consists of theologians and bishops and so forth, who build upon previous generations and attempt to present God's Word and Gospel in a language that has meaning for people of today.
Nevertheless, the faiths are fairly compatible on the core elements. As I said above, the Spirit leads as He will.
I question that. In my experience, no matter the topic, I find Protestants of different groups taking different sides of a theological question: Does Baptism save? What is the Eucharist? Can we baptize infants? Do works have anything to do with salvation? What is the relationship between grace and free will? Can a Christian fall away? I do not see Protestants lining up on these questions into two groups, but they cut across the board.
To you, does "thoroughly equipped" somehow not equal "everything we need to know"?
Yawn. If I had a dollar for everyone who thought that this verse proved anything... Perhaps you should consult the dictionary. Thoroughly equipped doesn't mean EVERYTHING. Nor does this verse even refer to the NT!
Ephesians 4:11-13 gives us ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints - and the Bible is not even mentioned. Thus, the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith. If it was, Ephesians could not say that God gave the Church preachers, teachers, and evangelists to perfect the saints. You jump to conclusions when you think that "thoroughly" means "everything".
Case in point, FK. HOW did the first Christians get by without a NT the first 25-30 years? Were they not able to become "perfected"? Were they in "limbo" waiting for the Bible that would some day be written to guide them to truth? NO. The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible.
If this referred to the lost, then God would be the author of sin
Isn't that what Calvinists believe, although they won't admit it, their theology says the same thing.
Secondly, you're watering it down with "God works in us the will to act". That's not what it says. Instead, it says "God who works in you to will and to act". It is a subtle but significant difference, and I understand why you made it.
"God works in you to will and to act". Yes, that is me doing it, God moving my will to desire to do it. Not sure where you are coming up with your interpretation that I am a puppet and God pulls the strings. God works in me the DESIRE, the WILL to ACT. It doesn't say that God acts. It doesn't say that God desires and I do nothing. That is your paradigm thrust upon the Scriptures.
In your paradigm, man is not even judged, although the bible clearly tells us over and over that man WILL be judged. HOW can man be judged if he is not responsible for his own will to act???
I don't expect an answer, as this question has been asked before many times.
Regards
LOL! Yes, eventually people become Catholic at different times!
Yeah, yeah, yeah... :)
[continuing:] My problem with your statement is that some "truths" are diametrically opposed. Opposite. This is not a matter of different rates. We have the "Spirit" leading people in opposite directions, if we would believe every person who said "I am led by the Spirit"...
Yes, you make a very valid point. Lately, I've been toying with a pet theory which I can neither defend nor prove. But, I'll share it with you anyway since it could not be more apropos. :) The thought occurred to me that maybe within the universe of Christianity, God has placed us in our respective faiths on purpose. Perhaps all of the qualities that make you special and different can best be used, in God's view, if your sanctification is through the Roman Catholic faith. Likewise with me as a Reformed Baptist. Since we're both Christians, maybe all this is by God's design in the positive sense, and our differences are outweighed by our specifically intended roles in God's plan.
But I sincerely doubt that Peter or Paul taught that Jesus is a hypostatic union of God and man, ...
I found over 40 references where Paul uses some form of "our Lord Jesus Christ". What else could he have meant?
FK: "Nevertheless, the faiths are fairly compatible on the core elements. As I said above, the Spirit leads as He will."
I question that. In my experience, no matter the topic, I find Protestants of different groups taking different sides of a theological question: Does Baptism save? What is the Eucharist? Can we baptize infants? Do works have anything to do with salvation? What is the relationship between grace and free will? Can a Christian fall away? I do not see Protestants lining up on these questions into two groups, but they cut across the board.
Of course it depends on what one considers "Protestant". If one is in the 50,000 denomination camp, then sure, one will find every kind of belief imaginable. But among Bible-believing Protestants all of your examples are basically agreed upon, except for the Arminian question, and infant baptism (which is minor because all of us agree that baptism is non-salvific). And, on these differences, there really are only two groups.
Ephesians 4:11-13 gives us ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints - and the Bible is not even mentioned. Thus, the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith. If it was, Ephesians could not say that God gave the Church preachers, teachers, and evangelists to perfect the saints. You jump to conclusions when you think that "thoroughly" means "everything".
What do you mean "another"? It's the same thing. If preachers and teachers stick to the scriptures, then sanctification happens. If they don't, then bad things happen. The people are simply a method of conveyance of the scriptures, that's all. The scriptures can be individually read, and they can be taught by others more learned. Both are useful and part of God's plan. ....... "Thoroughly" means "everything we need". If you told me that in Catholicism "thoroughly" really means "partially" then I would not be surprised, I would just add it to the list.
Case in point, FK. HOW did the first Christians get by without a NT the first 25-30 years? Were they not able to become "perfected"? Were they in "limbo" waiting for the Bible that would some day be written to guide them to truth? NO. The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible.
The first Christians got by with oral teachings of what would become the Bible. I assume that the authors taught what they wound up writing. No big deal. Sanctification happened. ...... I thought the Pope just got rid of "limbo". :) ....... Finally, at last you have publicly elevated the Magisterium above the Bible, as I have always thought. That is the only conclusion possible given that the Magisterium is unelected by the laity, and they determine the most important interpretations in the Bible. They are obviously superior to God's word under your system since they define it. (When you use the word "CHURCH" as the pillar and foundation of truth, you can only mean the Magisterium and Pope, since the laity have no practical say in any important matter.)
FK: "If this referred to the lost, then God would be the author of sin."
Isn't that what Calvinists believe, although they won't admit it, their theology says the same thing.
No, that is what some Catholics believe that Calvinists believe. I know of at least one FR learned Catholic who understands better. Our theology is that God is in full control, AND that man is responsible for his own sin. We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning. That is a big part of the difference.
While defending man being in effective power and control of his own ultimate destiny, instead of God, most who accuse us of believing that God causes sin argue that if we believe God is in control, that He must also be accountable for sin. That simply does not follow. Control does not necessarily mean causation. If God being in control also meant that He had a duty to protect us from sin, then you would be right. But that duty is only imposed upon God by those who disagree with the Calvinist view. It is artificial.
In your paradigm, man is not even judged, although the bible clearly tells us over and over that man WILL be judged. HOW can man be judged if he is not responsible for his own will to act??? I don't expect an answer, as this question has been asked before many times.
Then either you have never asked me, or you have counted my previous answers as not answering your question. I have no control over whether you accept my answer, but I almost always make an honest attempt TO answer. Whether I have answered is not dependent on if you agree with me. :)
I don't know where you're coming from about my beliefs concerning judgment. There are at least two separate judgments. One for salvation and one for reward. Those who are damned are fully responsible for their free will decisions to sin, and they will be judged on that basis. Those who are saved are also judged, but they have the ultimate advocate in Christ. The blood of Christ ultimately proves "persuasive" and the saved are acquitted. There is judgment in all cases, with different results depending on God's will.
Since my understanding of Catholicism is that Christ's blood only allowed man the opportunity to save himself, I can only imagine that you will be arguing your own case at the time of judgment. You will explain to God about all the sacraments you have partaken in, and all of the good works you have done. Good luck with that. :) Seriously though, when does justification attach for you? If it is after physical death, but before judgment, then how is it determined who is justified?