Conceit is to say that you interpret the scripture guided by the Holy Spirit and 2,000 years of Church fathers did not.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
The Chruch distinguishes between pulbic revelation of the Holy Tradition, the Holy Scripture and the Magisterial teaching, and private revelations such as Marian apparitions, or any other revelation received directly from God and His angels, that does not come from the three dogmatic sources. The general, or public revelation is to be believed; that is, the faithful needs to work on his faith and struggle to understand it and condition his reason to believe it; he is under no circumstances allowed to reject it. A private revelation can be approved or unapproved. An approved priivate revelation is such that does not contradict the doctrines of faith in any way and is miraculous in origin. Such is the status of the Fatima revelation. An approved private revelation does not have to be believed but it may be believed, if the faithful is driven to believe it. If it is unapproved, the faithful is warned that it is not to be believed. Some are not investigated, and their status is unknown; the faithful need to exercise caution in regards of those.
We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope
The difference is that when I read the scripture, I read it with the fathers of the Church. I never read it alone. I may have a private interpretation, of course (*), but then I would offer it, no matter how personally confident I feel, as private interpretation. On the other hand, when I dispute the fundamentals of the faith, for example, with you, I refer to the historical understanding of the fathers, -- my person in this is but a transmission belt.
If your Church was fully sanctified at Pentecost then why would you give one pope the power to overrule her?
If it ever happens that the Pope invokes his infallibility outside of the consensus of the Magisterium, then we believe that the Pope will be still speaking for the entire Church and the dissenting bishops will be in error and only speak for themselves. It never happened this way, and hopefully will never happen; howeve,r there was a point in time when the majority of the Christian bishops were Arian and pope Athanasius stood virtually alone "contra mundum".
this beginning would be like my saying that Catholics and Muslims disagree ideologically, therefore, both are wrong since they both claim to believe in God. I do not claim any allegiance to all Protestants. It is a non-starter to say that Sola Scriptura is wrong because some groups calling themselves Protestants claim wacko views based on Sola Scriptura
The difference is the content of the underlying common belief. What we have in common with the Muslim does not exclude disagreement over the nature of God or over where to look for guidance in understanding Him. But what all protestants have in common is the belief in the perspicuous self-explanatory Scripture (truncated to fashion). That belief logically demands that your faiths be identical, since they are driven by the same scripture in a self-evident fashion.
Orthodox understand the scripture and Tradition identically?
Correct. Our traditions and church organizations may differ, but we agree on the fundamental theology: Scripture as part of Tradition interpreted through the Church, salvation as a result of a lifelong struggle for sanctification, apostolic succession, obedience to bishops, etc.
The point is that for every example you can come up with, we can come up with A LOT more. Don't forget, we say the Bible speaks for itself. You say the Bible is indecipherable without the Church's interpretation.
In all these examples we look at the verse in context and it says what we say it says. You take it our of context and force it into a preconceived theological framework. We agree with the verse as intended. For example, "all have sinned" in one place speaks of the man before the sanctifying grace of Christ and in the other "all" is interspersed with "many" and speaks of the sin of Adam anyway, and not of personal sin, -- in both places the the text allows for an exception, such as Christ Himslef, or children, or Mary, or some other exceptionally righteous people. "Believe and you will be saved" does not say what the belief should entail in terms of works.
Also, we do not say that the Bible is indecipherable alone. We say it can lead to error is read alone. But, as you know, my contention is that one who reads the Bible through the patristic lense and not through the lense of modernity becomes Catholic or Orthodox. He will easily overcome the Protestant prooftexts. I once had a dispute over the supposed prooftexts for "faith alone" in Romans. All I had to do was to ask my opponent to read the Letter to the Romans from the beginning to end. The "faith alone" notion dissipated, -- I had nothing to debate. Every time a Protestant prooftext is offered, it is either over a minor point (don't call anyone "father") or does not say what it purports to say ("saved by faith" does not say "by faith alone"), or the context gives a different meaning ("not of works" refers to ritualistic circumcision or gainful work).
You're blaming Luther and the Reformers for the cultural crisis we see in America today?
Not directly. What I am saying is that the idea that morality comes from bottom to top -- from the individual to law of the land in some democratic fashion -- is the same idea that said that Christianity comes from bottom to top -- form laity reading and interpreting the scripture autonomously and possibly in contradiction to the faith handed down through the Church. I am, of course, fully aware that fundamentalist Protestant Christianity is a bulwark of traditional morality and we are happy to have you as ally in this fight.
Where are you getting this idea that Reformed theology somehow especially caters to a 21c mentality? It obviously catered pretty well to a 16c mentality since it spread so far and so quickly
But 16c is modernity. The Reformers catered to the emerging bourgeois, and the bourgeois mentality is still with us. For the rest, see above.
Irresistibility of grace might be a wash, objectively. The role of good works might also be a wash, but for different reasons. All say a saved Christian does and must do good works. I think the reader would probably stop there. And on the role of the Church, the last thing in the universe the reader would ever come up with is the current, or even historical, RCC
The Protestant concepts of irresistible grace and faith alone do violence to 2 Peter 1 and James 2, -- passages that specifically refer to these issues (there are other prooftexts as well). The two letters to the Corinthians explain that St. Paul speaks in the name of Christ and has authority to correct errors. The letters to Timothy and Titus set up the hierarchy of the Church as lead by bishops in apostolic succession. I read the scripture and I see my Church in every chapter.
You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone?
The veneration of saints is based on the concept of eternal life; on the visions of angels and those asleep in Christ who are like angels taking interest in the events on Earth; on the concept of Christians acting as an interdependent community praying and interceding for one another. No doubt you are familiar with these ideas, you just don't apply them to the Communion of Saints due to the Protestant mental conditioning. Of course, Christ being the sole mediator to God is in no contradiction to these practices.
I have room for compromise here.
See? And previously you admitted that irressitibel grace and the role of works are a wash. So these fundamental issues -- where salvation hangs in the balance -- cannot be resolved conclusively from scripture alone.
Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture.
I plead history here. The Arians, the Marcionites and the gnostics read the same scripture and came back with (I grossly oversimplify) Christ being a smart inspired man, Christ being a second God fighting the first one; Christ beign a spirit and not man.
Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal?
It is a big deal because the Scripture was written by 1c men (or by ancient Hebrews) and addressed their contemporaries. If you see that a 21c man understands the scripture differently than the contemporaries of the inspired writer, then the 21c man is wrong in his interpretation every time it happens.
what about him do you think would lead him into one camp [Catholic] or the other [Orthodox]?
Personal cultural predisposition. The Latin culture is more analytical and legalistic; the Eastern is more spiritual and mysterious. Catholicism has a greater emphasis on the Christ crucified and the Orthodox on the risen Christ. Things like that. And then, it would depend if he is welcoming to the papal authority.
How about the nature of grace? You also disagree on original sin
The nature of grace is a matter of theological hypothesis. These are high levels of theology that do not really separate the two churches. The original sin to us is the condition or predisposition to sin and death inherited from Adam, to the Orthodox. We speak somewhat different languages here, but the actual differences are again fine points of theology. None of these differences are in interpreting the concrete scripture, as either uncreated grace or original sin have clear prooftexts. Well, I'd say Romans 5 is pretty good for Original sin... but then that's why I am Catholic.
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost?
No one says it will happen. I commented about this above, too.
Conceit is to say that you interpret the scripture guided by the Holy Spirit and 2,000 years of Church fathers did not.
= = = =
2,000 years? Really? Guess I didn't get that memo. Doesn't seem close to real, to me.
Perhaps the author forgot to subtract out years for
. . . the pope with the orgies
. . . the Inquisition
. . . the unChristian political gamesmanships
. . . the UnChristian egotistical wars
. . . and . . .
. . . and . . .
THAT would logically only be true . . .
IF
THE TEXT WAS 100% UNAMBIGUOUS ON ALL ISSUES AT ALL POINTS.
I suppose one could also add . . . and/or IF Holy Spirit was 100% emphatically, precisely, convincingly crystal clear in identical ways on 100% of the text on 100% of the issues and points with 100% of the readers. Hasn't seemed to be His priority to be so.
We say it can lead to error is read alone.
AS it OBVIOUSLY CAN when read with the magesterical--witness the gross errors in various centuries throughout the church in virtually all groups, denominations.
No surprise. Groups are human, TOO.
You are right, that really would be conceit. I'm glad no one on my side has EVER said anything like that. :) We have never held that your guys have any less access to the leading of the Holy Spirit than we do. The Holy Spirit leads all believers, including Catholics. But of course, the results are never identical. I hope you would agree that the Holy Spirit has never zapped all knowledge and wisdom of scripture into any one man OR group at any given time since at least the Apostles, if ever. God's will is apparently that different people will apprehend scriptural truth at different rates and at different times accordingly.
FK: "We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope."
The difference is that when I read the scripture, I read it with the fathers of the Church. I never read it alone. ...
Yes, that is a big difference, but we have no less confidence because we do not read it through the lens of the fathers. It's just a matter of that we use different earthly authorities. I am comfortable in saying that we each DO have confidence respectively.
Sometimes, I will take a flier too, or a private interpretation. If it's way off base, then someone of the same faith will poke me in the ribs and say "hey, the Bible says that's no good because of this, this, and this." After checking it out, I would be easy to change my view. It's already happened and I'm sure it will happen again. That doesn't shake my confidence.
But what all protestants have in common is the belief in the perspicuous self-explanatory Scripture (truncated to fashion). That belief logically demands that your faiths be identical, since they are driven by the same scripture in a self-evident fashion.
No, that's way oversimplifying. We do not hold that everything in scripture is self-evident upon a first reading. Otherwise, we would not need to study it for the rest of our lives.
A general Protestant belief that core issues are perspicuous is actually revealed in the similarity of (very) core beliefs among most Protestant groups. Of course defining what is a "Protestant group" is something that Apostolics and actual Protestants are 180 degrees apart on. I think I can now almost legitimately say that I've had numbers like 30,000 denominations thrown at me, probably, 30,000 times. It's complete nonsense. We don't have a central government to throw out sects or cults who want to call themselves Protestant, so opponents just throw all of us into the same soup. I suppose we cannot stop those who do that, but it really is intellectually dishonest.
It does not at all follow that a belief in general perspicuousness requires identical faiths from all who hold that view. Under your system one man, or a group of men, declares what the scriptures mean. At any given time that's it, no matter how much that "it" has (arguably) changed over time. We put the Holy Spirit in the place of those men, and say that He has chosen not to work in the same way. The Spirit could have chosen to reveal all things to all believers instantly, but He didn't. Instead, He decided to make it a lifetime pursuit. Glory be to God for His decision. Sure, some non-Apostolic faiths have emerged that are not even Christian, but those are the ones who have abandoned scripture. Those of us Bible-believing Protestants hold on to the scriptures and continue to grow as the Spirit wills.
Our [EOC and RCC] traditions and church organizations may differ, but we agree on the fundamental theology: Scripture as part of Tradition interpreted through the Church, salvation as a result of a lifelong struggle for sanctification, apostolic succession, obedience to bishops, etc.
Well, if that's what you call fundamental theology, then Protestants are more unified than you ever imagined. :) Sola Scriptura. Salvation is a result of grace through faith. No Apostolic succession, etc. On this level, I would guess that 99% of Bible-believing Protestants would now be just as unified as you are with the Orthodox.
In all these examples we look at the verse in context and it says what we say it says. You take it out of context and force it into a preconceived theological framework. We agree with the verse as intended.
I can't seem to remember which one of us I am quoting here. :)
For example, "all have sinned" in one place speaks of the man before the sanctifying grace of Christ and in the other "all" is interspersed with "many" and speaks of the sin of Adam anyway, and not of personal sin, -- in both places the the text allows for an exception, such as Christ Himself, or children, or Mary, or some other exceptionally righteous people.
I see you have come up with a brand new interpretation for Rom. 3:23. Very creative. However, since we still sin after sanctifying grace, what leads you to believe that this is the distinction? The verse just says "all have sinned". I could play ball with the doctrine of impossibility, according to scripture, such as in the case of Christ or (arguably) children. But Mary is in neither of those groups and there is no scriptural exception for her. The ONLY way to cover Mary is to build in something that is not there at all. You just got through telling me that you interpret from context, and yet you have none at all here. The only way you can claim context is to change scripture to make it match Tradition, thus proving once again that Tradition trumps scripture.
"Believe and you will be saved" does not say what the belief should entail in terms of works.
Right, but other scripture DOES cover that. No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs. Scripture actually opposes those beliefs. Tradition steps in to change what the scripture says.
But, as you know, my contention is that one who reads the Bible through the patristic lense and not through the lense of modernity becomes Catholic or Orthodox. He will easily overcome the Protestant prooftexts.
There's no contention about it, of course that would be the result! :) If you stand over my shoulder and tell me what every verse "really" means, then I obviously wind up with your view. I have been talking about reading it with no lens, and no bias. I maintain that such a reader will wind up MUCH closer to the Reformed view than an Apostolic one. That is logically inevitable, since you do not allow scripture to interpret itself. Instead, scripture means something else, outside of itself (Tradition).
[Break at "To 8556". Continued on next post]
What I am saying is that the idea that morality comes from bottom to top -- from the individual to law of the land in some democratic fashion -- is the same idea that said that Christianity comes from bottom to top -- from laity reading and interpreting the scripture autonomously and possibly in contradiction to the faith handed down through the Church. I am, of course, fully aware that fundamentalist Protestant Christianity is a bulwark of traditional morality and we are happy to have you as ally in this fight.
This point of view is exactly why I must constantly remind myself that when a RC speaks of "The Church" I should only think of the hierarchy. It seems to me that you are describing SOLELY a top-down structure. I do not counter that morality comes from bottom to top, but rather that morality comes from God to all believers. In our structure, and I believe to a great degree also with the Orthodox, the top is fully accountable to the down, AND vice-versa. There IS a God-given role for leaders, and there is also a God-given role for the laity. In our system, they are not nearly as far apart as I perceive in the Latin system.
On your last point, I appreciate very much what you're saying and return the sentiments in kind. During the election last year, I was very blessed to work arm-in-arm with many Catholics in trying to defeat the stem-cell (cloning) Amendment here in MO. I know that the RCC will always be a reliable partner on all of these types of issues. It is good to know. :)
I read the scripture and I see my Church in every chapter.
Well of course. The Church tells you what to see. :)
The veneration of saints is based on the concept of eternal life; on the visions of angels and those asleep in Christ who are like angels taking interest in the events on Earth; on the concept of Christians acting as an interdependent community praying and interceding for one another. No doubt you are familiar with these ideas, you just don't apply them to the Communion of Saints due to the Protestant mental conditioning. ...
IOW, the veneration of saints is based on no scripture at all. :) You told me yourself that there is nothing necessarily eternal about "eternal life". That is Tradition. I have no idea what you are talking about concerning "the departed", who ARE asleep in Christ, taking interest in events on earth. So that's Tradition. Physically alive Christians praying for one another is fully Biblical. Saints interceding is not. So that's also Tradition. Lots of Tradition, no scripture. Here, the Bible gives me one, clear and distinct message:
Mark 12:30 : 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
I don't understand how we are loving the Lord in this way by praying to saints instead of Him.
FK: "I have room for compromise here."
See? And previously you admitted that irresistible grace and the role of works are a wash. So these fundamental issues -- where salvation hangs in the balance -- cannot be resolved conclusively from scripture alone.
HA! Man, do you make it tough to find any common ground at all! :) What I said was that I have room to compromise on whether an unbiased, first-and-only-time-reader of the Bible would conclude that infant baptism was OK. My other comments were based on the same premise, a one-time reading. If we were to otherwise suppose multiple readings and reasonable study, then the issue of salvation WOULD conclusively tilt WAY in favor of the Reformed view, IMO. I don't think it would even be close. Even with 100 years of scriptural study, there is simply no way possible to arrive at a great many Catholic conclusions about salvation based on scripture.
FK: "Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture."
I plead history here. The Arians, the Marcionites and the gnostics read the same scripture and came back with (I grossly oversimplify) Christ being a smart inspired man, Christ being a second God fighting the first one; Christ being a spirit and not man.
Well, regardless of how many sects (whatever) got it completely wrong, that doesn't change that a fair reading of scripture DOES reveal the Trinity, IMO. For example:
Matt 28:19 : Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ... [remember Paul's follow-up stressing the importance of whose name someone should be baptized in].
2 Cor 13:14 : 14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
1 Peter 1:1-2 : 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
I mean, come on. :) In my view, the clear foundation is unmistakable. There are plenty of other examples. See Rom. 14:17-18; 15:16; 1 Cor. 2:2-5; 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Col. 1:6-8; 1 Thes. 1:3-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; and Titus 3:4-6. I'd say all these together make a pretty reasonable case. :)
FK: "Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal?"
It is a big deal because the Scripture was written by 1c men (or by ancient Hebrews) and addressed their contemporaries. If you see that a 21c man understands the scripture differently than the contemporaries of the inspired writer, then the 21c man is wrong in his interpretation every time it happens.
Well, scripture is either timeless or it is not. I believe the general audience of the scriptures is believers of all time. That's what I was saying. I don't buy for a minute that a contemporary is correct just for being a contemporary. I'm sure you would agree that there were plenty of contemporaries right from the start who got things wrong, even from your point of view. There were also some who got some things right. It just isn't automatic.