No, I disagree. What is very hard is to convince an individual: to achieve conversion. This is because there is a great investment made in a particular theology. It is especially true because a typical Protestant feels like he was standing on firm ground with his "assured salvation" and now I am asking him to swim in the waves. I participated in a Baptist Bible study once, where I was dutifully giving my Catholic perspective, and one emotion that came across often was, essentially, "this is a hard teaching, who can take it?".
But the proof of the scripture is there. When St. James spends an entire chapter talking of the salvific character of works, it is proof. When the proof is ignored, that is just human nature.
We trot out our texts, and if they come close to looking like a coherent and persuasive argument, suddenly we learn we have to study the Bible in its entirety to see the coherence of how it says what they say it says. And since they've been studying it much longer than we, why we might as well take their word.
You have an inferiority complex. We have been studying the scripture for 2,000 years. They did not. The New Testament is a Catholic book. There is nothing in it that in un-Catholic. Both the silly prooftexts, when the next verse subverts the putative meaning, and the superstitious appeals to the unspecified "entirety of the scripture" are desperate chest beating, and the Protestant apologists in their hearts know it.
Here is a good apologist to learn from: Bible Christian society
James was not ignored - nor is an interpretation proof. You gave your view. We have given ours. From our perspective, Paul has been ignorred while a very narrow interpretation of James has been embraced.
As to your studying Scripture for 2000 years, do not forget that our folks came out of your church by and large. We have the same heritage. When that heritage was clearly deviating from Biblical Christianity, our side made a correction. Yours evidently did as well under Loyola lest you say that there was no correction to be made. And the two streams went drastically opposite ways.
An interesting thing has occurred, Annalex, in the course of this thread. What started as a critique of a movie (a movie, by the way, which was very biblical and shouldn't be labeled unsuitable for children- though I would understand why a parent would want to explain childbirth to a very young child)about the Birth of Christ has gone far from the subject of the thread. In fact, at this point in the thread the subject of "Mary" is really not much of a topic any more. Rather, the thread has narrowed in some aspects to the key reasons that we both feel so passionate about our belief systems. Namely, the nature of salvation.
You see waves in salvation - sometimes you've got it, sometimes you may not. We don't see God working in such a way according to Scripture. Such is not a new phenomena in the history of Catholic/Protestant dialogue. Both of us are taking our stands because we believe that they are right. Both of them can't be. But how can we know? You would differ to the church. But they were mere men. They were highly fallible. So are we. How does one KNOW? Ultimately, it is going to be what/who are you going to place your faith in?
We continue dialoging because we care about the truth and the souls of mankind. But how does one know what is true? Our stand is on Scripture. Yours is on Centuries of Catholic writings/edicts/proclamations and Scripture. How do we know what is right? Just because it is older doesn't mean it is more correct - particularly when the older has controlled the writing of history for most of those centuries. So, ultimately, it boils down to being faithful to seek God in personal Bible study. It doesn't mean the writings of men have no value. But ultimately, it is your contract between you and God. You can't say "the church misled me", nor can I say "Calvin" or "Luther" misled me" It is about knowing WHY you believe what you believe and knowing it personally.
The truth is knowable. We may not get it perfectly in this life because we have limited understanding. But, it is knowable.
2 Timothy says the following:
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Now, you can take that in whatever way you are going to take it. My guess is that you will see us as the ones in the snare of the devil. We would probably look at it in the opposite way. So, both of us feel the other is in error. Nevertheless, there is one thing that we shouldn't miss in all the finger-pointing. No, in fact, two. First, we have a job.
Verse 15 says Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
We should spend our time in study of the Word of God, the Word of truth. Why? So that as we go about working for the Lord, we know why we know what we teach. It doesn't mean we will know all things and have answers to everything. But, we should strive to because it honors God.
And, second, The Lord knoweth them that are his.
I take comfort in that because my desire is to love and serve God all of my life. Satan didn't put that desire there. God did. And God knows me. That gives me assurance. And it is an assurance that has withstood some rather large waves indeed. Why? Because I know it is not of me but of the God who died for me and saved me. He is my hope. He alone is my peace.
MOI? InferiORiddy complex? It is to LAFF! hah HAH!
There! I trust I've disposed of that.
I may have said this once before. it may be obvious to everyonw but me, but it's a whole new idea to moi.
Analogy: Pole A (the thing we know): We cannot "PROVE" Newton's Laws of Motion from observation. BUT when we postulate the laws of motion and the law of graviuty, we find that nature makes WAY more sense and is more predictable, and more useful.
Pole B (the thing we are asked to consider): We cannot PROVE the Doctrine of the Trinity (or the RCC/EO notion of Church, works, etc.) FROM Scripture. BUT when we postulate them, Scripture (and our lives) make more sense, are more predictable, blah blah blah.
Further, theology will always be a mess. Always, Because everything we say about God, is wronger than it is right, because every act of predication about God is made in a grammatical structure that treats God like any other entity fit to be subject of a sentence.
That does NOT mean that some things are NOT wronger (or not better, more true) than others. Some things ought to be said, and some ought NOT to be said, at least not without a lot of hedging and weaselling.
Further, the phenomena of religious experience are very difficult to nail down in a way that one can build a compelling and rhetorically persuaive logical argument from them. I remember making a mobius strip and saying,"See it has only one side!" My interlocutor said, "No. it's just that when you say side, you mean something different from what I mean." It was a long an painful process to get her to see that when she THOUGHT about what she meant by side, she saw that she meant, well, the kind of thing that a mobius strip only has one of.
If the number of sides a mobius stip has is so difficult to reach a conclusive agreement on, how much harder will it be to reach a good understandig of the word "salvific" in the economy of salvtion?
You ever try to talk to a woman ( or person of the sex that you ain't of) about the difference between men and women? Whenever I haven't been frustrated enough, I try that one again. Almost without exception what always happens is that after some conversation you think you've actually reached an agreement. Call the papers! Breakthrough. The prospect of peace in the war of the sexes. But then one or other party to the conversation attempts a mere rephrasing, possibly with an example. And the other one says,"Are you KIDDING ME? That's not it at ALL!"
So also when RCCs and Protestants gather to discuss prayer to Mary or the word Salvific, as it applies to works.
That's what I mean by hard or impossible to prove