I just think the Bible is replete with clear descriptions of those who are saved and God's promises about salvation. I take them all as a whole and then see if that describes me. Take the most famous verse:
John 3:16 : "16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I do not know how to interpret around what this verse says. I have to have a view of my own belief. You are right in that if I am kidding myself then I am toast. But with my eternal destination on the line, I am comfortable that my confidence in my salvation was placed in my heart by God. My confidence does not come from me.
See where this is going? Here is something for you... When if someone is misinterpreting Scripture when it comes to salvation? I haven't mentioned this before, but it is a good a time as any. WHEN IF Jean Calvin is wrong? This throws a monkey wrench into the whole process, doesn't it? We are placing our trust in a particular interpretation of the Bible. Who can say who is right when two different pastors on opposite corners of a street say two things diametrically opposed?
LOL! "Jean". Because it was you I looked it up before saying anything. You saved me an embarrassment. :)
On the misinterpretation of scripture, I think that there is a big difference between the key principles and other issues that are less important to be considered a true Christian. When I said that I think Catholicism is a true faith I meant that I think that we agree enough on the most essential and defining elements of Christianity that we both really are true Christians. (I'd bet anything that You, as opposed to, say, a Muslim, would agree with all the elements of my sinner's prayer.) You have also said that you believe that people like me are also in heaven. On the other stuff, good Christians can disagree. Isn't such the way with eschatology? If there are two pastors on street corners arguing on the key elements of faith, then I would say there is a problem. However, in my experience I really have not seen this in the evangelical Christian community.
Now if "in truth" Calvin turns out to be wrong on most of his teachings, I would still feel "covered" in terms of salvation, which is all that ultimately matters to me. In fact, I fully expect that I will be found to be wrong on some of my beliefs when (if :) I get to heaven. I don't claim to have all the answers because I assert no authority in myself.
Take your example of the Talents and add to it the story of the three men who went to work for the same man, started at different times of the day, but were yet paid the same. (I'm sorry I can't remember where it is in the Bible.) When I first read those stories I was really surprised at the answers. After long meditation and some study, I have reckoned with God on His teaching. I presume there are other stories in the Bible which I have not yet reckoned correctly. I figure this is what sanctification is for.
The center of authority is the Bible? I have a few problems with that idea. First, how can a book be the center of authority? Every book is subject to interpretation. Look at us now! And secondly, God didn't establish an authoritative book, but an authoritative group of men who would lead His community of believers. THEY would preach and teach. They didn't pass out Bibles and say "here, read this - this will be your source of authority".
Well, I guess I would say that Jesus gives scripture authority because he taught from it and quoted from it so often. While being tempted by satan, Jesus only quoted scripture and said nothing else. Even while hanging on the cross, when He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me", He was quoting scripture.
Yes, every book is subject to interpretation and that is why I believe that the Bible should interpret itself. The whole point is that scripture is God's revelation to us. There is prayer and meditation, but scripture is where we get most of our information and teachings about God. When most of us here (on both sides) want to prove something, more often that not we use scripture as the authority. I agree that Jesus sent out men to preach, but it must be that they also used scripture to support their own words, just as Jesus did.
Oh my goodness, I didn't realize the time. I have to play in church in a few hours! I bid you a good night and God bless.
As I have said before, I think Christ was also speaking about deeds of love when He spoke the verse of John 3:16. I think people run into problems when they try to make one cute little formula, execute it once, and then your worries are over, you have your ticket punched, and you go on living your life. I have read the Gospels numerous times, and I, frankly, see God calling us to a full-time discipleship, not a quick and easy formula that we do once and forget about Him. In the John 3 section, I would also like to point out (which many seem not to notice) is a few verses later, Christ says:
"And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God." (John 3:19-21)
Note, Christ links "works done in God" with faith. Again, this matches the entire theme that I see throughout the Scripture - that one must WALK in faith in God. When Christ speaks about obeying the Will of the Father, He ALSO is NOT excluding FAITH. Thus, when Christ speaks about faith, I note that He is also expecting us to walk in that faith. Thus, we are saved by faith AND works of love in Christ.
You have also said that you believe that people like me are also in heaven. On the other stuff, good Christians can disagree. Isn't such the way with eschatology? If there are two pastors on street corners arguing on the key elements of faith, then I would say there is a problem. However, in my experience I really have not seen this in the evangelical Christian community.
I believe that a person who can truly claim to be ignorant about the claims made by the Catholic Church can be in heaven - God will base His judgment on what we know and how we utilize that knowledge. I really cannot say where the line of "knowledge" ends where one can "claim" ignornance. That is between you and God. In today's society, it seems that there is an overemphasis on "tolerance" to the degree that no one stands for truth hardly anymore. "What's your truth is your truth, and what's my truth is my truth". I think we all have been infected with this to some degree. By preaching "over-tolerance", the truth is watered down - the REAL TRUTH, not one's own idea of truth. That is why I think one must pursue the truth and accept it, wherever it leads them. The important thing to remember, though, is that truth is NOT based on our own opinions! Truth is not a popularity contest...I leave you with that to think about.
Take your example of the Talents and add to it the story of the three men who went to work for the same man, started at different times of the day, but were yet paid the same. (I'm sorry I can't remember where it is in the Bible.) When I first read those stories I was really surprised at the answers. After long meditation and some study, I have reckoned with God on His teaching. I presume there are other stories in the Bible which I have not yet reckoned correctly. I figure this is what sanctification is for.
Ah, yes! It doesn't seem fair!!! But really, it tells us that God bases our worth on His own decisions, not on how much we do. It is a tough teaching to reckon with such teachings as "the harvest is ready, but the workers are few". What I like about Catholicism is that it is pretty flexible on such things! Believe it or not, the Church only truly defines like a dozen verses that can be taken only one specific way (most dealing with the sacraments). The rest, the Chruch recognizes several ways of reading the same Scripture. We have a Tradition (teaching) that we have been given, and we read the Scripture through that "lense". Thus, if we have been taught, we will just "KNOW" when a particular interpretation doesn't sound right. For example, our Calvinist friends who believe that there are verses that point to God's irresistible grace. We have been taught that man has free will, and that God does not force us to love Him. Thus, we turn our noses away from Calvin's heretical teachings. They don't "sound" right to our hearts.
Well, I guess I would say that Jesus gives scripture authority because he taught from it and quoted from it so often. While being tempted by satan, Jesus only quoted scripture and said nothing else. Even while hanging on the cross, when He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me", He was quoting scripture.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Bible. It is a truly wonderful tool, PART of the total teaching of the Church from the Apostles. Remember, Jesus taught as "someone with authority". He didn't need to consult Scripture per sec. He actually taught NEW interpretations of Scripture - such as the Sermon on the Mount.... "you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shall not forswear thyself: but thou shalt ..." (Mat 5:33). I would especially like to note Jesus said "YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID! (as opposed to "it is written"). Thus, Jesus is refering back to the teachers, the priests whose job it was to teach the people. Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, but Satan ALSO quoted Scripture! Thus, as we all are painfully aware, people can misuse Scripture. The very first Christians made the complaint that heretics did JUST THAT! Thus, the absolute need for an authoritative interpreter to fall back on WHEN people disagree on the essentials of faith. As far as I can tell, Christ only left one such interpreter, the Church heirarchy.
Yes, every book is subject to interpretation and that is why I believe that the Bible should interpret itself.
Unfortunately, a book cannot interpret itself. I can write one sentence, and you would have no idea what I am emphasizing:
I did not say you stole the money.
What do I mean by that, if you read that?
I didn't say it, Fred did?
I didn't say it, I wrote it?
I didn't say you stole it, I said you borrowed it?
I didn't say you stole money, I said you stole a ring?
And so forth.
Without an authoritative interpreter to say "The first one is correct", we can't know what God intended for us to know about that particular sentence.
scripture is God's revelation to us.
Of course, but we don't believe it is ALL of God's Revelation to us. There is absolutely NO indication of that within Scirptures themselves. The first Christians never write that way. I think where some people get confused regarding tradition is that they think it always means "oral" teaching. Not so! "Tradition" as we understand it means a legitimate Apostolic Teaching that is not in the Scriptures. Perhaps it was written down later. Perhaps it is "done" in the Liturgy, or prayed by the people. I believe it is common sense that there are a number of things that Christians did and believed that didn't make the letters of Paul or John. For example...Do we find an example of what the Christians actually did when the mention "breaking of the bread"? We don't know the words or prayers FROM SCRIPTURE. But from other writings, we can piece together exactly what they did and what it meant to them. This makes sense, because everyday things, we don't write about.
Have you ever taken an English class and had to write a descriptive essay on something we do everyday? Try thinking of what it would take to eat a bowl of cereal. Things we take for granted, we don't normally write about. And the same for early Christian practices. Certain things were taken for granted, and Paul and Peter and John found no need to write about them. But other Christians did. It makes no sense to me why we would exclude things from Christian practice BECAUSE it is not in the Scriptures!
I hope this makes sense.
I agree that Jesus sent out men to preach, but it must be that they also used scripture to support their own words, just as Jesus did.
Perhaps they used the OT to support that Jesus was the Messiah, the suffering servant of God. But the Resurrection? No, that was oral witness and visible power by miracles, by an extraordinary way of life of love. THAT is what converted people (and continues to today), not words in a book. That is useful, but really, it is words in action that converts and brings people to God. When we see people living the life they preach, then we realize it is something special. We want some of that, too. It isn't surprising that pagans (who were so subject to the depressing reality of the belief in fate) would be excited about free will from the creator of the heavens and earth.
Brother in Christ