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.
I would link them also. Before faith, our works are evil. After salvation, our good works count as good. I suppose I just see those works as a natural fruit of salvation, as opposed to a choice in the sense we have been discussing. If after salvation, I noticed that I was still doing the evil I did before, then I think I'd be in big trouble. The replaced nature will produce change in every case.
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.
Amen to that, brother! I don't know if it is his line, but my pastor always says "tolerance is knowing what is intolerable". I like that. I suppose the issue, then, is where do we get the truth. I would say that it comes from the Spirit. I'm guessing you would say it comes from the Spirit to the Church, and then to you through the "lenses" that you speak of later. In any event, I agree that the truth does not come from my own opinions in my human capacity. There have been several truths in the Bible that did not make sense to me when I first heard them, but I later accepted. Hopefully that is a good sign. :)
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 Church 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 "lens".
I didn't know that. So, two people could use the same lens when reading a verse and come to different results within the lens. But this must be distinguished from what is outside the lens, thus, neither person could reach such a conclusion. Is that close enough? :)
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 hierarchy.
I certainly agree that scripture can be misused, as satan did misuse it. I am one of those who believes that the Bible interprets itself. So if I suspect someone is misinterpreting, then I SHOULD be able to point to other scripture to back up my claim. I would say that Christ left a part of Himself in scripture for us to use as an interpreter. Christ even openly interprets Himself in some verses.
Unfortunately, a book cannot interpret itself. I can write one sentence, and you would have no idea what I am emphasizing ...
If all I had was the one statement, you'd be right. If I had many other of your statements, showing how you use language, along with a detailed view of your nature, then I think it would be possible to arrive at a correct interpretation.
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. ... 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 agree with you. And, if we needed any of those things, I suppose God would have included them in the Bible. So, I would say that any teaching or tradition is presumably fine as long as it is firmly consistent with the Bible, or at the very least, non-offensive to scripture. I have no problem with Christians worshiping in different ways, as long as the true God is the center. If a cult started ordaining openly gay Bishops, then I would question whether they are worshiping the true God. :)
That [the Bible] is useful, but really, it is words in action that converts and brings people to God.
Men do the converting?
God bless.
The fact that we sin PERIOD after our 'salvation' tells us that man's "fleshy" nature has not been completely turned to God. Yes, our works are a fruit of our salvation, but not irresistibly so. In some mysterious manner, God and man begin to cooperate after the 'salvation' event. Thus, man is somehow involved in "working out his salvation". If it was ALL God without any cooperation from me, then I would never sin - my will would not interfere anymore with the Will of God. I can tell you that this is not the case with me!
I agree that the truth does not come from my own opinions in my human capacity. There have been several truths in the Bible that did not make sense to me when I first heard them, but I later accepted. Hopefully that is a good sign. :)
At some point, we all have to determine if we have had truth given to us. We must accept that truth given by another. If it comes from "within", we really have to wonder if it is objective truth or not. There seems to be a fine line on what is truth and what is not. That is why I rely on another source - which I believe is guided by God - rather than from myself.
So, two people could use the same lens when reading a verse and come to different results within the lens. But this must be distinguished from what is outside the lens, thus, neither person could reach such a conclusion. Is that close enough? :)
I have read different Church Fathers read the same passage in different meanings and interpretations. None of them were outside the realm of what the Church teaches, but God's Spirit was working within them to see a different truth expressed by the same verses. Some read the verses in a literal sense, some a analogical sense, others seeing a moral sense to the same verse. Often times, a verse has multiple layers of meaning. Remember, Catholics believe they have been given a Divine teaching through the Apostles. Some of it was written down in Scripture, some was not. The parts NOT written down includes interpretation of those same Scripture. For example, when we read about verses that seem to make Christ subordinate to God, we don't change our view that Christ IS God - of the same substance - because that is what we were taught. Thus, supposed contradictions on the surface are explained through the total teachings given to us.
If all I had was the one statement, you'd be right. If I had many other of your statements, showing how you use language, along with a detailed view of your nature, then I think it would be possible to arrive at a correct interpretation.
Our respective religious communities' continued separation should be enough proof to show that men do not come to the same ideas about God by merely reading a book. What is needed is a living, teaching authority that protects the SENSE of what the Book was meant to teach. Consider our own nation's Constitution. The Founding Fathers felt that it could not be protected on its own merits, so they instituted a living body to protect its meaning - the Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret the Constitution's meaning and apply it to today's problems. They haven't done a wonderful job, frankly. But it isn't guided by the Holy Spirit, which is what Christ promised His Church.
And, if we needed any of those things, I suppose God would have included them in the Bible.
Why? If the future Scriptures were meant to be so determinative for future Christians, why didn't Christ (God) commission the Apostles to write new Scripture? Why didn't Christ give the Apostles a Divine Book that would serve to help them teach the faith? The History of Christian expansion, especially the first 50 years, was almost strictly WITHOUT the New Testament. Remember, Christ commissioned a body of men to teach and preach what He taught - promising them that the Holy Spirit would protect them from falsely teaching His doctrine. He never mentions ANYTHING about a future Scripture, or to even WRITE a Scripture for Christians to follow.
So, I would say that any teaching or tradition is presumably fine as long as it is firmly consistent with the Bible, or at the very least, non-offensive to scripture
That is true, considering that BOTH Tradition and Scripture are from God. It would follow that the two would not disagree, since God is not the Author of lies.
If a cult started ordaining openly gay Bishops, then I would question whether they are worshiping the true God. :)
I agree, but to be honest, WHO makes the decision when a "group" has "crossed the line" of what is considered Christian? I think that is a slippery slope, one subject to the individual's opinion. Personally, I find obedience to the Church in line with God's means of bringing His people to Him as seen throughout the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. In either case, men don't come to God without that authoritative heirarchy, whether it be the Jewish religious leaders, or the Christian religious leaders.
Men do the converting?
God normally works THROUGH the actions of men. God did not appear to me in glorious bodily form. He first called to me of late through a Protestant couple down the street from us. We are moved by the witness of others who follow the Gospel, not just talk it.
Regards