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
Well, I agree in full with the first part. I would disagree that if it was all God, that I would never sin. That "sin happens" is part of God's plan. Judas was part of God's plan. There must be a million examples of God using the sin of both believers and unbelievers for His own purposes. So, when I sin, it is certainly to my own complete shame and God doesn't "approve". But, God wastes nothing and my sin can be used by God to serve another purpose, or even bringing me later closer to Him.
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.
I agree with you that the source of truth does not come from me, but rather from the Spirit. It seems to me that our approaches are not completely different. Without meaning offense, I see the Catholic approach to getting truth as just including a "middleman". Ours doesn't, but we do use other teachings if we find them consistent with scripture. We just aren't bound by the view of another.
We would both agree that each of us is capable of botching our interpretation of a verse or another interpretation of the verse. Even with an explanation, we can still arrive at a wrong conclusion. Church Fathers have made mistakes. For that reason, I just see there being more danger in putting other, fallible humans in between me and God for authority. You rely on God and the Church, I rely on God and the Bible.
-------------------------
Thanks for putting a lens on the "lens" idea. :)
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.
Not to be flippant, but one side reads the book, and the other side reads the book and adds other stuff. The difference is whether it is OK to add other stuff.
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.
As I was reading this, I thought you were heading off a cliff, but you made a nice save. :) I agree that the SCOTUS has made some terrible decisions over time, and that's what worries me so much about putting faith and authority in other men, about God. I suppose it comes down to whether the hierarchy really does have a special power of insight, wisdom, faith, and authority (passed down to hierarchy of future generations using man's will in cooperation) that us regular folks do not have.
Me: "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?
You know I'm not going there! :) God doesn't need this sorry sinner to give Him advice. My comment was only based on the old platitude: "The Bible gives us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know."
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.
Yes, because it wasn't written yet. :) I don't think we can know (or, I don't know) whether Jesus said anything about a future scripture. But, if we believe that scripture was God-breathed, then it must have been the intent of God that it be written. And so it was.
Me: "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?
Ultimately, it must be God. And, if I see any church openly condoning or promoting obvious sin, then that's all I need to know for myself. God will sort it out in the end.