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.
It is a mystery to me, one that is not fully explainable by us. Even the Church doesn't make a definition on this interaction between grace and free will. Certainly, God uses our actions to build us up. Would man learn the virtue of fortitude if everything went our way without struggle? But I don't believe that God leads His elect to sin, thus, I think we should take into account our own responsibility. My point is that I DO cooperate.
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.
To be honest, EVERYONE receives God's teachings through "middleman", if you will. Do you believe that the Christian Scriptures are similar to the Koran, where the angel Gabriel brought them to Mohemmed (which is why Islam can NEVER reform. There is no intermediary of the "word". God's "word" about having 4 wives and killing infidels, thus, can never change...) We, as Christians, understand that God's Word came to us through other men. The Gospel of Mark came to us through Mark. We have the notion that we have God's Word AND man's interpretation or theology behind it. Thus, as history shows, Christianity is much more pliable with the "Word". Slavery. Usury. Taking oaths. We hold different views today. That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.
In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.
You rely on God and the Church, I rely on God and the Bible.
I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible. However, I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible. St. Ireneaus wrote in 180 AD about people who held to the faith ENTIRELY WITHOUT the Scriptures. We see this even today in the third world, where people can't read. Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer. We hear the Word through preaching. Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be. Very few Christians owned Bibles before 1500, not because of Luther, but because of lack of literacy and expense of hand-copying the book. Yet, the faith continued on through the teachings of the Church.
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.
I have already addressed this partially above. It would be more accurate to say "one side teaches, using a book and using other means" and "one side teaches ONLY from a book". The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith. The Church never makes that claim either. Rather, the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. From the CHURCH came the writings of the Apostles. It was only later on did Christians realize these writings were inspired by God - ONLY because they were totally in-line with what they had been taught, both oral and in written form (2 Thes 2:14). The chronological and theological precedent was set by the teaching and preaching Church, not a book. Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
The Bible gives us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know
The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther). The Scriptures are not a systematic Catechism, but a compilation of letters and narratives. THEY ALONE do not give us everything we need to know. Although they describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize? There are many practical issues that the Scripture ASSUMES people already know. Remember, Christian evangelists FIRST went to communities and taught by oral word and practice. They didn't pass out tracts and leave the next day. The Scriptures note that Paul stayed at some of his communities, such as Ephesus and Corinth, for a number of months. I seriously doubt they practiced NT Bible study!
Yes, because it wasn't written yet. (Scripture) 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.
God's intent, as you have pointed out, is what happens. Thus, no Scripture, no intent. Yes, Scripture is God-breathed. We base our belief on it and the teachings of the Church, which form ONE body of teaching. Who first taught? Apostles. Who wrote Scriptures? Apostles. Thus, the two should match and not contradict. If we believe that God is protecting His Church, as He promised, we can believe that solemn pronouncements ARE indeed protected, since Christ said He would protect His CHURCH from the Gates of Hell. If we believe in Christ and trust in Him, it is not a big step to trust that the Church is executing God's will when it defines doctrine to be believed by the faithful.
Regards