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
Hmmm. This could be interesting. :) I suppose I see the writings in the Bible in the sense that God was the source subject and final editor. The writers were really ghost writers, not truly authors. Of course we see individual writing styles, distinct personalities, and appropriately targeted audiences in the writings. But, every jot and tittle of the finished product was produced by God.
For this reason, I see the Bible as inerrant, and not subject to the personal interpretation of any of the physical writers. In your example, do you believe that Mark's personal interpretation of God's truth is found in his book? I know that you'll agree that there was inspiration, but do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and independent of man's "translation" through the physical writing by the "authors"?
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.
I would say that the scriptures themselves already provide for that. Jesus Himself taught that common sense could be used:
Matt. 12:9-12 : "9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
So, due only to scripture, and not through man's extra-biblical interpretation, we know that, say, police and medical personnel can do "works" on the Sabbath, and not violate a Commandment.
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.
Very true. My test is always whether the teaching holds water against the Bible. I hold my own pastor very strictly to this test. If he ever said anything I didn't think matched scripture according to my own understanding, I would ask him about it. He would either be able to back up his teaching with the Bible or I would not accept his teaching. I would even test his own interpretation against all of his other interpretations for consistency.
I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible.
I really didn't mean to imply that. I know the Bible is important to you. My angle was from the point of authority. I meant to posit that if there was a point on which your "gut" and the Church teaching disagreed, that you would accept the teaching of the Church. I have interpreted that for you, Church declaration trumps what might make the most sense to you. (Maybe this has never happened?)
... 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.
Well, yes, but what they were teaching is what is now in the Bible, for the most part. I have nothing against oral witnessing at all. God intended that we do it. My point is that the things in the Bible, whether read off a page today, or communicated orally back then or to the illiterate today, are the authority. Jesus showed me what He thought of scripture during the temptation in the desert. He did not utter a single original word. He only quoted scripture. I see a teaching from Jesus in that.
Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer.
??? Could you please elaborate on this? I don't know of anyone who thinks that you can just throw a Bible at someone, leave, and then expect results. That's why missionaries stay in the community for long periods of time.
Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be.
I would say that it isn't necessary for salvation, for the essence of the gospel message is understandable even to a child. But, I would say that it is absolutely necessary to everyone for the process of sanctification. To love God more is to know Him better. If no scripture is available this "can" be done through men, as long as the teachings are correct by God's standards. If scripture is available then I would commend every Christian to read them, meditate on them, and ask questions of those who know the truth. The purpose is to increase our love for God.
The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith.
Perhaps not directly, because it did not exist until it did. None of the writers could have known which other writers and teachings would be in the finished product, the Bible. However, I think there is a case that the Bible asserts its own authority. Here is a short passage from A.A. Hodge on the authority of scripture:
"What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.
------------------------
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.
What was Jesus supposed to do? Zap a book into existence, throw it into the sand and tell them "Have at it"? At the time when Jesus ascended, much of the NT had not happened yet, so how could there be a book? You might be supporting your point on the losing end of a logistics argument here.
Protestants do leave out extra-biblical teachings as AUTHORITY in and of themselves.
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).
I agree that the Bible doesn't explain everything.
John 21:24-25 : "24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Catholics look to Church hierarchy to fill in the holes. We look to see what is consistent with the Bible. On infant baptism, I know many Protestant churches still practice it today. As a Southern Baptist, I had no problem having both my (then) infant children baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no big deal. I just knew that it didn't mean much because Jesus clearly laid out the order, first belief, then baptism.
Although they [scriptures] describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize?
Perhaps by not laying out specific instructions, God is telling us that the form is not so important, but rather the faith.