OK, I think I understand better now, thanks. I would just say that I don't see why God wouldn't have some differences in the gospels such as in your example. God, for His own reasons, took many writers from very different backgrounds and used them. People witness the same events and see them differently. You and I could attend the same baseball game and sit in very different seats. We would both report the same score, but the account of some of the details would be different. Both of us say the complete truth. I don't see why God wouldn't incorporate that into giving the writers the words to say. It's still all true.
So if God says "Do this", you will first have to interpret "what does He really mean"? A literal meaning doesn't require spiritual thought - you follow exactly what is written.
I didn't mean everything in the Bible needs interpretation. When Jesus says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." it is fairly obvious that the next words are a story used for illustration, not to be taken as a literal description of an event that happened. When God says "Do this...", I take that pretty literally.
I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? ... The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message.
Well, if you're talking about those 30 years or so, then sure. Of course it was also a while before there was wide dissemination. How in the world could you convey the Christian message without using what is in the Bible? Do you think you could make an effective witness by skipping the teachings in the Bible? What would you say instead? If you were witnessing to me over the phone and you said "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the only way to God", I would say you are using scriptures even if you paraphrase it.
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church).
I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
The Bible doesn't clearly interpret itself. Look at Acts 8 and the Ethiopian. "Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31).
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man. In disagreement with Catholics, we would say that happens all the time, so we evangelize.
We are talking about Salvation. The Eucharist. Baptism. The role of the Church. These are important issues that we disagree on. Ask yourself - what good is a teacher if He leaves His students confused on what He meant? Was Jesus that poor of a teacher? That no one knew if Jesus was God, or whether Jesus was really present at the Eucharist? I find this as a ridiculous assertion.
I agree that we disagree on important issues. I make no assertion that Jesus was a poor teacher. I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages. I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
As far as I know, these are the pillars of Protestantism (most hold them): The Bible is the sole source of the faith. Man is saved by faith alone. Man is subject to his own private interpretation of Scripture as his ultimate authority.
I would adjust this to say that God is the sole source of faith, the Bible is the authority on earth for us to develop our faith (sanctification). Man is saved by grace through faith, but the faith also comes solely from God. (I admit you will get some Protestant disagreement on this. I think, but am not positive that many Protestants will say that faith comes from man.) We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us. He knows how we learn and at what rate. And, we are capable of getting some things wrong, but such is the nature of learning and sanctification. All credit goes to the Spirit.
In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one?
No, not the holiest one. How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching. If you mean, for example, that some Protestants believe in double predestination and some don't, etc. then you would know by which teaching best matched the entirety of the Bible as the Spirit leads you.
So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? ... God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone?
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone? Besides, are you saying that you do not rely on God. I thought it was a mechanical difference that we had. I thought you believed that the Spirit specially empowers a very few, the Church, to instruct you. Our only difference is that you are throwing the Spirit through an extra filter of fallible men. After all, many Catholics do not follow the teachings of the Church.
How do we KNOW the Holy Spirit is speaking to us? If even the greatest of saints CAN be wrong, what hope do I have that I will become more holy, and thus more "correct" in "knowing" God? Is this not a reliance on yourself?
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God. You can have full hope if you believe that the Spirit Christ gave us is real and will help us. You don't believe the Spirit helps us to the degree we do. We do not rely on ourselves.
FK: "God used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time."
Illogical. Something perfect cannot come from imperfection. This is basic logic. Either God MADE these men to understand infallibly His teachings, or we cannot trust that these men put to paper God's Word.
You have my point backwards. The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand?
I suppose it makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand.
If our American Forefathers knew enough to create a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, the Law of the Land, what makes you think God wasn't smart enough to duplicate that? Did God leave us orphans, not really knowing what His Book meant?
That's what the Holy Spirit is for.
Many Christians have thought that there were two different "Gods" found in these two sections of Scriptures, called Gnostics. What makes you think they are wrong, from Scripture ALONE?
Simple. Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
FK: "The Bible is totally self-contained."
What does that mean?
Just that the Bible contains everything we need to know from God. God will help us to understand that gift through the Spirit. The correct words are already there. We don't need to stretch them out of all possible proportion to arrive at truth ("All" does not mean "All").
People COULD do it. The Old Testament went unwritten for many years. I am quite amazed what the human mind can do when tasked to do something. You realize that the Iliad was completely memorized by bards, retold over and over, for many years, before it was written down. Men CAN spread the Gospel without reading it. As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people. I have given you an example from St. Ireneaus' time on how he praised a community who had NO Bible but were quite orthodox. People into the Medieval period didn't read the Scriptures - they "read" it through stain glass, through traveling artists in skits, through the liturgy (we hear it proclaimed at Mass) or practiced in daily living. This we call Tradition. The living faith of the Church. But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
I agree. Regarding your last sentence, I think you'd have to understand what was happening with the Reformation and the call to read and come up with your own interpretations that led people astray of the Church. I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
I wrote "We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church)."
You responded I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
Not sure I understand that question. The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man.
There was an Old Testament. It follows that the New Testament is also supposed to be read in light of the Church's teachings given to them by the Apostles. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible - the Church encourages it! We just must be careful not to come up with our own interpretations that disagree with what God has already revealed through the Church. God is truth and does not disagree with a past revelation given.
I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages.
Then Jesus' teachings can never be known without doubt...
I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. When an Apostle went to a village, he gave a Body of Teaching that exceeded the entire content of the Scriptures. Scriptures did not explicitly encapsulate all of these teachings, although we can find them implied within. I gave you the example of intercessionary prayers to saints in heaven.
We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us.
That's the rub, brother. If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life. I find my own self interjecting itself, perhaps the devil. Thus, we can not really know if the Spirit is speaking on a particular belief WITHOUT the Church as a point of reference. Without a reference, you are blowing in the wind...
How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW? This is what I mean. And even an honest Calvinist - when addressed with texts that show man's cooperation - what does he think about it then? God didn't leave us in the dark to argue about such matters!
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone?
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God
You mean YOUR idea of God. Again, you are relying on your own human abilities to "hear" the Spirit and determine what God "is" through your own intellect. If it matches what the Church teaches, great. But if it doesn't, well, the Church must be wrong.
I suppose it {writing a book that no one understands} makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand
LOL! Touche! It would take too much time to explain that earlier thought on the Mass concentrated more on what was happening, the sacrifice of Christ being represented, rather than on people participating in that.
The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
The reason why people of the time believed that the compiled Bible WAS the Word of God was because those same people knew that the Church claimed infallibility on such matters. They knew that Christ had established it and was protecting it from error. They had experienced God working through those men previously. Thus, when they said "this is Scripture", they believed it, as we do today.
Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
Because not everyone understood Jesus as the same essence as God. Recall that the Greeks had a different understanding of God, and the demiurge or other lower levels of "gods". The Gnostics could use the message of Christ while still maintaining their concept of multi-level dieties. St. Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" (180 AD) writes quite extensively against these "Christians". It would take too much time to detail it all here. Suffice to say that already during the time of Scripture's writing, there were other people who did not follow the orthodox teachings of the Apostles. Look esp. to the latter books, Jude, 1 John, Colossians, Revelation. They all talk about the battle that orthodox Christianity was already involved in.
Bible contains everything we need to know from God
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense. I have previously posted from men of 100-200 AD who noted that heterodox men "confiscated" Scriptures to back up their own fancies, such as Gnosticism or Arianism. Without the correct "lense" to read Scripture through, you won't come to the same conclusions and understandings then in the sense that it was written. All I need to say is "Eucharist".
Regards