I agree with you here. :)
If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states.
I would say that if God loves some, He brings some home. From the human perspective, the elect experience God's love and make a "free" choice. To the elect, they "choose" God. But from God's perspective it was a sealed deal from the beginning. From our perspective, God chose us first for real, then the elect "chose" Him in their experience.
Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter?
Yes, I actually do remember it, and that was a long time ago! :) The mother obviously did not need the daughter but let her participate out of love. The daughter experienced that she was a help, but it wasn't real. The daughter may have smeared some dough on the sheet, but she certainly did not run the oven. All the important tasks were completed by the mother, and the mother was in 100% control at all times. The daughter had the very nice experience of appearing to help her mother, but it wasn't real. The mother gave the daughter this experience out of love, and God does the same for us.
FK: "I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children."
So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!!
This goes right back to the cookies. I was obviously "there" and God let me have the experience of apparent helping (Thank you God! :) but it is God who gets all the credit for the creation of my children, just like the mother really gets all the credit for the making of the cookies.
If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.
I suppose this is our disagreement. I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future. I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means. This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.
Given these contortions and stretches, no one could read the Bible and have any real idea what is going on. Now I don't blame the Church for discouraging its reading. The layman wouldn't have a chance. This makes God the most cryptic writer in history. The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.
FK: "How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?"
By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands.
OK. We also having laying on of hands. One example I have witnessed is at the ceremony to ordain a new deacon. I suppose we would just define it differently. :)
Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. ... I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.
No, I think you are doing a great job of explaining, and I appreciate it. :) I suppose we would say that God clears the acre for us because we have no tools.
Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing.
I do not understand this. Is free will not used to sin?
When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostolic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!
But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture. I don't see that anywhere. Extra-Biblical teachings are fine if they match what the Bible says. Teachings that take the Bible and reverse its meaning 180 degrees on some verses are not fine. I don't see how God could approve of this as an alternate way to Him.
NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions[.]
But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible, then how can the Bible be the word of God? I know you'll say that tradition does not contradict the Bible and then it goes back to my argument that, therefore, God is the most cryptic author of all time. You would then have to say that the Bible really wasn't written for all men. It was only written to a selected few in the Catholic hierarchy. This I cannot accept.
IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well.
This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.
You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.
I don't know what Luther said about it, and I am not bound by him. Luther was a fallible man, just like any Pope. I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.
It wasn't real??? That is very interesting... So God allows us to participate in His work, but not really? Do you realize what you are saying? That God's love is phony. Sure, the daughter wasn't needed. But you miss the point. When we are allowed to participate, it IS real. What exactly is the problem with God being magnanimous, allowing us to REALLY do things?
And your wife "really" didn't give birth??? God created us as operative beings. We are given the ability to biologically reproduce. We are independent agents, with God's blessings. We are secondary causes, by God's will.
I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future.
I didn't say it was, I said that is how a person SHOULD initially approach it. We should not presume that it is anything more than that until we "test the spirit".
I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means.
God gave a group of men His teachings, not everyone. God continues to guide a group of men. These men are guided by God, not their own abilities. They are important in times when men inevitably disagree.
This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.
Let's be frank. How do YOU KNOW what is the "original" meaning of the Scriptures? You are reading a 2000 year old book written in another language that utilizes nuances we do not know of today. Tell me how the first Christians, who HEARD the apostles, got so confused that every single one of them suddenly, all together, started to take John 6 to mean literal flesh??? I think you need to think about this a bit and what you are saying.
The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.
You are misunderstanding the role of the heirarchy. It is critical that we put aside our pride and humbly submit to Mother Church in times of disagreement. The Church doesn't say we can't read Scriptures. But to get the meaning that God intended, we are to follow her lead and the lead of those who have gone before us. The Church is the arbitrator of disagreements. Thus, when an Arius comes up, a Marcion, a Luther, we, the laity, can KNOW which one is correct. We don't have to agonize and depend on our own limited resources and knowledge, but we can turn to the Church to explain WHY the heretic is wrong. Otherwise, brother, you are relying totally on your own personal knowledge and abilities to determine God's Will and Word - and you have already agreed that man is quite incapable of doing that alone, since we are depraved (according to you).
Is free will not used to sin?
Yes, but freedom is not the ability to sin, but the ability to choose our destiny with the Lord.
But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture
Not at all! The Apostles were given a body of teachings by God Himself. Thus, whether it was written down in what we now call Scriptures, or given by oral teachings and only later written down by some of the Fathers (such as Infant Baptism), it still has the same source - and cannot contradict. Apostolic Tradition + Scripture = Revelation from God. They cannot disagree, if you believe God is Truth. I still don't understand what contradictions (180 degrees different?) you see within Apostolic Tradition to keep bringing this up.
But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible
I think we should address those.
This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.
That's begging the question, or a circular argument. You can't begin a premise "this book is from God", and then point to a word within it and say "this proves it - the verse here claims that it is God's Word". First of all, the Scriptures were not written as one book, but as individual letters. Secondly, ANYONE can write a book and put within it "Thus says God". Does that prove it is really the Word of God?
I am sorry, but the Bible is not self-authenticating. We don't even know who wrote large portions of the NT. How do we know it is not forgeries? No, we rely on those first witnesses, empowered by God. By their life, we know they were honest and really witnesses Christ's glorious Body and His divine teachings. Those who heard their teachings and witnessed their life testified to them, and so forth. Thus, we know that the Scripture is from God.
I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.
And if you were raised in Iran, you'd say the same thing about the Koran. So how does an unbiased person know who is correct?
Regards