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
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?
God's love is not phony. :) God's real love for us lets us experience participation, so for us, it seems real. In terms of credit, though, it isn't real, all credit goes to God. The problem with God allowing us to REALLY do things on our own is that it would lead to our doom. God loves us too much, for REAL, to allow that to happen. This is like the mother not allowing the daughter to take the hot cookie sheet out of the oven.
The Church doesn't say we can't read Scriptures. But to get the meaning that God intended, we are to follow her [Church's] lead and the lead of those who have gone before us.
Oh, I know you have said that you are encouraged to read scripture within the lens of the Church. I was talking about seekers. A seeker wouldn't have a chance of correct interpretation within that lens if he doesn't know it. Therefore, I was suggesting that your approach to seekers would have to be to teach the Church's teachings first, and the Bible would have to wait until later.
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).
I suppose we will always disagree on whether the Spirit living within me will ever condescend to give me the time of day. :) I believe in original sin, so I believe we are born depraved.
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.
I think I was talking about what are apparent contradictions by any plain reading of the text of scripture, such as a sinless Mary ("all" doesn't mean "all"), Mary as a perpetual virgin thus Jesus had no siblings, and priests forgiving sin. I know we have already discussed all of these. Here you say that tradition must agree with scripture, therefore they are equal in authority. (Maybe I did not earlier put together that the legs of the stool were of equal strength. :)
So, if they must agree then the interpretation of the Bible must be made to agree with the writings of the Fathers. This eliminates any sense of the Bible being a readable book outside of the contortions necessary to match the Fathers.
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.
Well, on a previous post I gave a list of reasons we can know the Bible is authentic without the say so of the Fathers. We're just going to have to disagree. If you believe that "anyone" could come up with a book like the Bible, then I don't know what to say. I don't believe anyone could.
FK: "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?
The unbiased person looks at the claims of each book and who wrote it. The tomb of the author of the Koran is full of mouldering bones. The tomb of the author of the Bible is empty. The books are completely different in claim and scope. God brought me to the Bible, not the Koran. Besides, I obviously did come to the conclusion that the Bible is real without any help or knowledge of the Fathers or any Catholic tradition. Was I just lucky? :)