That's what I don't understand. How can someone with sufficient knowledge choose hell over heaven? If everyone got a 5-minute "sneak-peek" of both places, THAT would be sufficient. There are many other examples that would also be sufficient, but the way it is now doesn't really seem sufficient for the lost.
What??? Paul NEVER says that we are saved by faith alone. What are you talking about? Paul's Gospel is consistent. He never holds faith in contradistinction against love, like Luther did. If anyone holds to very different theologies, it is the Sola Fide group.
Hey Paul, now how is it we are saved?:
Eph. 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (emphasis added)
Where does Paul mention man-generated love, man-generated good deeds, or man-generated anything?
What is ironic is that you ALSO accept the claim of these same men – such as that they have given us God’s Word unadulterated. What proof do you have besides their word?
I suppose part of it is faith and part is necessity. Even with all of our differences, you and I and every other bona fide Christian has come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Even if we disagree on the exact path, we both had faith to get there. In addition, to me the alternative wipes out Christianity. I realize that the early Christians did not have the NT, but if both the OT and the NT never existed, and everything was always oral, I don't see how any faith could be maintained correctly throughout the centuries.
YOU look at it through the lenses of man being totally corrupt and being unable to do ANYTHING good, even WITH Christ. You look at Scripture through the notion that God does everything and we do nothing.
I'll give you the part about being totally corrupt at birth, but when have I ever said that we can do no good, even WITH Christ? All the good that we do is with Christ. Yes, I give Him the credit, and I physically do the thing. I participate.
Psalms make it clear that men DO come to God. Thus, you would have Scripture contradicting itself. Go ahead. Read Psalm 119. And then read Romans 3 (or the Psalms that Paul is quoting, such as Psalm 15. Are you ready to say that the Word of God is contradicting itself, or does PAUL mean something else than what YOU claim?
I am ready to say neither. Where is the contradiction? I read Psalms 15 and 119 and saw no contradiction to my interpretation of Rom. 3:23. I also checked and noted that none, zero of the reference verses throughout either Psalm ever mention anything in Rom. 3. There were hundreds of verses, none in Rom. 3. I also notes that there were no reference verses in Rom. 3 that went back to Psalm 15. The plain meaning does not contradict, only through your lens is it even arguable.
Isn't it true that the only reason you have to change Paul's words is to save Mary? I still can't get over that the true meaning of the verse is that all lost people sin. Who didn't know that?
Perhaps you still disagree with this interpretation. But can you show it to be false? That is a problem I run into with Protestants.
Sure I can, but it would never be to your satisfaction. Imagine if there were somehow a lawsuit about this. The 12 jurors were all neither Catholic, nor Protestant. They were all religiously neutral. I would feel more than confident arguing my side.
2 Peter 3:15b-16
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "warning". Here is my version:
2 Pet. 3:15b-16 : ... just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
I don't think Peter is saying anything against Paul here, which is what I thought you meant. I agree with Peter that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. Thank God we have the Spirit to guide us.
However, you seem to forget that the Scripture was PART of the Tradition given by the Apostles. Thus, the Scripture did not "form" the Tradition. Apostolic teachings were given in both forms.
Unfortunately, it is very easy to forget that the two have anything to do with each other, given the interpretations I have heard from many. I would submit that no honest and unbiased reader of the Bible, no matter how smart or wise, could possibly read the Bible and come away with a consistently Catholic theology. The words just don't match the tradition. If they did match, then you wouldn't need much of a lens. Our lens is the Bible itself, not extra-Biblical teaching. Thus we say that the Bible interprets itself.
Scripture was a PART of this revelation given to us by the Apostles. They did not set out to write a systematic theology book. They were writing letters to communities that had requested pastoral help.
I suppose the Church gave you what God's intentions were about the Bible? Did God tell the Church this and no one else? I suppose so since God only talks to the Catholic Church.
Thus, when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.
How can you say just before this that the Bible is God's word, and then talk about the intent of the writers? Which is it? If the writers have any of their own intent, then the Bible cannot be God's word, it is a collaboration between God and each author, at best. Besides, if you open the Bible up to man's intent then you subjugate it to error. ... I understand why you say that the Bible was never intended to be interpreted outside of the Church. If your theology is right, no one would have a prayer of finding it in the Bible without that interpretation. :)
FK, you are in denial that the OT existed in oral form for at least 1,600 years before it was reduced to writing (around 500 BC). If what you say is what you believe, then how can you believe OT is a correct reflection of what was revealed to its authors and thereon passed by word of mouth for at least sixteen centuries?
In comparison, the NT oral tradition was less than 50 years in duration before the Gospels and Epistles began to appear.
OK. Thanks for pointing out your understanding. When we speak of "sufficient knowledge", we aren't talking about knowledge of the Creed or knowledge of Jesus Christ or heaven and hell. The Amazonian in the jungle will not have that information. Yet, Paul in Romans 1 said NO ONE will be excused! Thus, EVERYONE has knowledge that God created the world through a man's view of nature. We have all been imprinted with Natural Law. I KNOW when something is offensive to me - and if I choose to do it to another person, I will have offended God. When I break the "Golden Rule", I am certainly sinning, as this is against Love - the culmination of the Commandments. And Christ is clear that ANYONE who loves has Christ abiding within them - EVEN IF they are unaware of Jesus Christ's suffering and death on the cross. Do you really think that God will condemn people of good will to hell who never had a chance to know God like we do? Not exactly a just idea.
Eph. 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (emphasis added)
Ephesians 2 (nor Romans 3:28) does NOT require the word "alone". Paul is merely making the statement that works of the law are not part of the salvation formula. Language does NOT require that ALL things are discounted when one thing is discounted!!! Is Paul excluding works of love? Is Paul excluding works of repentance? Hardly. He is excluding works of the law ONLY. Thus, the word "alone" is a terrible mistake and a huge cause of error among my separated brothers. Also, read the very next verse - Eph 2:10. Paul does NOT exclude walking in faith. We are created to do good works! Amazing...
Where does Paul mention man-generated love, man-generated good deeds, or man-generated anything?
Where do I mention that? See what I mean? It's either God alone or man alone with you.
Even with all of our differences, you and I and every other bona fide Christian has come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Even if we disagree on the exact path, we both had faith to get there. In addition, to me the alternative wipes out Christianity.
Of course. I didn't presume that the Bible was the Word of God. Converging evidence and the Church has given me ample evidence to fully trust this claim.
I'll give you the part about being totally corrupt at birth, but when have I ever said that we can do no good, even WITH Christ? All the good that we do is with Christ. Yes, I give Him the credit, and I physically do the thing. I participate.
The Scripture tells us over and over again that we will be judged based on our deeds. We understand, simultaneously, that we can do NOTHING WITHOUT God. Thus, when we are judged, we will be judged based on our utilization of the gifts that God has given us. We are merely giving back what God gave us to begin with - see Mat 25 and the Parable of the Talents, for example. With this in mind, it is perfectly feasible to say WE are being judged, correct? At the same time, we cannot claim it is only from us - thus, we cannot boast. We don't hold the either/or on this subject, but "both". God and us are doing something, even if our "something" is based totally on God's gifts.
I am ready to say neither. Where is the contradiction? I read Psalms 15 and 119 and saw no contradiction to my interpretation of Rom. 3:23. I also checked and noted that none, zero of the reference verses throughout either Psalm ever mention anything in Rom. 3. There were hundreds of verses, none in Rom. 3. I also notes that there were no reference verses in Rom. 3 that went back to Psalm 15. The plain meaning does not contradict, only through your lens is it even arguable
I profusely apologize. I meant Psalm 14/Romans 3 vs. Psalm 119. I was giving you that info from memory - which is not as good as it once was, apparently.
I agree with Peter that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. Thank God we have the Spirit to guide us.
Which Spirit is leading you and which is leading me, if we disagree? That's the dilemna in Protestantism. Both of us can sincerley and honestly claim the Spirit is leading us - and both or either one of us can be wrong! Plainly, the Spirit guides us in other things than full understanding of every text in Scriptures. The simple fact is that the Spirit does NOT lead us in opposite directions. With that said, how can you identify which one is correct when the "Spirit" leads us both? Thus, Christ established a visible leadership with authority.
I would submit that no honest and unbiased reader of the Bible, no matter how smart or wise, could possibly read the Bible and come away with a consistently Catholic theology.
Are you questioning my integrity? Do you think I get a "cut" for bringing people into the faith? What motive do I have for talking to you? You don't think that I believe that I have been given the truth?
Our lens is the Bible itself, not extra-Biblical teaching. Thus we say that the Bible interprets itself.
It is sad that you don't see the contradiction in your statement!!! Where does the Bible make that claim??? NOWHERE. Thus, you believe in an extra-Biblical teaching, invented by Martin Luther and passed down by tradition to you! Don't you realize you are being a hypocrite with your "holier than thou" attitude, that you are some sort of purified, back-to-the-basics Christian? As if the Christian religion was EVER Bible "alone" before the 1500's... Yours is a man-made religion through and through. It didn't exist for 1500 years after Christ. Are you saying it took mankind 1500 years to receive the "true" Gospel??!!
I suppose the Church gave you what God's intentions were about the Bible? Did God tell the Church this and no one else? I suppose so since God only talks to the Catholic Church.
Who else have we received teachings from then other than the Apostles? Did the Apostles receive teachings from God or not? That is the question. Since Christ established the Church community on ONE group of men, the Apostles, there are not many different teachings. There is no other Bible or authoritative visible Church leadership that Christ formed. Does God talk only to the Catholic Church? No. I told you that God writes on the hearts of all men His divine Natural Law. Unfortunately, our intellect is clouded by sin - we need the guidance of the Decalogue and the Scriptures and the Living Church to help form our conscience - which helps us to judge what is right and wrong.
How can you say just before this that the Bible is God's word, and then talk about the intent of the writers?
The Bible is God's Word written by human writers in human language. Each author was inspired in a different way to write what God desired to write. Sometimes, what God says to His people through the Scriptures is not crystal clear. Thus, proper interpretation is needed by the Community.
If the writers have any of their own intent, then the Bible cannot be God's word, it is a collaboration between God and each author, at best.
I disagree. God works through each and every one of us EVERY DAY! We go about our business, perhaps not thinking about God's ultimate plan or how He interacts with us to fulfill His will. However, we are making free will choices that He has "foreseen". Thus, Paul has his intent on correcting lapsing Christians in Corinth, while God has deeper intentions as Paul writes his reply to the Corinthians. God doesn't have Paul on a set of strings with angels commanding him what to write! The later Church recognize that God is speaking through Paul when he addresses the Corinthians. Thus, this later community recognizes Scripture - God's inspiration.
Besides, if you open the Bible up to man's intent then you subjugate it to error.
Why? Why is it either/or? Why can't God work through men infallibly to produce Scripture?
If your theology is right, no one would have a prayer of finding it in the Bible without that interpretation. :)
Thanks...That's why we defeated the Gnostics, who believed in secret teachings, while the Catholic teaching was open and available to all men taught by the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. I am sorry that I am not able to explain Catholic teachings in a manner that is more pleasing to you. But like I said before, it is God that opens one to conversion. I can only plant the seed. He waters it.
Regards