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
I don't see how the scriptures provide for salvation through Natural Law, good will, and good deeds. I didn't realize before that you were not saying that God graces His elect to come to Him. You were saying that everyone is graced sufficiently from birth. So if we are born with everything we need, then what would we need God for during our lives in terms of salvation?
Ephesians 2 [8,9] (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.
I don't agree, but even if I did take your interpretation, I am already on the record as saying that a true faith includes love and perseverance. I don't believe there is any such thing as a true faith (vs. a claimed or blind faith) that is loveless.
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.
I think we disagree on the nature of this judgment. My guess is that you think it is for salvation, and I would say that it is for rewards in Heaven. Is that right? If our deeds earn us our salvation, then that obliterates much of scripture. Of course I also see "deeds" and "works" as the same thing. I find no scripture that distinguishes that works are only works for pay. I have never heard of a belief that one doing his job for money is a way to salvation. If no one believed that, then why does the Bible specifically deny it? OTOH, it was widely believed that by doing deeds or unpaid works in the Law, that one could be saved. That would be worthy of refutation.
I meant Psalm 14/Romans 3 vs. Psalm 119.
OK, I checked and there is a clear correlation between 14 and Rom. 3: 10-12. No problem.
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 agree the Spirit does other things for us, such as prayer. ... On your question, and just for myself, I think it is a matter of sanctification. The closer I grow to Christ, the less I misinterpret the Spirit's teachings. I thought that from your side, all scriptural teachings from the Spirit go through the Church, and then they inform you. One problem I have with that is that fallible men, no matter how much they are blessed, still misinterpret and sin.
Moses may be a good example. He was certainly especially blessed and yet he really blew it before reaching the promised land. He had a specific instruction from God that should not have been subject to misinterpretation. Yet, he struck the rock instead of speaking to it. Why? Was it misinterpretation or willful disobedience? I honestly don't know, but regardless he blew something that should have been simple. I see the Church as being subject, if even unintentionally, to the same thing. Such is the nature of fallible men. And, I don't think that multiplying the possibility of error solves anything. I don't think that a popular idea among fallible men makes it right.
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?
No, I'm not questioning your integrity or your beliefs. I am saying that no one could come to the Catholic conclusion by only reading the Bible AND WITHOUT tradition to interpret it. Without tradition, no fair reading of the Bible would yield Catholic "results" (on many important issues). With a tradition to put the scripture under a (highly corrective) lens, of course since this has been worked on for some time, a person could see a consistent theology. Many obviously do.
Who else have we received teachings from then other than the Apostles?
I would say only God, through every other scribe of the Bible. But you would have to include Church Fathers, Councils, Popes, and maybe others.
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.
If we assume that God did not desire to have error placed in the Bible, what do you say to some on this thread who argue there is error in the OT?
... 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!
...
FK: "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?
Man's intent is always subject to corruption because we are fallible and still retain the remnant of sin even after salvation. If God overrode that in order to work infallibly, as I believe, then how free was Paul's will? I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect. I believe that what is in the Bible is exactly what God wanted, and that He took no chances on Paul sneaking in his own intention. Even when you say that God foresaw, either He is the luckiest God of all time to have everything work out as He wanted, OR, He ordained and caused it to be so, OR, He saw what man came up with and said OK.