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.
We are given sufficient grace in our lives, but the majority of people will not respond positively to this without the teachings of the Gospels or continued graces given by God. We need God in our lives constantly - and this is powerfully seen in the life of a Christian who is walking in the Spirit - as compared to the typical person outside of the Church (a non-Baptized person). "No one has an excuse", Paul says. He does mention that Gentiles can be considered "spiritually circumcised". Jesus Himself also talks about the judgment of the nations (which naturally would include Gentiles) in His parable on the sheep and the goats. THEIR judgment is based on deeds of love - which is an expression of that faith within them.
I don't agree (that the word "alone" is not required in Rom 3:28)
Which rule of English language requires the word "alone" to qualify an idea when only one thing is excluded from a statement? Again, you are reading what is not there for the sake of your theology.
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?
We've discussed this before. EVERY parable that Jesus speaks of regarding the Kingdom of Heaven talks about rewards to heaven OR damnation to exclusion of heaven. There is no "runner's up" or "second place" in judgment. Again, does Jesus mention this in His parables of the sheep and the goats? Or any other parable? Paul doesn't either. I am not sure where you get this Scripture idea that judgment determines what seat we will get at the table. I think we should explore this more...
If our deeds earn us our salvation, then that obliterates much of scripture.
I didn't say our deeds earn us salvation! Your jumping to conclusions. Nothing we do "earns" us salvation. However, we are judged based on our response to God's gifts. God's reward of heaven is based on a gift, not on our earning anything. HE rewards us based on our actions - but all is a gift. We cannot say "God, I did such and such, you OWE me heaven." Not even the most holy man can say that.
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.
Then you haven't read Romans very carefully. Paul over and over mentions this also in Galatians. Here is one clear example:
"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." Romans 4:4
Is this not clear enough? He who works expects payment, wages. Thus, it is no longer gift. Works of the law and deeds of love are often times the exact same action, but internalized completely differently. Wasn't Jesus clear on this in the Gospels? Didn't He over and over attack the Pharisees' ATTITUDES? He didn't attack fasting or their practices per sec, but their idea that they were earning salvation...
I have never heard of a belief that one doing his job for money is a way to salvation.
There are Catholics who think if they attend Mass every Sunday, they have earned salvation. Often in practice, people do nice things because they expect something in return. THIS is not love. It is working for "wages". It does not earn salvation, in God's eyes. We must act for the sake of the other, not for ourselves.
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.
Brother, we are still bound by the Law as epitomized by the Decalogue. God's covenant is irrevocable. We as Christians continue to obey the Ten Commandments. Thus, this is certainly not what Paul has in mind when he says we are saved by faith apart from works of the law. Only a few verses later, he tells us what he means by "works" - Romans 4:4 above... We MUST obey the commandments - summarized in Christ's new command - to love others as He loved us. But our inner attitude must be one of love, not for earning wages. Then, it no longer is a gift - but something God owes us. Paul over and over tells us that we can do NOTHING to earn payment from God
"For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" Rom 11:35 - Paul quoting Job.
OK, I checked and there is a clear correlation between 14 and Rom. 3: 10-12. No problem
Clearly. Paul is directly quoting it. When people quote things, they are quoting within that context! Thus, when Paul is quoting OT Scripture, he is calling to mind THAT context, not inventing a new doctrine! So when Paul quotes Psalm 14, among others, he is calling to mind for these obstinate Jews that THEIR ANCESTORS - JEWS - were the ones whom the Psalmster was speaking of. Again, I ask you to consider the breadth of the OT. Over and over, it is UNFAITHFUL JEWS who are blamed for bringing God's wrath down upon the people. Paul is addressing proud Jews by attacking their heritage. It wasn't Gentiles, but rather, Jews, who had been to blame for Israel's woes over the years! Thus, these Jews cannot boast about their "works" of the law.
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.
Sanctification allows us to grow in knowledge of Christ, but that is not intellectual knowledge. It is spiritual, experiential knowledge. By becoming more holy, we won't necessarily ascertain whether Calvinism or Catholicism's stance on free will is correct! Or the efficaciousness of Baptism! Doctrines of the faith are not taught to the individuals of the Church. I know a number of people I would consider holy, but know only some of the doctrines of faith. I know a lot about the doctrines through study, but I don't consider myself holy. Holiness doesn't necessarily follow from being book smart or knowledgeable about doctrines.
You are focused on man. God has worked through man infallibly over and over again. We see this in the formation of Scripture. Why can't God continue to work through men whom He has promised would be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Why can't the Holy Spirit allow us to KNOW the fullness of the Truth through other men whom have been verified by the community and the Scriptures?
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.
You are confusing infalliblity with being sinless. Moses was an infallible teacher. Moses was not sinless. Did any Jew consider Moses as a fallible teacher? Check the Gospels. Sure, they knew he had sinned by striking the rock again. But they were confident that God spoke through Moses in an infallible manner. We Catholics think the same about our Bishops united in Ecumenical Council. Individually, they sin. But when they teach in union with the Pope, they teach infallibly, guarded by the Spirit. Without an infallible teacher, we humans will NEVER know the truth. Can an argument between two Protestants ever be satisfactorily resolved when both see their points of views in Scriptures? It takes the Church to determine which is correct.
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.
Ditto. Your own tradition has led you to believe that ONLY the Bible can be the source of faith - although that is NOT IN THE BIBLE. Thus, it comes from Protestant TRADITION. Would it be fair to say you are being hypocritical? EVERYONE approaches the Bible with something, traditions, opinions, prior teachings, etc. People use these to form their paradigm, the lense they read Scripture through. Yes, even Protestants are subject to their own tradition. The difference between Catholic and Protestant tradition is that Catholic tradition that is infallible is Apostolic, which comes from the same source as the Bible itself. It helps us to interpret Scriptures correctly - as I have previously shown by exercise through one simple sentence.
I wrote "Who else have we received teachings from then other than the Apostles?
You responded "I would say only God..."
So tell me how do you know they are from God without someone telling you that? How do you know that EVERY writing in the Bible is from God? How do you know that some didn't get left out? Only the Church can witness to the Bible's source and completeness.
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?
There are different schools of thought on this. Some believe that the Bible is inerrant in only matters pertaining to salvation. Thus, historical or scientific errors don't matter. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that. She teaches that God's revelation is inerrant. It is our understanding of it that is subject to error. For example, the creation of the world. Many take this as literal and scientific. God's revelation was not meant to tell us the science of creation, but the "why" of creation using stories (which doesn't mean it is false). Thus, the Word is inerrant in that God has presented what HE desired to say. It is people who interpret it incorrectly who are wrong.
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?
God "foresees" everything we do. Thus, He is able to plan accordingly without destroying our free will. He has revealed to us, through human language and genre, what He desired to reveal. What He has revealed is what He wanted revealed. And all the while, Paul wrote the way he wanted to say to the Corinthians. We don't see angels moving Paul's pen (or moving his lips) to form words! But we do see God working in a special way, "inspiration". The Spirit must have been particular strong in inspiring Paul how to respond to the Corinthians.
I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect.
Me neither. But God doesn't require man to be perfect to enter the Kingdom. All those righteous people in the OT. Were ANY of them perfect or without sin??? Yet, they walked in faith, trusting in the Lord and following His will through obedience to the Law.
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.
God didn't have to "take chances", because God operates outside of time! He "foresaw" what Paul would write and provided the necessary impetus and direction for Paul, in using his own words, would say what God wanted said. This does not destroy Paul's free will - it enhances it - in that God said what He wanted to, even through the damaged vessel of Paul.
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.
Forget about luck. But there is truth to all of the rest of what you said. God is a truly magnificent God. He brings out His will, despite our own will (which means we sometimes sin). Thus, God's will is done, and we remain free.
Regards