Replies

For example. How do you know if Jesus was married? Did He have kids? Well, some supposed Scripture from the Gnostics say that He did. The Da Vinci Code makes the same claim. With all of these writings spread out on a table, the NT and the Gnostic writings, how do YOU pick and choose which is FROM God and which is NOT from God? Without a reference point - the Church - you wouldn't know much ABOUT God. If He was a Trinity, or ONE God ONE person, or if Jesus was an archangel, or if the Spirit was a person, etc....

We do look at this very differently. I think you would say that God guided the Church, and the Church put together the correct books for the Bible. Of course, the Church was free to accept or reject God's guidance, and we have no idea if or to what extent that happened. Under my view, God moved the Church, or "forced" if you like, to pick the correct books. It is the same with the individual authors, God moved them, or "forced" if you like, to write the correct words. Under your view, men are to be congratulated for their choices in cooperating with God, and they deserve credit along with God. It was a team effort, although it does leave open the possibility for error since the Church was free to reject on even the smallest matter. Under mine, God did it all, so He gets all the credit. There was participation, but no cooperation.

There are only about a dozen verses that the Church says "this means 'x' and that is it." Most regarding the Sacraments. The we look to the Scriptures and interpret them according to the Church's deposit of faith given to it by the Apostles. Thus, we have been taught that man has free will, as I have posted previously from some of the Church Fathers who appear unanimous on the subject.

I think you may be splitting hairs with this. That lens of yours appears to be exhaustively constricting. Using your example, you are forced to accept the concept of free will. That, in turn, forces you to interpret hundreds or thousands of scriptures in a particular way. That isn't freedom at all. That is the Church informing you of your opinion. This idea is repeated over and over. With every fundamental principle, there is a geometric progression of forced interpretation of other scriptures.

But you would be surprised on how flexible the Church is on specific verses.

I might very well be. I just haven't seen it yet. So, please start disagreeing with yourself so I can see how this works. :)

Under my view, God moved the Church, or "forced" if you like, to pick the correct books. It is the same with the individual authors, God moved them, or "forced" if you like, to write the correct words.

Based on what evidence do you make the claim that the NT Bible is from God, and not particular Gnostic Gospels? Apparently, you reject these Gnostic Gospels, correct? Why? How do you know that God actually is favoring the Gnostic side, the "remnant Church"? These New Agers are making this very claim, that the Catholic Church rejected the Word of God - the Gnostic Scriptures.

There was participation, but no cooperation.

I see these words as meaning the same thing.

Using your example, you are forced to accept the concept of free will. That, in turn, forces you to interpret hundreds or thousands of scriptures in a particular way. That isn't freedom at all.

How exactly does that differ from what you do with "I am saved by faith alone"? It forces you to ignore or twist numerous Scriptures, even Scripture that is completely contradictory to that concept.

That isn't freedom at all. That is the Church informing you of your opinion. This idea is repeated over and over. With every fundamental principle, there is a geometric progression of forced interpretation of other scriptures.

Is Christianity a REVEALED religion, or a philosophy of man? If you claim the former, than there is no such "freedom" to interpret EVERY possible meaning found in Scripture as coming from God.

please start disagreeing with yourself so I can see how this works. :)

God bases His list of the elect based on what we do. No, He bases it without any consideration of the elect's response...

Happy? either is a suitable Catholic position.

Regards

That lens of yours appears to be exhaustively constricting. [...] That isn't freedom at all.

Allow me a small philosophical aside. The opposite of constraint is not freedom, but rather slavery. The guarantee of political freedom is political law, and the guarantee of metaphysical freedom is Divine Law. The law is a constraint. Remove that, and the bigger gun wins, and you are a slave. For example, Do not kill gives you certain freedom,-- to stay alive in the company of men who dislike you, or want your labor. But it is a constraint.

Likewise thare are laws of exegesis: it has to be true to the historical and linguistic context, agree with the patristic consensus, take into account who speaks to whom and in what rhetorical style, etc. Violating those does not give you freedom, just like violating the Ten Commandments does not give you freedom.