Where did you get that idea from? Faith comes from God as a gift, as Eph 2:8-9 states, among others.
With that faith comes also love and perseverance.
Both Paul and James separate faith and love and persevernace. They do not come together. Thus, we say that love must be added to faith to achieve our eternal reward - which comes from God and accepted by man.
So the words of men are equal to the words of God? Your three-legged stool just lost a leg. :)
Are the teachings of the Apostles from men? If you can answer that question in the affirmative, as the Bible does, then you SHOULD be able to understand that oral Apostolic teachings are from GOD. Thus, coming from God, they bear the same "weight" as Scriptures. Scriptures do not contain the entire Word of God.
It sure looks like He [I am not sure if you are refering to Satan or Jesus here] used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition. In fact, NO tradition. What else do you think He used?
Look more closely. Note that the devil and Jesus both used Scriptures - that tells us that Scripture can be twisted to suit one's personal needs. Thus, the need for Tradition, which gives us the correct interpretation. Christ was giving us Tradition by stating the correct interpretation and utilization of the Scriptures.
So your interpretation is that when Paul praised the Bereans because they tested his say-so against scripture he didn't really mean that. Instead, he only meant to praise them because they gave Paul an honest hearing. I see. That silly scripture has confounded me again.
That's OK. No one is generally infallible. That is why I rely on the Church, which IS infallible in matters of faith and morals. The fact of the matter is that Scripture reading is not complimented, but the acceptance of the message. The Thessalonians ALSO read the Scriptures. So did other Jews. What happened? Isn't Scripture so clear for even a child can read it and understand it???
Putting aside your total error concerning our belief about man's responsibility
You have told me time and time again that God leads man infallibly to choose good or evil. If man has no free will, how is man responsible for his actions?
My discussion regarding reading Scriputes through a particular tradition is not complicated. We ALL have our ideas of the basics of the faith. Protestants believe that man is totally corrupt after the fall and remains in sin even AFTER his regeneration. Their is no REAL regeneration, we are merely covered with alien justice of Christ. With this paradigm, you read the Scriptures - thinking that man cannot possibly do anything to prepare or cooperate with salvation. Even when Scriptures clearly point out this is false, you change the meaning of the text or ignore it. Your paradigm, then, is based on the teachings of Calvin and Luther, not on the Scripture as taught by the Catholic Church from the Apostles.
I never said you couldn't interpret scripture either. I said that you think the Church is the only Authority, and gave you credit enough that you would not claim to be an Authority.
As I have just said, we look at Scripture through a particular paradigm. That there is an "analogy of Faith", or an "economy of salvation". For example, we know that God is a Trinity of Persons, but with one Divine Will. This is not explained fully in Scriptures, nor does the Scriptures make this clear UNLESS YOU ALREADY ARE AWARE OF THAT! You would NOT be able to come to that conclusion UNLESS you already were taught that and were pointed out the verses and how to read them a certain way, or ignore other verses that might contradict them. For example, there are many verses that an Adoptionist could point to and say that Jesus was the Adopted Son of God the Father - only taking up the mantle of divinity upon His Baptism. Or that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. WE know that this means something else - that Christ was only subordinate in terms of His humanity. But you won't come to that understanding with your King James Version by yourself.
Protestantism is not monolithic. There is no club to be kicked out of. So what? Individual Protestants are not the authority in Protestantism, God always is.
You're dodging! Basically what you are saying is "FK's belief are the Word of God"...When you say "Protestants are not the authority, God is", that is baloney, because God doesn't "speak" in that manner. You are presuming, along with all of your non-monolithic brothers, that God speaks to YOU personally - and often contradictorily. I would say that God is not speaking to all of you...
If you were a Protestant and you felt that the Spirit had led you to believe that there were only two persons in the Godhead, then I would strongly counsel you, and show you the truth of what you must believe in as a Protestant, the Bible.
And we'd argue and get nowhere, since you have no authority over me. Nor can you "take it to the Church", since there IS no "visible" Church in your eyes, just the invisible one. I could certainly bring out enough verses to prove that either the Spirit or the Son is NOT God. This is why Apostolic Tradition is so important.
What? Whose fundamental stance are you talking about. Mine as an individual? Mine as a Protestant? Mine as a Southern Baptist? In none of these cases am I told how to interpret scripture. None.
Yes you are. You are told that Genesis is to believed as literal history and CANNOT be taken as allegory. Otherwise, you are told, how can we know ANYTHING to be historical? Your whole concept of Biblical inerrancy comes to a crashing thud if your literal interpretation is disproved. Thus, this idiotic notion from Young Earth Creationists who desperately try to show that science proves the earth is 6000 years old - which the Bible NEVER states or even hints at! It is people like these who make Christians look like they are afraid of science and prefer to live in a dreamworld.
You claim there are only a dozen or so verses set in stone, but that ignores the Catholic lens which you must peer through for any understanding. That lens affects ALL SCRIPTURE. Effectively, then, you have drastically less freedom than you attempt to portray.
I have no problems with interpreting Genesis as allegory. I have no problem with seeing Jonah as a parable, or Esther as an historical novel. And on many other issues, the Church has not "defined" our faith precisely. Sure, the Church has defined many things. But we also realize that God works through His Church to bring us to the knowledge of the Truth. We are very appreciative when the Church defines something, since now we KNOW what is the Truth. You, on the other hand, cannot know if you are correct, or the guy across the street in the 2nd Baptist Church of Main Street is correct. This is quite scary, to be honest. Sure, there are some particulars that we are told is Truth. Is that a problem?
Regards
Where did you get that idea from? Faith comes from God as a gift, as Eph 2:8-9 states, among others.
But I understand your view to be that God's gift of faith is worthless without the man-generated acceptance of it. Therefore, the only efficacious salvific faith is the result of a man-generated decision. Faith is nothing without man.
Thus, we say that love must be added to faith to achieve our eternal reward - which comes from God and accepted by man.
Again, faith is nothing without man. Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.
[JK quoting FK:] "It sure looks like He [I am not sure if you are referring to Satan or Jesus here] used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition."
Look more closely. Note that the devil and Jesus both used Scriptures - that tells us that Scripture can be twisted to suit one's personal needs. Thus, the need for Tradition, which gives us the correct interpretation. Christ was giving us Tradition by stating the correct interpretation and utilization of the Scriptures.
LOL! You win the most self-serving comment of the thread award! :) satan twisted scripture, THEREFORE Tradition is correct. I love it! Let me try. Joseph was thrown into a well, THEREFORE Tradition is correct! --- All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.
BTW, I was referring to Jesus. I don't even capitalize satan's name so I also do not with the pronouns.
The Thessalonians ALSO read the Scriptures. So did other Jews. What happened? Isn't Scripture so clear for even a child can read it and understand it???
On certain levels, it is. But this is only for those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear. That is why I believe it is perfectly appropriate for some 6-year-olds to say a legitimate sinner's prayer.
You have told me time and time again that God leads man infallibly to choose good or evil. If man has no free will, how is man responsible for his actions?
I have told you no such thing. I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just.
Protestants believe that man is totally corrupt after the fall and remains in sin even AFTER his regeneration. Their is no REAL regeneration, we are merely covered with alien justice of Christ. With this paradigm, you read the Scriptures - thinking that man cannot possibly do anything to prepare or cooperate with salvation.
I do not know how you are using the terms "totally corrupt" and "remains in sin". I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone. And yes, we still do sin, but we are new people. But, we still cannot earn our salvation through our own cooperation. God accomplishes it to His glory, not to man's glory.
Basically what you are saying is "FK's belief are the Word of God"...When you say "Protestants are not the authority, God is", that is baloney, because God doesn't "speak" in that manner.
I know, I know, God only speaks in Catholicese. What I am saying here is that I am no authority, the Bible is. You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself. To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it. The Bible is not good enough to interpret itself. Of course, I do consider opinions of scholars who are of like minds, but they must prove everything with scripture for me to believe it. Nothing short will do. To you, everything must be proven through unscriptural tradition first.
You are presuming, along with all of your non-monolithic brothers, that God speaks to YOU personally - and often contradictorily.
I know, I know, God is much too busy conferring with Catholic priests and bishops to have any time for the sorry likes of someone like me.
[hypothetically] I could certainly bring out enough verses to prove that either the Spirit or the Son is NOT God.
Really? Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.
Yes you are [told how to interpret scripture]. You are told that Genesis is to believed as literal history and CANNOT be taken as allegory. Otherwise, you are told, how can we know ANYTHING to be historical? Your whole concept of Biblical inerrancy comes to a crashing thud if your literal interpretation is disproved.
I really think you are confusing your own reality with ours. No one has EVER, EVER taught or told me that I must take Genesis in the young earth sense. That was absolutely an individual decision that I have made. I am absolutely certain that there are many in my own church, whom I deeply respect, who do not hold that view. I just personally see it as being more consistent. That's all. I can't explain the math otherwise. AND, I do keep an open mind so that if someone can make a compelling case that is SCRIPTURALLY SUPPORTED, I might well be open to changing my view. That is sanctification. ... My whole concept of Biblical inerrancy is totally unaffected in this situation (as far as I know!). There is allegory in both the old and new testaments.
You, on the other hand, cannot know if you are correct, or the guy across the street in the 2nd Baptist Church of Main Street is correct. This is quite scary, to be honest.
It is true that I cannot know if I am correct about every aspect of theology, but that doesn't scare me, that excites me. It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ. However, on the flip side, there are several things I can be sure of, including things about which you cannot be sure. I also see that as "scary". I guess it works both ways. :)
Sure, there are some particulars that we are told is Truth. Is that a problem?
Not at all. I also have particulars that I take as unalterable truth. We might even share in many of them.