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.
If I give you a billion dollars, what good is it if you never use it and put it in your attic? I have the ability to reject God's supernatural gift of faith, as well.
Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.
That's because our idea of God is quite different. I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...
All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.
Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.
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
God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world. You keep ignoring Scriptures on this, brother. If God is righteous, He does not say "I desire all men to be saved" and "Jesus died for the sin of the entire world" - AND THEN NOT give ALL men at least an ability to choose good or evil! This is a contradiction that remains in your Protestant view on this matter. IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just? If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God? Not by any definition of the word... And don't bother with the "our ways are not God's ways". If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.
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
But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING. We cannot even choose goodness AFTER our regeneration, so the "regeneration", the "heart of flesh" are just status terms with no real meaning. Utterly ridiculous. God MAKES people righteous in reality, not just legally!
You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself.
The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!
To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it.
I have never said that! I only say that the heirarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught. Interpretations must fit into the Holy Tradition given to the Apostles. There is only one faith, not many. The Bible is not meant to have many diverse and opposing meanings on the same subject. This is Relativism - every interpretation is as good as another. Really, is that what you are proposing? That man choose what God says? That certainly sounds like it. This makes Christianity a religion of man, rather than a revealed religion from God.
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.
You are missing the point. IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct? Or does the Church split into factions? You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.
I just personally see it as being more consistent.
Science has given ample evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the earth is a round three-dimensional object that revolves around the sun. Perhaps you might disagree. But if so, it is not because science has given insufficient evidence. It is because you are stuck in the "literal sense only" mode of interpretation. Can you say unequivocably that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.
It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ.
LOL! How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth? There is only one truth, and it is objective. It is not dependent on our opinions. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You know this is the word of God - but you do not believe it. Ask yourself if you are REALLY searching for Truth or something that sounds good to YOU.
Regards