Another Question For Protestants

[BluffTHIS!]

Choose one of the leaders of the Reformation, in this case I am going to use Calvin, but you can choose any of them you wish, and then put him alongside Thomas Aquinas, who though living several hundred years earlier nonetheless in his writings put forth definitive explanations of catholic doctrine. These two then, Aquinas and Calvin, arrive before God to be judged after their deaths. In your opinion, which of the two outcomes below is most likely? (Note that I am not referring to their eternal judgement but to a judgement on their christian teachings.)

A. God said to one of them "well done good and faithful servant", while saying to the other, "you fool!".

B. God said to both of them, "well done although you both were partly wrong and thus lead some astray in matters of sound doctrine".

If you choose B then also answer the following question: if they were both only partly right then how can that not partially render God's word void, which scripture says cannot happen, if his full divinely revealed truth is not found somewhere 100% correct and entire since it was obviously so during the ministry of Christ? Notice that I am only referring to that truth which has been revealed and not to such as may not have been.

P.S. for kidluckee et.al., I know you think they were both fools but this is a question for protestants.

Bonus Question: Could OT figures and prophets such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah etc. have been saved, and if so by what means since they never could have accepted the gospel before their deaths? Keep in mind what the NT says regarding the possibility of faithfully keeping the old law.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
A. God said to one of them "well done good and faithful servant", while saying to the other, "you fool!".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly the case for Calvin. As a caveat, I speculate that the Lord would follow up the "You Fool!" with "I haven't predestined anyone!"

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Choose one of the leaders of the Reformation, in this case I am going to use Calvin, but you can choose any of them you wish, and then put him alongside Thomas Aquinas, who though living several hundred years earlier nonetheless in his writings put forth definitive explanations of catholic doctrine. These two then, Aquinas and Calvin, arrive before God to be judged after their deaths. In your opinion, which of the two outcomes below is most likely? (Note that I am not referring to their eternal judgement but to a judgement on their christian teachings.)

A. God said to one of them "well done good and faithful servant", while saying to the other, "you fool!".

B. God said to both of them, "well done although you both were partly wrong and thus lead some astray in matters of sound doctrine".


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go with B. This would fit exactly with Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians 3 about the building. Concerning the teachings of Paul and Apollos and any teacher (Aquinas, Calvin...) he has this to say:

[ QUOTE ]
(1Co 3:9 ESV) For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.

(1Co 3:10 ESV) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.

(1Co 3:11 ESV) For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

(1Co 3:12 ESV) Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw --

(1Co 3:13 ESV) each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

(1Co 3:14 ESV) If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

(1Co 3:15 ESV) If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If you choose B then also answer the following question: if they were both only partly right then how can that not partially render God's word void, which scripture says cannot happen,

[/ QUOTE ]

Where they were wrong, what they said was not the word of God. If I screw up God's message, it does not mean that his message is not true. This seems pretty basic.

[ QUOTE ]

Bonus Question: Could OT figures and prophets such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah etc. have been saved, and if so by what means since they never could have accepted the gospel before their deaths? Keep in mind what the NT says regarding the possibility of faithfully keeping the old law.

[/ QUOTE ]

The book of Hebrews answers this one soundly. Chapter 11 explains exactly how those in the Old Testament were saved...namely, the same way anyone today is. They believe God's promise of the messiah. They walked by faith.

I would suggest reading the 11th chapter of Hebrews for your answer. Here are some verses that explain that those saved in the Old Testament are saved the same way we are, by faith:

(Heb 11:17 ESV) By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

(Heb 11:20 ESV) By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.

(Heb 11:21 ESV) By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[David Sklansky]

"The book of Hebrews answers this one soundly. Chapter 11 explains exactly how those in the Old Testament were saved...namely, the same way anyone today is. They believe God's promise of the messiah. They walked by faith.

I would suggest reading the 11th chapter of Hebrews for your answer. Here are some verses that explain that those saved in the Old Testament are saved the same way we are, by faith:

(Heb 11:17 ESV) By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

(Heb 11:20 ESV) By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.

(Heb 11:21 ESV) By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith."

Posts like this truly sadden me. Its just sickening how many people go to such detail while talking about dice systems.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I won't comment any further on this because David said it best.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I won't comment any further on this because David said it best.

[/ QUOTE ]
The irony in your post very amusing.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Posts like this truly sadden me. Its just sickening how many people go to such detail while talking about dice systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how Christianity is a "dice system".

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I won't comment any further on this because David said it best.

[/ QUOTE ]

David didn't say anything. How is that saying it best? Give me a break!

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I won't comment any further on this because David said it best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will grant to you that I did not do a very good job of showing how the man Jesus of Nazareth was the object of the faith of those patriarchs. I stated it as a fact and did not provide fact to support the conclusion. So, here goes.

Let's start with Abraham. Gen 15:6 says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. So God looked at Abraham and declared him righteous because of his faith. It was a forensic declaration made by God. So what was it that Abraham believed?

(Gal 3:16) Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

So scripture claims that the ultimate object of the faith of Abraham is Christ.

In the same way was the faith of Isaac and Jacob in the promise of God. Isaac and Jacob were Abraham's decendants through whom the promises to Abraham would be fulfilled. They believed God's promise and therefore blessed their sons. The same scripture that gives us the promises of God, claim that the object of the faith of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the seed of Abraham, Christ. You may not buy it but that is scripture's claim.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Posts like this truly sadden me. Its just sickening how many people go to such detail while talking about dice systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how Christianity is a "dice system".

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I am a Catholic I don't think it is overall, but some interpretations of it are, especially when they engage in such contortions to try to prove the doctrines of such denominatins are correct when they are contradictory of each other. This is especially the case when by modifying their views to that of another denomination they could avoid much of that.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I am a Catholic I don't think it is overall, but some interpretations of it are, especially when they engage in such contortions to try to prove the doctrines of such denominatins are correct when they are contradictory of each other. This is especially the case when by modifying their views to that of another denomination they could avoid much of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be direct. I will not be offended. You think I am contorting the words of scripture to fit my protestant beliefs when if I just accepted the Roman Catholic Church's teaching, such contortions would be unnecessary.

I do not feel I am contorting scripture. Poorly communicating maybe, but not intentionally contorting. I am simply trying to communicate the New Testament's teaching about Old Testament saints. When scripture tells me that Abraham was justified by faith, I believe it. This is not a solely New Testament concept. Genesis says that Abraham was justified by his faith. Habakkuk says that the just shall live by faith. The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to explain to Jewish believers how all of the law, the sacrificial system and the like all have their end in Christ.

What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[RJT]

Bluff,

Yeah, you definitely need to watch your post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after you respond to SDM. Again (see my post to kbfc)You were a bit “brusk” here. Not like you.

You could run circles around me as far as being a better apologist for the Catholic Faith (Bigdaddydvo, I think is going to be pretty good in this regard too – As I recall Pete666 is also good.) and again I am at work so haven’t really comprehended what you two are talking about but at quick glance:

If we correct Max’s words -

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

to:

Each of these instances has Jesus the Messiah as its SUBJECT (of faith).

Is that what he meant or should have meant?

If this doesn't help the conversation, then ignore it go on and explain to Max what you mean.

Best regards,


RJT

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If we correct Max’s words -

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these instances has Jesus the messiah as its ultimate object of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

to:

Each of these instances has Jesus the Messiah as its SUBJECT (of faith).

Is that what he meant or should have meant?

If this doesn't help the conversation, then ignore it go on and explain to Max what you mean.

Best regards,


RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

That would probably be more precise. I'm sure that Abraham did not understand that the promise of God was referring to a singular person. And he certainly did not know the name Jesus. So it would not be precise to say that Abraham believe in Jesus, strictly speaking. He believe the promise of God. God was promising Jesus even if Abraham did not fully comprehend. We have the luxury of being on this side of the cross and a fuller revelation. A consistent theme of the New Testament is revealing mysteries that were not previously known. I'm going to start rambling, so I'll shut 'er down now.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said partially. But that would conflict with what many protestants believe regarding salvation especially those whose doctrines are strongly influenced by Calvin. Since I have not noticed you in some of our other threads on this then I will ask you the New Guinea question.

Could a man living in New Guinea and who died 1 year after the death of Christ and who absolutely could not have heard the gospel preached possibly have been saved? If you answer no, then I stand by my comments regarding yours. If you answer yes then my question wasn't really addressed to your type of protestantism.

However I also note that your answer to my first question did not really address the question as written, so go back and read it again and respond accordingly. (If you stand by your answers to that question then it follows that you do not consider God's word rendered void by a situation where his word is not accurately preached 100% in its entireity by at least one denomination at every point in history. And if you don't agree that such a conclusion follows then I probably won't respond to you in the future as I am not regarding two other posters since such a belief is a very big logical contortion.)

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the Catholic Church's teacing on how Old Testament saints are saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said partially. But that would conflict with what many protestants believe regarding salvation especially those whose doctrines are strongly influenced by Calvin. Since I have not noticed you in some of our other threads on this then I will ask you the New Guinea question.

Could a man living in New Guinea and who died 1 year after the death of Christ and who absolutely could not have heard the gospel preached possibly have been saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of you dismissing me entirely...
Assuming that the New Guinea man has no knowledge of the teaching of John the Baptist, the nation of Israel, the Old Testament or the God of Abraham, then no there is no possibility of him being saved. I'll elaborate if need be, but I suspect this answer is probably enough to get on your "I'm not regarding this person" list.

[ QUOTE ]
I also note that your answer to my first question did not really address the question as written, so go back and read it again and respond accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I did not address the question as written, though I stand by my citation of the parable of the building as relevant. Regarding the judgement of their christian teachings, I would say with a fairly substantial degree of confidence that any man who has written at the length that Calvin and Aquinas did are almost certain to make errors at points in their doctrine. I am no expert on either man, but I think that is a fair statement. Unless a man is carried along by the spirit of God as the biblical writers were when they penned the words of scripture, it would be irresponsible in my view to attribute infallability to their teaching.

Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]


(If you stand by your answers to that question then it follows that you do not consider God's word rendered void by a situation where his word is not accurately preached 100% in its entireity by at least one denomination at every point in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, but I believe the teaching of the apostles to be preached 100% accurately as found in the pages of scripture (I'm sure you'll agree with this).

At the same time, if I preach a message that displays the glories of Christ but I miss a point of doctrine and fumble God's word at points, God is still at liberty to use the *truth*, not the error that I preach to draw sinners to himself.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't agree that such a conclusion follows then I probably won't respond to you in the future as I am not regarding two other posters since such a belief is a very big logical contortion.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm eager to see if I have failed your test.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im still trying to figure out where the Bible says it is the sole and infallible rule of faith and doctrine.... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It often seems Catholics conveniently forget that this era is generally considered the dark ages of human history and it wasn't until the Catholic grip began to loosen in the 1500s and 1600s that the western world was able to pick back up where the Greeks left off in terms of advancement and progress.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like any good protestant I hold scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith and doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer me this then. How did the Catholic Church "get it right" when it compiled the books into the Cannon that would ultimately become the Bible as we know it in the 4th Century, yet subsequently lose its authority to preach authoritively on matters of Faith and Doctrine? Must that authority have been in place at the time of the Bible's compilation?


It often seems Protestants conveniently forget the first 1500 years of Christianity consisted of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice that the substance of my post is not what is being criticised. I have made a case from the Bible - the Bible that both Roman Catholics and Protestants hold as authoritative. Rather than deconstructing the larger argument, you address a tongue in cheek comment made in passing and seem to be attempting to diminish the authority of scripture. Curious.

By the way, I do not buy your premise of how we came to accept the canon of scripture, but it is off topic and largely irrelevant to the matter at hand -- unless of course some of the scriptures that I quoted you do not consider inspired.

[BluffTHIS!]

Max,

Your answer to the New Guinea question is not what I said gets posters ignored by me, and is what I expected you to say. However I do think as I said that such a position is logically preposterous, i.e. allowing for the OT saints to be saved but not the New Guinea man, because you are coming up with justifications to reconcile two apparently conflicting biblical points, the bible stating that they were justified by faith but at the same time your stating that their faith was in Jesus the messiah whom they have never heard of from God. It is that contrived interpretation that does not make sense. They cannot be reconciled without a means for providing the New Guinea man could possibly have been saved, what we in the catholic church call baptism by desire.

Regarding the second issue, you still have not really grasped the followup question to answer when you choose B. It is this: since Jesus and the aposltes taught 100% correctly, is it reasonable to assume that God doesn't care if we here and now are able to receive that same 100% correct interpretation of scripture/revelation? Thus, is it reasonable to believe that having taught the 100% correct and entire truth in apostolic times that God would not necessarily provide that it be so today by there being one true denomination with the others only being partially right? So, is there one true denomination today that teaches the 100% correct and entire truth? (It is not necessary to specify which one.)

Your answer to that determines whether I will ignore you in the future if you care. There is an important theological and logical point in this matter. If you did not read my earlier thread on this matter, What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3350123&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1), you might wish to.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
you still have not really grasped the followup question to answer when you choose B. It is this: since Jesus and the aposltes taught 100% correctly, is it reasonable to assume that God doesn't care if we here and now are able to receive that same 100% correct interpretation of scripture/revelation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture is sufficient. Isn't it great that the apostles taught 100% correctly and we still have their inspired words? We have the truth you are searching for, in scripture. We do not need a group of people or a governing council or clergy or anything else. Nothing stands between us and the 100% correct words of the apostles. Even the Bereans searched the scriptures for themselves to see if what the apostles were telling them was true. That's the same thing I should do. That's the same thing you should do.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, is it reasonable to believe that having taught the 100% correct and entire truth in apostolic times that God would not necessarily provide that it be so today by there being one true denomination with the others only being partially right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, rather than "one true denomination", he has given us his very words in scripture.

Let me be more specific. You and I both agree (I think) that the teaching of the apostles was 100% accurate. Their teaching is recorded for us in a book. We have that book. What do we lack? I know what you are thinking. "Why then are there so many different interpretations for the same scripture in protestant denominations?" Protestants could overcome that objection by picking a single group to interpret scripture, but that would not make their interpretation necessarily correct. Enter Rome. Just because there is a singular (more or less) source of interpretation in the Catholic Church, does not make that interpretation necessarily correct.

There, I've answered your question. Sounds very Protestant to me. Hope it's not mere protestantism that gets me ignored (I did not read the thread you linked because I didn't want it to influence my response).

[ QUOTE ]
So, is there one true denomination today that teaches the 100% correct and entire truth? (It is not necessary to specify which one.)

[/ QUOTE ]

100%? I doubt it. Scripture has that covered though.

[ QUOTE ]
Your answer to that determines whether I will ignore you in the future if you care. There is an important theological and logical point in this matter. If you did not read my earlier thread on this matter, What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3350123&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1), you might wish to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It often seems Catholics conveniently forget that this era is generally considered the dark ages of human history and it wasn't until the Catholic grip began to loosen in the 1500s and 1600s that the western world was able to pick back up where the Greeks left off in terms of advancement and progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that you have fogotten (or perhaps didnt know) that the Catholic Chuch was in large part responsible for the preservation of what we now think of as 'Western Civilization'

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It often seems Catholics conveniently forget that this era is generally considered the dark ages of human history and it wasn't until the Catholic grip began to loosen in the 1500s and 1600s that the western world was able to pick back up where the Greeks left off in terms of advancement and progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that you have fogotten (or perhaps didnt know) that the Catholic Chuch was in large part responsible for the preservation of what we now think of as 'Western Civilization'

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "preserving", you mean "retarding its growth" for 1500+ years, then I'd agree.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me be more specific. You and I both agree (I think) that the teaching of the apostles was 100% accurate. Their teaching is recorded for us in a book. We have that book. What do we lack? I know what you are thinking. "Why then are there so many different interpretations for the same scripture in protestant denominations?" Protestants could overcome that objection by picking a single group to interpret scripture, but that would not make their interpretation necessarily correct. Enter Rome. Just because there is a singular (more or less) source of interpretation in the Catholic Church, does not make that interpretation necessarily correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do agree that the apostles taught 100% correctly. But the very fact of differing interpretations shows that it is not sufficient for us that they did so, but that we too can be able to have a 100% correct interpretation of their teaching. That can only be the case with an authoritative interpreter. It is not enough to merely state that scripture in sufficient when it can be misinterpreted. When these differing interpretations are regarding what is necessary for salvation especially, they can be extremely detrimental. And these differing interpretations make much more difficult fulfilling the great commission. So I will restate the question: does God care enough that we have such a 100% correct and authoritative interpretation to insure that we do? Again, this is a matter of both logic and theology.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not enough to merely state that scripture in sufficient when it can be misinterpreted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scripture can be misinterpreted. An "authoritative" interpreter can also be misinterpreted -- why is it necessary for God to provide a 100% correct interpretation from a single source, but not necessary for him to provide a perfect interpretation of the interpretation?

In other words: due to the limits of language and the peculiarities of personality, no interpretation, no matter how perfect, will be understood in the same way by all who hear it. To communicate the same truth (instead of merely the same words) to each person would require personalized descriptions of all of the church's teachings (to say nothing of the ability to personalize these teachings effectively).

So: Why does scriptual misinterpretation require a doctrinal remedy by God, while doctrinal misinterpretation does not require a remedy?

[kuro]

[ QUOTE ]
So I will restate the question: does God care enough that we have such a 100% correct and authoritative interpretation to insure that we do? Again, this is a matter of both logic and theology

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a matter of logic? Catholics represent 1/6 of the population and protestants represent another 1/6. Clearly God cares enough to make sure humans understand his message. That's why the other 2/3 of the world chose to follow made up religions.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
We do agree that the apostles taught 100% correctly. But the very fact of differing interpretations shows that it is not sufficient for us that they did so, but that we too can be able to have a 100% correct interpretation of their teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interpretation is fundamental to communication. I ask you to interpret each time I write a response. Interpretation is necessary when I read my Bible. Interpretation is necessary when you read/hear the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture. VarlosZ makes a good point. Is your interpretation of the Catholic Church's interpretation of scripture 100% accurate? I agree with you that we need an authoritative and reliable source for God's revealed truth. What better than his very words as recorded in scripture?

Further, we are not asking the unbeliever to put their faith in the interpretive skills of a church. We ask them to put their faith in Jesus Christ who lived a perfectly righteous life, took our sin upon himself, was crucified and was resurrected. If we trust in Christ, he takes our sin and we are clothed in his righteousness in order that we might stand before God blameless. Again, salvation is not found in the interpretive skills of a church but in the man Christ Jesus.

[ QUOTE ]
does God care enough that we have such a 100% correct and authoritative interpretation to insure that we do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject your premise. Because the Roman Catholic Church is fallible in its interpretation of scripture does not mean that God does not care. He has cared enough to preserve his very words. He has cared enough to make the vital truths of the faith imminently accessible to all who hear his word. He has cared enough to give us his Holy Spirit as our helper to instruct us. Again, because the Catholic Church gets things wrong does not call into question God's love and mercy.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It often seems Catholics conveniently forget that this era is generally considered the dark ages of human history and it wasn't until the Catholic grip began to loosen in the 1500s and 1600s that the western world was able to pick back up where the Greeks left off in terms of advancement and progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that you have fogotten (or perhaps didnt know) that the Catholic Chuch was in large part responsible for the preservation of what we now think of as 'Western Civilization'

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "preserving", you mean "retarding its growth" for 1500+ years, then I'd agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement shows either a gross ignorance of or a willful disregard for the facts of the development of western civilization as we know it.