Two Questions For Not Ready

[David Sklansky]

Your stance is that there are very good, clearcut, reasons to believe in Christianity rather than Islam. Reasons that make you virtually certain that Christianity is correct and Islam isn't.

1. Are the reasons to believe in Protestantism rather than Cathlicism, as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that Protestantism is correct and Cathlicism isn't as in the Christianity vs, Islam question?

2. Are the reasons to believe in your particular sect of Protestantism (predestination, Calvinism, or whatever you call it) rather than other sects of Protestanism (that don't beleive this stuff) as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that your sect of Protestantism, is correct and the other sects aren't, as in the Christianity vs. Islam question?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Are the reasons to believe in Protestantism rather than Cathlicism, as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that Protestantism is correct and Cathlicism isn't as in the Christianity vs, Islam question?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe some of the doctrinal differences between what I believe and Catholics are as clear cut, but those doctrines are not related to salvation. For example, the infallibility of the pope. I feel very certain this is incorrect, but someone can believe it and still be saved, or for that matter be a much better Christian than me. Catholic and Protestant doctrine are much the same concerning salvation, though there are some nuances that I don't think affect salvation. It would be wrong to say I believe Catholicism is incorrect without much qualification. The reason Islam is so different (and there are some areas of agreement between Islam and Christianity) is they differ on major doctrines, especially relating to Christ - which is true of Judaism as well. But mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism (at least historically) are very close on matters related to Christ and salvation.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Are the reasons to believe in your particular sect of Protestantism (predestination, Calvinism, or whatever you call it) rather than other sects of Protestanism (that don't beleive this stuff) as good and as clearcut as the Christianity vs, Islam question? Are you equally certain that your sect of Protestantism, is correct and the other sects aren't, as in the Christianity vs. Islam question?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is similar to the Catholic question though the differences aren't as sharp on the non-salvation doctrines, and I'm uncertain about what I believe in some of the more difficult areas - perhaps it's more a matter of vocabulary than doctrine. Actually, there is no denomination or thelogian I agree with 100% - but there is no doctrine I believe that isn't held by some denomination or major theologian. The church hasn't done much better than Israel did, maybe worse in some areas.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
...is they differ on major doctrines, especially relating to Christ - which is true of Judaism as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since there is a large dispute relating to Christ, i'm curious to why you have unequivocally disagreed with Judaism and others.

[David Sklansky]

OK. Good enough. Now I'd like to know whether you agree with Peter666 that studying and knowing the non salvation nuances can be mean a more heavenly heaven?

[BluffTHIS!]

You have let NR off the hook too easily. He is basically saying that he would wish non-believers to take christianity on faith, but also to be content with an imprecise definition of the doctrines of that faith and the fact that there is a plethora of competing explanations, not about details, but regarding fundmanetal matters relating to salvation.

His statement that there is not any difference between catholic theology and protestant theology in regards to fundamental doctrines regarding salvation can't be correct because of the New Guinea question, and because he has shown in previous posts that he believes that someone who hears the gospel preached really can't honestly not believe it to be true.

Of course if you try to pin him down logically on a certain thing, you most likely will get the response that logic is merely "human reason", as if arithmetic were as well.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I'd like to know whether you agree with Peter666 that studying and knowing the non salvation nuances can be mean a more heavenly heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't lay out a specific system for the believer's rewards in heaven. Our main goal is to understand the Lord's will (revealed, I'm not talking about mysticism), and through His grace to do it. That would include reading and understanding Scripture, though knowledge alone is not given very high praise. The knowledge is important, but the emphasis is on applying that knowledge, and the primary place is given to trusting and loving God, and loving others, which is manifested through action. Serious warnings are given to those who know the right thing to do and don't.

As to your question, I'm not sure studying and knowing doctrine alone is sufficient. Paul said "If I have all knowledge and have not love I am nothing". That's a pretty strong statement. He isn't criticizing knowledge, but he's warning against the idea that knowledge alone does any good.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

because of the New Guinea question


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what this is.

[ QUOTE ]

that someone who hears the gospel preached really can't honestly not believe it to be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Catholicism says otherwise then we do disagree. I was speaking of the way of salvation in general, that one is saved by faith in Christ and that "there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved". I thought Catholics believed this. I will admit I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine. I have no time to study it in detail, and I'm never really sure exactly where to find it. The Catholic church is huge and very old, there are many, many Catholic theologians, and I doubt you will try to make the case they all agree with each other on every doctrine. I really have no interest in saying this denomination or that denomination. I prefer to discuss specific doctrines.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course if you try to pin him down logically on a certain thing, you most likely will get the response that logic is merely "human reason", as if arithmetic were as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike you I don't place human reason above Scripture.

[BluffTHIS!]

Surely you haven't forgotten the New Guinea question: A man in New Guinea dies 1 day after Christ, thus absolutely never having had the opportunity of hearing the gospel. Is it at all likely from your interpretations of scripture that he could have been saved? And don't cop out with a "I trust such matters to God's providence" stuff. This is a question about your interpretation of the requirements for salvation.

And another key difference between catholic and most protestant theologies is over "faith alone" versus "faith plus works". Which is the reason Luther wished to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike you I don't place human reason above Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. But I do recognize that if there are multiple conflicting interpretations of scripture, then they all can not be right. And my human reason correctly allows me to know from scripture that God does want us to know on fundamental matters which is the correct interpretation, else He would not have said something and allowed it to come to pass that the correct meaning of what He said cannot be known in at least one denomination.

God gave us reason. Obviously it can be used correctly, i.e. logically, or it can be applied incorrectly. If you don't see that difference it is because you are not being intellectually honest with yourself so as not to have to deal with logical contradictions inherent in your protestant beliefs that would make it necessary to re-examine the specific christian views you hold.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And don't cop out with a "I trust such matters to God's providence" stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that trusting God's providence is a cop out we have another disagreement. Tell me what Scripture you rely on to decide this case.

[ QUOTE ]

And another key difference between catholic and most protestant theologies is over "faith alone" versus "faith plus works". Which is the reason Luther wished to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT.


[/ QUOTE ]

Luther misunderstood James. As far as I know, he's the only Protestant who didn't get it, and after all, he was the first and was most concerned about the works salvation prevalent at the time. This is an area that I think often comes down to a verbal difference, but it's often hard to tell what the official Catholic line is. The way a lot of Catholic writing is worded I can't say with certainty they claim salvation is by faith plus works. Instead they take the James line that legitimate faith always has works, which is the same as mainstream Protestant doctrine.

[ QUOTE ]

God gave us reason. Obviously it can be used correctly, i.e. logically, or it can be applied incorrectly. If you don't see that difference it is because you are not being intellectually honest with yourself so as not to have to deal with logical contradictions inherent in your protestant beliefs that would make it necessary to re-examine the specific christian views you hold.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic church has, at least since Aquinas (but notice not since Augustine), placed human reason at a higher level than Scripture. There is a fundamental divide between Reformed theology and Catholicism over the nature and effect of the fall. But the difference isn't over logic per se, but over man's fallen ability to use logic correctly. You never seem to get this point.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic church has, at least since Aquinas (but notice not since Augustine), placed human reason at a higher level than Scripture. There is a fundamental divide between Reformed theology and Catholicism over the nature and effect of the fall. But the difference isn't over logic per se, but over man's fallen ability to use logic correctly. You never seem to get this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it because it is not a logically valid one. And if you would read Aquinas, you would see that he in no way put reason above divine revelation, merely asserting that God's existence and many of His attributes can also be known partially from reason alone, and that reason can be appropriately applied to scripture to know God's true meaning in same.

And again you fail to understand logical implications in things you say. If your statement about "fallen man's" inability to correctly apply reason to theological matters is correct, then the same logically applies to his ability to apply it mathematics.