Really? So when a Jehovah Witness claims to be led by the "spirit" that Jesus is not God, he is actually being led to the same end as a "orthodox" Christian?
I gave you credit for understanding that by "people" I meant true Christians. OOPS! :) The Spirit does not lead non-believers, obviously, since He does not indwell them. I certainly hope that you do not recognize the JWs as Christians.
It appears that you consider doctrine and beliefs inconsequential to our salvation. One can believe whatever they want, as long as in the end, we believe in "God", whatever that might mean to the individual.
What? In terms of truth, what my beliefs are is inconsequential to salvation. Salvation, in truth, is accomplished "this" way, whatever the truth of "this" is. So, if I want salvation for myself, then my beliefs are absolutely critical to whether I will be saved. For example, if I believe and follow JW theology to the "T", then it is almost certain that I will not be saved.
We don't have any issues with the Orthodox concerning grace and free will. Recall that Kosta and Kolo were saying the same things that we were, despite our 1000 year separation.
WITHOUT intending to re-open any can of worms, I do have a specific memory of a conversation between you and Kosta about created vs. uncreated grace. I do remember there being disagreement, but it is possible that you reconciled the difference and I don't remember how that happened.
FK: "However, it is certainly true that the early Fathers had the most important things right."
Such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the veneration of Mary and the saints in the next life, the concept of grace and free will, the interplay of faith and love, etc....?
But NONE of those things you are talking about are believed by God's Church. They are only believed by Apostolic churches, within God's Church. Therefore, they cannot be the most important things.
You are making the common mistake of claiming that you have inside information to what the text can ONLY mean. Really, texts can have different meanings - even "clear" ones as I have written above.
I am fine that texts "can" have different meanings. I disagree with other Reformers on very minor things. By several of your comments you seem pretty set that I claim all knowledge when I've never said that.
When we have several meanings of one text side by side, which do we use? We OUGHT to use the one that has been passed down by the original teachers, don't you think?
Not necessarily. We OUGHT to use the one that best matches scripture. By this standard, when an interpretation fails elementary tests of logic and reason, then I do not agree with it. I have said many times before that I do not believe that older always equals better. The belief that the earth is flat is much older than what we think now.
And as to what the original teachers passed down, I think there are records of some of it, but not all of it. What I do know about all of the original teachers in early Christianity is that they were all fallible humans. The key is really whether Christ abdicated ruling power to the Roman Catholic Church or not. I contend that He did not, i.e. I say that Christ is still in charge here on earth. Everything else, along these lines, really comes down to this.
This is where I think Protestantism goes astray and doesn't even realize it. They judge the "text" by their own meaning without realizing that there are other meanings of the text that are viable, as well.
I like to think that I have admitted when I thought that Catholic interpretations were at least viable. IIRC, a couple of examples would be "binding and loosening", and infant baptism as a practice. The problem (for me) with your line is that when any admission is given by anyone, you are waiting to leap upon the confessor with your "THEREFORE YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RCC TEACHING SINCE IT IS NOW YOU PERSONALLY VS. THE CHURCH". I have seen this from others, so you are not the only one.
For example: I didn't say he stole the money.
Yes, that could be taken many different ways, so I would look to the global context for interpretation, i.e. in this case the rest of the Bible. This is as opposed to fallible men.
As to your two "choices", you establish a logical fallacy by giving us a faulty "either/or" situation. There are obviously other choices, otherwise, I couldn't type this and defend the Catholic point of view honestly.
OK, like what? In brief, my "choices" were that either Christianity is an unrevealed faith through scriptures because only a paltry few are gifted with true revelation, i.e. the Bible is relatively useless to the layman without the RC lens, OR, that the men you follow (the Magisterium since the founding of the RCC), while well meaning, were wrong on some or many theological points. Without simply shading one of the above, what is a legitimate third choice?
Until you learn to accept how God has revealed Himself to mankind, you are not going to have the greatest of relationship with Him.
One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that God does NOT reveal Himself to mankind through the Holy Scriptures under Roman Catholicism. He only reveals Himself to the Magisterium through the Holy Scriptures. If men want to know God, they have to go through the men of your Church. Of course, I find that to be very unscriptural, for it elevates men and lessens God. And, BTW, wholly without the RCC I know that I have a great relationship with God, because it is personal and based on the foundation of scripture. I know that probably sounds very wrong to you, but all I can tell you is that it is wonderful and very fulfilling.
If you truly have faith in God, you will accept how God has revealed Himself - THROUGH men. God doesn't reveal Himself directly to you WITHOUT the Church.
God used men to write down His word. That's as far as I can go. :) And, if by "Church" you mean God's Church, then I would agree with that part. God isn't going to lead me in opposition to His Church.
Romans 3 says there is no one righteous. Not one. Do you think that Paul meant that literally? Consider his source - the OT - to get a clue of what he meant. I have already told you, but you refuse to hear because it destroys the whole concept of "totally evil man".
In this specific reference I believe Paul was talking to and about the Jews and trying to show them that they were no more righteous than any gentile because the Jews had failed to live up to the law. This would not be one of my lead quotes to defend total depravity. Your "totally evil man" term does create an interesting mind-picture, but of course it is only your own invention and has nothing to do with the Reformed view of total depravity. I am disappointed that you have ignored all of my several explanations.
BTW, my statement concerning Rom. 3, above, does nothing to help your view that Rom. 3:23 was only about the Jews. The whole tenor of the writing takes a shift just before that verse. Paul is now showing that Jews and Gentiles are ALL in the same boat:
Rom 3:21-23 : 21 But now [See The Shift] a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe [Jew AND Gentile]. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ...
In context, this clearly takes it out of the "Jew-only" realm, which is the only thing that would have saved your position.
"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged."
~John 16:7-12
I assert that the Holy Spirit must of necessity lead non-believers. He led this one!
The whole tenor of the writing takes a shift just before that verse. Paul is now showing that Jews and Gentiles are ALL in the same boat:
Indeed ...Romans 3:9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
...
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.