It's nice to take single verses out of context and against the background of the entire Bible, as you can often prove anything then e.g. the two you quote. And as the Bible "contain[s] some things that are hard to understand” it is a dangerous practice to start picking out bits from here and there on their own.
You have yet to say how the context alters anything at all. Out of context, yes, one can abuse the Bible, but I really don't think I am, and you have yet to demonstrate how I am doing so. As it is, my two out-of-context verses trump your absolutely nothing at all any day. I seem to recall a large part of the "background of the entire Bible" being the insistent request of God that his people live as though they believed in him. I think that's prima facie evidence for the necessity of considering "works" as important, thought not by any means as some sort of alternative route to God.
Also isn't the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking etc? If that doesn't make it an authority what would? Does that fact it is the inspired word of God come into it as well?
I never said the Bible wasn't an authority. In fact, it doesn't seem so very long ago that I appealed to it to attack your extra-biblical idea of sola fide. You and I both believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I don't believe it stands on it's own. How could it? It never says anywhere of what books Scripture comprises. We know this because we were taught it - it was handed on to us as the inspired word of God.
Further[,] have you read John 3:16?
How do you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say? By criticising my method of quoting Scripture out of context shortly before doing it yourself - the difference being that you don't actually get round to quoting it, merely giving the reference.
Looking at John 3:16 for the very first time, under the direction of my learned friend, I see it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
How does that [a]ffect your requirement for works and faith to be saved?
It harmonises with Catholic teaching well enough, whilst not agreeing explicitly. Belief which doesn't inspire action should hardly be called belief, neither, surely, can a purely intellectual assent to belief in the Son of God equal the promised "participat[ion] in the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
[The Catholic Church] is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong.
Well I admire your sincerity.
It is also wrong for you to say that my view is a “groundless assertion” merely because it differs to yours.
Yes, it would be. But that's not what I said, nor why I said it. I think it's wrong of you not to pay enough attention to notice the deliberative way in which I said "insofar as it is stated". That is, you stated no grounds for your opinion, rendering it, with absolute objectivity, an assertion.
I shall email you some more on this, not because I think I am in 'danger' of being wrong and I’m afraid to have it on here, but somebody who is not a Catholic needs to talk to you about your recent experiences away from (no offence intended) other Catholics and no one down in Exeter seems to be bothered to[...].
Well, by all means. Most of the non-Catholic Christians I know have kept pretty quiet about it. I must say that your timing leaves something to be desired... Must point out however, that I don't respond in-depth to e-mails at work, and my yahoo address is generally unused. I promise to read and think about whatever you send me though.
Ooh, hang on. You don't think you're in 'danger' of being wrong? I'm not entirely sure what your inverted commas mean, but I know that I have no intention of ever assuming that I'm safe from "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
If you're right in your new viewpoint it won't do you any harm and it you're not it will be what you need.
Perhaps I am aggressive in my viewpoint but maybe a challenge for you will be good. It will either set you back on your prior path or affirm for yourself your new one.
Well quite.
I have posted this in your comments box so the people who read your blog are aware I have not conceded your point and that I am responding to it. - Gavin
An afterthought. Consider the following:
I wouldn't say [Catholicism] was great. I'd say it's inconsistent with the Bible. - GavinI mean, which is it? Impressively self-consistent, or dismissive of the Scriptures? Too ignorant, or too clever by half? I expect what you mean by "self-consistent" is that it doesn't contradict itself because it thinks that Sacred Tradition can trump Sacred Scripture, but that just isn't the case. I could be wrong of course - perhaps you really are arguing two entirely contradictory things. Who can say?
It is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong. - Gavin
The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." - Catechism of the Catholic Church
