A compelling non-Catholic argument

[CentralFLJames]

Yet I do not require your aproval, nor the aproval of the Catholic church. I AM a christian, and only God can Judge the truth of my claim.

Yet scripture tells you that The Apostolic Church is the only authority on earth that may loose and bound. Jesus requires you to be obedient to His authority as extended through the Church.

No. Unity comes from seeking a common goal, despite other differences. Our unity is in Christ.

There is no meritable unity to be found in discovering common error nor in finding the least common denominator of Hell.

So you think that the HS can not stand on its own, without the words or writtings of men?

The HS operates through the channels of grace, teaching received through The Church. Grave sin separates a person from the HS and renders his spiritual ear deaf. Grave sin can not be forgiven except through the channels of grace available through The Church. Ergo, you need The Church and God’s continuous grace to maintain a channel of grace and inner revelation.

What does 1 Corinthians 2 say about the Truth?
ALL revelation comes from the HS.

You are making assumptions that the HS resides in you that may not be valid.

The bible has many ways to root out false prophets. Fruits of the Spirit is one. It also is clear that in order to know a man as a false prophet, one must be living in the Spirit himself.

The bible roots out nothing in and of itself. It is the authority of God operating through the Church that crushes the head of the serpents of heresy just as was spoken by God in Genesis. God uses heretics such as Luther, Arian and the many others that mother Church has crushed to perfect His Church.

James

 

[protestantman]

And you are more likely to be right than thousands of theologians and mystics from all over the world, working together for 2,000 years, who have all come to the same conclusions as the Catholic Church?

No I do not think that. I do think however that the HS is always right, and he lives in me. Thus, If I seek the truth, I will recieve it from the Holy Spirit.

“If” - yes. What if you are not, in fact, being led by the Holy Spirit, but only by your own personal opinions? What if you are leaning on your own understanding? (Proverbs 3)

I guard myself against this every day, by putting on the armour of God. I seek not my own understanding, but the understanding of the HS. I am saved, and the good fruits I produce bear witness. Outside of that, this is a question that will be taken care of on judgement day.

 

[protestantman]

Why is this supposed to be a good thing?

If you can be wrong and change your mind, then aren’t you building your house on shifting sand?

Instead, you should build your house on the Rock of Peter!!

Hehe. You dont understand my point. If I base scripture on my own understanding, it is fallible. But, if I base scripture on the gradual revelation of the HS, than nothing can stand against it. I am aware of this everytime I read scripture, and guard myself against making the mistake of not looking to the Spirit for understanding

 

[CentralFLJames]

I have never disagreed with authority in the church. I do however believe that the Catholic Church has used their authority in a way that caused dissunity.

Praise be to The Holy Spirit! I think we have something here!
You are admitting and accepting the authority of The Catholic Church. Now we just need to get to the next level of “obedience”.

Consider that disunity is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it becomes necessary to seperate oneself from false teaching that could infect the healty members of the church. Sometimes shock therapy is OK. Better to be shocked by the reality that one is seperated in life and come back to one’s senses than to be shocked in the afterlife and have no options!

Also try to seperate the venial conduct of individual members from the proper conduct of The Church. By definition if an individual member’s conduct is gravely disordered they have seperated themselves from The Church until they repent and come back into the full participation with The Church.

James

 

[protestantman]

They are in the back of most Protestant Bibles under the name of “The Apocrypha.”

Do you not see how you contradict yourself here? On the one hand, you say that your reading of scripture comes directly from the Holy Spirit. On the other, you say you’re fallible. So which is it? Your reading of scripture is from the Holy Spirit and is infallible, or your reading of scripture is your own and is fallible?

No I do not. You only think I do, as you do not understand the context. Not all of my beliefs are from the direct revelation of the HS. The HS has not made all truths clear to me. So the rest of my beliefs are based on the revelations I have recieved, but are in nature, fallible. Do you understand?

 

[protestantman]

I very much admire your commitment to the study of God’s Word. Something many Catholics can not claim to have done. That being said, you know very well that their is no absolute assurance that your, or anyone else’s in protestantism, interpretation of the Word is* the* true one. No one in protestantism claims infallible interpreting abilities, therefore you can in no way be totally, without a doubt, sure that your interpretation is more right than protestant A or Z.

Be prayin for ya man…as I am sure you are praying for us.

Without that uncertainty, it would not be Faith. I live by faith, and therefore will never be certain of all truth, until I stand before God. On that day all will be revealed. Until then, I must trust in the guidence of the HS.

 

[protestantman]

It is relevant that you have not included 1-5.

When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive (words of) wisdom, but with a demonstration of spirit and power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

As you reflect on this section, I ask you to pray for discernment on who is “we” in the text that you provided. Might it be Paul speaking on behalf of the Church to tell them that their views are in error so they are to listen to him as he speaks with authority? Might he be saying that the “we” doesn’t include you and I but the Church for whom he speaks? It has profound implications on the meaning of what you reference.

He was speaking about the apostles. Note also your included scripture. What does Paul say about his own wisdom? Did he make a claim of infallibility or did he claim weakness? Also, what does he say our faith should and should not rest on?

 

[davidv]

No I do not. You only think I do, as you do not understand the context. Not all of my beliefs are from the direct revelation of the HS. The HS has not made all truths clear to me. So the rest of my beliefs are based on the revelations I have recieved, but are in nature, fallible. Do you understand?

I think I understand what you said. By “revelations” do you mean insghts? It appears you have designated yourself as the sole arbitor of whether something is from the HS or not. Is this correct?

It so, this seems to be in direct contradiction to your admission of fallability. What are we missing?

 

[protestantman]

I think I understand what you said. By “revelations” do you mean insghts? It appears you have designated yourself as the sole arbitor of whether something is from the HS or not. Is this correct?

It so, this seems to be in direct contradiction to your admission of fallability. What are we missing?

No, this is incorrect. I dont know how I can be more clear on this. Are you just looking for a contradiction, or are you truly not understanding?

 

[protestantman]

Thanks for the info on the Apocrypha. I will try and find them, and will read them. Yet I do not know what my response to them will be, I will not make presumptions, neither good nor bad. I will read them as I do the rest of scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

davidv:

I think I understand what you said. By “revelations” do you mean insghts? It appears you have designated yourself as the sole arbitor of whether something is from the HS or not. Is this correct?

It so, this seems to be in direct contradiction to your admission of fallability. What are we missing?

No, this is incorrect. I dont know how I can be more clear on this. Are you just looking for a contradiction, or are you truly not understanding?

Let me offer that I think he was pointing out that you seem to be deliberately selective in what fallible person or institution you chose to listen to. The obvious implication is that The Catholic Church, with over 2,000 years of revelation and life works of the saints and faithful and continuous uninterrupted apostolic succession just might have a collective revelation from the HS that is much more mature than what you could ever hope to pick up on through your own admittedly fallable self teaching in the roughly 65 years of your expected lifetime.

James

 

[ibkc]

No I do not. You only think I do, as you do not understand the context. Not all of my beliefs are from the direct revelation of the HS. The HS has not made all truths clear to me. So the rest of my beliefs are based on the revelations I have recieved, but are in nature, fallible. Do you understand?

I certainly do. You are sure that the HS guides you in your reading of scripture, but you aren’t sure that it is there for all of it, and you’re not sure which of your interpretations are inspired and which are not. Yet, you are still arguing for the superiority of sola scriptura against the combined revealed truth of 2,000 years of Church teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

No, this is incorrect. I dont know how I can be more clear on this. Are you just looking for a contradiction, or are you truly not understanding?

It’s difficult to fathom how someone who knows himself to be quite fallible can think himself capable of discerning between his personal opinions and the revelations of the Holy Spirit - after all, both occur in the mind.

For Catholics, it’s much easier because we can compare our thoughts to the teachings of the Church. Where they differ, we are wrong, and where they are the same, we are being enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The root question is, what is your outside source - your yardstick of comparison - that allows you to discern between your own thoughts and the thoughts that are being given to you by the Holy Spirit?

 

[protestantman]

I certainly do. You are sure that the HS guides you in your reading of scripture, but you aren’t sure that it is there for all of it, and you’re not sure which of your interpretations are inspired and which are not. Yet, you are still arguing for the superiority of sola scriptura against the combined revealed truth of 2,000 years of Church teaching.

Nope. Again you do not understand. The Holy Spirit is always there, yet he does not reveal all truth at once. Even many Catholics here have agreed that the Catholic Church is not in possession of the complete and absolute truth of God. Like when you describe how the Churches understanding of papal infallibity has changed. I am beginning to think that you just want to be able to say that I am contradicting myself. Sort of a subversive tactic, as it is far from the point of this thread. I am not a person of such low intelligence that I would sustain contradicting points of view. I do not just open my mouth and let my words spew forth. If you truly think that I am contradicting myself, then that is a result of your own missunderstanding. If you cannot understand what I am saying, then why do you continue asking me questions? If I asked a question, and the answer was in a language I could not understand, I would not continue to ask questions without an interpreter. If I dont understand the language, I will never recieve an understandable answer to my questions. Likewise, this is why I am here. I am here to gain understanding. This way I can converse on a more intellectual level, and with less ignorance, with followers of the Catholic faith.
So please, try to understand what I am saying, before you jump to say that I contradict myself.

 

[protestantman]

It’s difficult to fathom how someone who knows himself to be quite fallible can think himself capable of discerning between his personal opinions and the revelations of the Holy Spirit - after all, both occur in the mind.

Read 1 Corinthians 2

For Catholics, it’s much easier because we can compare our thoughts to the teachings of the Church. Where they differ, we are wrong, and where they are the same, we are being enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

I still see this as a fallible way to discern truth.

The root question is, what is your outside source - your yardstick of comparison - that allows you to discern between your own thoughts and the thoughts that are being given to you by the Holy Spirit?

That would be the guidence of the HS. Again read 1 Corinthians 2. It is pretty clear that Paul was of similar thought.

 

[ibkc]

protestantman, I assure you I am not being deliberately obtuse, or disingenuous, either. What you see as completely normal and natural, I see as confusion. A person’s intelligence or lack of it has nothing to do with how he or she understands matters of faith. I myself completely abandoned Christianity for many years because my understanding of Christianity was the Protestant version, which is confusing and contradictory by its very nature. By an amazing miracle, I was inadvertently exposed to the Catholic version of Christianity, which in comparison to the tortured pretzel logic of the various Protestant interpretations, is elegant and seamless. But in order to see it, a person has to let go of his or her pride, in most cases to consider that maybe, just maybe, everything you’ve always believed is wrong. That is a terribly difficult and frightening thing to do. I commend you for coming here and going through the process of talking to us, and I will pray for you that you come to understand.

 

[jmcrae]

Read 1 Corinthians 2

I Corinthians 2 teaches us that the Church (not the individual) is led by the Holy Spirit, and that we must listen to the Church in order to be able to hear the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides individuals insofar as they allow themselves to be guided by the Church.

But, if individuals could be guided by the Holy Spirit without being in accord with the Church, then why would St. Paul, a representative of the Church, bother to write to them and correct their errors? If he thought that the Holy Spirit could do it directly.

 

[protestantman]

I Corinthians 2 teaches us that the Church (not the individual) is led by the Holy Spirit, and that we must listen to the Church in order to be able to hear the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides individuals insofar as they allow themselves to be guided by the Church.

But, if individuals could be guided by the Holy Spirit without being in accord with the Church, then why would St. Paul, a representative of the Church, bother to write to them and correct their errors? If he thought that the Holy Spirit could do it directly.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

The highlighted verse is individual. Thus it does not solely apply to the apostolic succesion.

 

[protestantman]

protestantman, I assure you I am not being deliberately obtuse, or disingenuous, either. What you see as completely normal and natural, I see as confusion. A person’s intelligence or lack of it has nothing to do with how he or she understands matters of faith. I myself completely abandoned Christianity for many years because my understanding of Christianity was the Protestant version, which is confusing and contradictory by its very nature. By an amazing miracle, I was inadvertently exposed to the Catholic version of Christianity, which in comparison to the tortured pretzel logic of the various Protestant interpretations, is elegant and seamless. But in order to see it, a person has to let go of his or her pride, in most cases to consider that maybe, just maybe, everything you’ve always believed is wrong. That is a terribly difficult and frightening thing to do. I commend you for coming here and going through the process of talking to us, and I will pray for you that you come to understand.

And yet, before you seek understanding of my views, you made the assumption that they were contradictory. Unlike you view of the Protestant churches, I do not have a faith based on pretzel logic. I do not base my beliefs on assumptions.

 

[davidv]

Read 1 Corinthians 2

I have. In fact 1 Cor is the object of a Bible study, being led by Jeff Cavins, that I am currently participating.

I still see this as a fallible way to discern truth.

This ignors the source of the Church’s truth.

That would be the guidence of the HS. Again read 1 Corinthians 2. It is pretty clear that Paul was of similar thought.

How can something that comes to you interiorly, be considered an “external yardstick”?