At what point does the Holy Spirit begin 'guiding' sola scriptura Christians in interpreting scripture?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Hi everyone!

I was listening to Call to Communion today on EWTN and one of the callers mentioned that they left the Church and are now a born again Christian.

This person mentioned that they don’t need anything but the Bible to know the truth about the faith, when they are born again, the Holy Spirit will guide them while reading scripture and allow them to interpret it with certainty for themselves…sans Church…sans Tradition…sans Councils, etc.

I was curious when exactly this begins to happen to such an individual. And how can one know it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them and not just their own conclusions?

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Funny you should ask…

I was riding the bus just a few days ago… a lady got on the bus a stop or so after I did… she was very friendly and talkative; she was quite opened to express her need to go to prayer… a few minutes later she decided to begin her prayer period right then and there… she was quite “moved” by the Spirit and her words seem to be quite honest and Christ/God-centered…

Soon two things happened, she began to insist that the lady that gave up her seat for her would sit right back next to her so that she would ‘receive’ ‘blessings,’ and a gentleman near me began an exchange about believing in the invisible God.

Both of these “Believers” seemed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If there would be enough time (and patience and respect) we could have engaged in a fantastic exchange about God and “Divine Inspiration.”

The lady was clearly non-Catholic; the man seems to be some mix of “me thinks” and Judaism.

While the both projected “inspiration;” neither agreed with each other’s version–and, I must confess, are not supported by my Catholic understanding of God and Divine Revelation and Inspiration.

Bemused as I was, I blessed the man (who insisted that the Incarnation is some sort of sham–educated by the Jews that “discriminated” against him because of his name, Jesus) and felt both proud of the woman’s determination to seek the Truth (Jesus) and sad that she thought that she had some sort of divine connection to God where blessings would be showered upon those who do as she commands.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FloridaAngler]

I was listening to Call to Communion today on EWTN and one of the callers mentioned that they left the Church and are now a born again Christian.

This person mentioned that they don’t need anything but the Bible to know the truth about the faith, when they are born again, the Holy Spirit will guide them while reading scripture and allow them to interpret it with certainty for themselves…sans Church…sans Tradition…sans Councils, etc.

I was curious when exactly this begins to happen to such an individual. And how can one know it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them and not just their own conclusions?

If this person actually exists, and is not just a Catholic straw man, like we see here so often, then they need some serious discipleship. But their error doesn’t undermine the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. It just means they’re wrong.

 

[RKS89]

I was actually worse off after serious Scripture study as Protestant. There were too many questions, and the answers I did get just birthed more questions. It really made me feel kind if crazy.

 

[RKS89]

Exactly! I thought for sure I would end up some kind of weird agnostic Christian without a church. It was such an immense feeling of relief
to have the weight of Biblical interpretation lifted off my incapable shoulders when I finally made it back to the Church.

 

[Kei]

Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura

I’m sorry to say but that phrase appears no where in the Bible, and the idea is never described in it. We do get exhortions about proper authority such as the pharisees sitting on the seat of Moses and following their teaching but not what they do, or taking someone to the Church, and if they do not listen, to treat them like a plebian. But nothing about sola scriptura. The Bibles canon wasn’t even affirmed yet.

 

[fhansen]

Hi everyone!

I was listening to Call to Communion today on EWTN and one of the callers mentioned that they left the Church and are now a born again Christian.

This person mentioned that they don’t need anything but the Bible to know the truth about the faith, when they are born again, the Holy Spirit will guide them while reading scripture and allow them to interpret it with certainty for themselves…sans Church…sans Tradition…sans Councils, etc.

I was curious when exactly this begins to happen to such an individual. And how can one know it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them and not just their own conclusions?

They can’t know. Begin debating the faith with them and you’ll soon find out that they disagree with each other as often as not on major tenets, all while claiming guidance by the HS.

 

[FloridaAngler]

I’m sorry to say but that phrase appears no where in the Bible

The phrase does not, but the principle does.

By your logic, we should not believe in the Trinity, since that phrase does not appear in the Bible.

and the idea is never described in it.

So you say. But, clearly, we find it in the Bible.

We do get exhortions about proper authority such as the pharisees sitting on the seat of Moses and following their teaching but not what they do, or taking someone to the Church, and if they do not listen, to treat them like a plebian.

Very telling that you did not list scripture as “a proper authority”.

But nothing about sola scriptura. The Bibles canon wasn’t even affirmed yet.

So you claim.

The Trinity is not named in Scripture, but it is described. sola scriptura is neither.

So you claim. And yet, we find it in scripture.

No where in the Bible does it say that it is to be the sole authority.

Nobody said it does. Congratulations. You’ve just refuted an argument nobody made. Break out the champagne and celebrate your genius.

Where does the Bible get its authority from, allow me to ask?

God’s Word gets its authority from God, who spoke it.

Do you include the Shepherd of Hermas in your Canon?

Irrelevant.

 

[FloridaAngler]

Begin debating the faith with them and you’ll soon find out that they disagree with each other as often as not on major tenets, all while claiming guidance by the HS.

Two problems with this.

The first is that you sound pretty sure that “they disagree with each other on major tenets”, and yet, any time I ask you which of the essential doctrines they disagree on and what those disagreements are, you never seem to be able to show any examples.

The second is, if somebody is being guided by a subjective, esoteric experience (ie. “guided by the Holy Spirit”), that is not the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, a matter of basic soteriology. Many other Sola Scriptura adherents and churches flat out deny this.

Luther and others believed in the Real Presence by their own description; while many going by the bible alone deny the RP altogether.

And if I had asked you about Luther, that would be very interesting.

Same for infant baptism, a belief and practice of the Church east and west from time immemorial. Some deny the role of man’s will, some affirm it.

Neither of which are considered “essentials” in Christianity, but are matters of adiaphora.

JWs, a Sola Scriptura offspring…

First, JWs are not a Christian denomination.

Second, JWs are not sola scriptura, as they have an organization similar to the Catholic “Magisterium” which they consider to be an equal authority to scripture.

 

[Kei]

That is why I included that it was not described. If you cut up my words into little parts that is something. The Trinity is not named in Scripture, but it is described. sola scriptura is neither.

But, you say I have ignorance of Scripture, but this is a bare assertion. The Canon of Scripture was not yet complete until after it was written (just logical thinking demonstrates this). No where in the Bible does it say that it is to be the sole authority. Where does the Bible get its authority from, allow me to ask?

Do you include the Shepherd of Hermas in your Canon?

 

[po18guy]

We are first and foremost to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). In 1 Corinthians 12:10, we see that “discernment of spirits” is a charism, and not all are given it.

Such a caller is either a troll or an epic fail, as a worldly spirit has lead them away from the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In fact, they failed to discern the selfsame Holy Spirit, by Whose power the bread and wine become Christ.

 

[fhansen]

You’ll need to show me now where you asked, and where I failed to answer. Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, a matter of basic soteriology. Many other Sola Scriptura adherents and churches flat out deny this. Luther and others believed in the Real Presence by their own description; while many going by the bible alone deny the RP altogether. Same for infant baptism, a belief and practice of the Church east and west from time immemorial. Some deny the role of man’s will, some affirm it. JWs, a Sola Scriptura offspring, argue plausibly against the deity of Jesus with Scripture.

And you’re right, not all claim guidance by the HS, even though that’s quite biblical, understood correctly. Either way, going by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a matter of basing one’s theology on best-guess exegetics in the end, since none of it is informed by a lived, historical experience -or Tradition. And this is why well-credentialed theologians and bible scholars, etc, disagree routinely with each other on Scriptural interpretations.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

This person does exist. His name is Sam.

40:13 is where this was brought up

 

[goodcatholic]

I was curious when exactly this begins to happen to such an individual. And how can one know it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them and not just their own conclusions?

I think there must be some spirit guiding us when we choose to read the Bible in “good faith”. I mean the purity of our intent. Are we reading it to become more knowledgeable so we can impress our friends? If we are sincerely and truly trying to get to know God better and humbly searching for “the truth”, then only good can come out of it. In that sense, you might say the Holy Spirit is guiding us.
I relied on Jeff Cavins and other Catholic theologians to help me understand the Bible better. I couldn’t have managed without their help. In this respect, going to a theologian is no different to going to any expert in any field like a Doctor for your health or a mechanic for your car.
But after I have had their help, I can interpret the Bible better on my own. Of course I need to resort to commentaries but I am more independent than before.
I would never advise a new Christian to just “go and read the Bible and come back to me.” How could they ever even get past Leviticus?

 

[fhansen]

And if I had asked you about Luther, that would be very interesting.

That was supposed to amount to a response?? Going by Scriptura alone, is Baptism necessary for salvation? Is Jesus really present in the Eucharist?

Neither of which are considered “essentials” in Christianity, but are matters of adiaphora.

Infant baptism and the role of man’s will are Important nonetheless. Why settle for greater ignorance when one can have the fuller truth?

First, JWs are not a Christian denomination.

Second, JWs are not sola scriptura, as they have an organization similar to the Catholic “Magisterium” which they consider to be an equal authority to scripture.

So does Lutheranism and Calvinism, with their confessions et al, using Scripture as their norm in any case. Likewise, JWs argue from Scripture alone; from that standpoint it matters not whether we consider them to be Christian.

 

[Chris4]

Do you agree on anything? If you did you would be under one roof.You are so divided that you brand yourselves with different sect names and make the prayer of our Lord to the Father, John 17:22, of no effect.

 

[dann]

Math 18:20 when 2 or more are gathered together.
Or romans 8 . the holy spirit bears wittness with our spirit.
Yes there is a real preasence that will occur.

 

[dann]

Oh… Smith wigglesworth. Fits the described bible only reading.
And he had a dynamic healing ministry .

The holy spirit can produce signs. And miracle’s. Following

 

[goout]

Hi everyone!

I was listening to Call to Communion today on EWTN and one of the callers mentioned that they left the Church and are now a born again Christian.

This person mentioned that they don’t need anything but the Bible to know the truth about the faith, when they are born again, the Holy Spirit will guide them while reading scripture and allow them to interpret it with certainty for themselves…sans Church…sans Tradition…sans Councils, etc.

I was curious when exactly this begins to happen to such an individual. And how can one know it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them and not just their own conclusions?

The Holy Spirit draws the faithful to unity. The Holy Spirit is not merely “the great infuser of knowledge for individuals”. If that were the case, we would not have the denominization of Christianity.
Unity draws us together in loving obedience, in spite of our differences.

 

[Cathoholic]

FloridaAngler to fhansen:

The first is that you sound pretty sure that “they disagree with each other on major tenets”, and yet, any time I ask you which of the essential doctrines they disagree on and what those disagreements are, you never seem to be able to show any examples.

There are many “major tenets” that various Bible-only denominations have significant disagreement over. Disagreement to the point of church splits.

With Bible-alone Christianity, there is never anyone who has the authority to say what is and what is not “essential”.

This lack of authority contributes to disunity. A disunity that does not exist for Catholics who believe in and obey the teaching office (Magisterium).

If you take a mere eight doctrinal differences you conceivably end up with 8 prime (8! or 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 40,320) sets of beliefs.

These are not insignificant doctrinal divergences.

Differences like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, are pictures and stained glass windows idolatry?, which version of The Rapture should we hold to? (I just saw a church split in my town over that issue) Or should we assert no Rapture at all? (at least in the dispensationalist sense), and on and on and on.

It’s easy to talk about “the major tenets” when there is nobody to settle what a “major tenet” is or is not (explicitly or at least implicitly).

Just some thoughts of mine.

God bless.

Cathoholic