Holy Spirit and private interpretation

[tdgesq]

WOOOOWWWW!!! I was wondering if someone would make this argument and I can’t believe you actually did because it so perfectly proves the point I was trying to make earlier about fallen human reason and the sinful bents of logic. Dante, do you want to rethink this, or would another catholic like to help out your colleague before we go to town on this?

Why would he rethink it? He’s right. Here’s what CCC 1903 is referencing if you take a look at the footnote:

5l. Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men " (34)

Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, “In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence.” (35)

1. The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority. Hence the above teaching is consonant with any genuinely democratic form of government. (36)

John XXIII PT.

So, that you have an obtuse personal interpretation of this part of the CCC proves to us all . . . . . . . what? That you have an obtuse personal interpretation.

Also (and this is beside the point I was getting at above) note these thoughts from your CC:

2030 From the church he learns the example of holiness (emphasis in original)…he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it

2044 In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of the Christians

So what.

2051 the infallibility of the Magisterium of the pastors extends to al l the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine (emphasis added)

What do you think the Magisterium of the Pastors is? Why don’t you look in the index of the CCC and find out.

both totally in context about church leadership. thought your boys were infallible? just a side point. re think your last post then we’ll work on that one.

He had better not, because he’s correct. But out of curiousity, why should we believe anything you have to say, especially after this:

THe part about “your reasoning is flawed” I am fully aware that my reasoning is flawed. So is yours, and eveyone else on this forum.

By your own admission, your reasoning is flawed. I agree with you by the way. So tell me, why should we listen to someone who is unreasonable? Also, please get to the point (if there is one) about your issue with private interpretation.

 

[captaincoog]

Hey Mountainboy, looks like you have your sleeves rolled up for anything! I admire that, that you are passionate about your beliefs and want to go deeper into the Truth. So do many of the posters here.

I see a similarity between yourself and a friend of mine who is part-way through Bible college. We get together for some regular discussions about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. He is very knowledgeable about the Protestant interpretaions of the Bible and can make a very, very good argument (at surface level anyway). To be honest I am quite impressed with the way he has learned to construct an argument and defend it.

It is when I ask him about the very fundamentals of Protestantism that he begins to get uncomfortable. For example, we were talking about the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist, (or the Real Abscence from his p.o.v ) and I threw in a question regarding saving faith.

Me: “J, do you have saving faith?” Long, long pause.

Him: “Yes, yes I do.”

Me: “How do you know?” Another long awkward pause.

Him:"Can we get back to the Eucharist?

I was quite surprised at his apparent dwindling confidence when it came to the very bedrock of his beliefs. The thing was, I asked him this same question 18 months prior and he has not given a single answer. Somehow he slips by it.

So, I don’t want this opportunity to slip by for you. Here is a golden opportunity to answer a foundational question regarding Protestant belief. I am refering to the original question at the top. Or you can tackle the question that I have not yet been given an answer to from my Protestant friend.

If you can’t, then you have no basis in continuing to believe as you do, since you are building a house on the sand.

 

[toaslan]

Intersting, so when civil authority breaks down morally, we can disobey, but when ecclesiastical authority breaks down morally, the institution that is the pillar and support of the truth, we just play along?

tdgesq is pointing out that your CC 1901 excerpt is about human authority, the authority which governs civil order; not divine authority (because the magesterium is a sharing by the pope in divine authority, it is not a human authority). 1901 comes in Chapter Two: The Human Community.

Human authority derives from human law. Human law gets its validity from natural law. Natural law is the application of divine law to natural things. We are a few steps away here from divine authority. So you have collapsed human authority into divine authority, which is why we’re gettin’ the above absurd conclusion…

When a bad pope lives a bad life, it is a scandal, it injures the Church’s reputation, it may be an excuse for those scandalized to leave the membership, but it does not negate his authority-- because that authority rests not on him and his personal goodness or badness, but on his OFFICE.

St. Peter is a perfect example. He is mentioned by name way way more than any other apostle; he has several huge moments with Our Lord, and nobody else has these huge moments. Yet several of these huge moments involve Peter’s weakness, his lack of faith in this and that situation. Peter’s failures don’t stop Christ from entrusting His sheep and lambs to him. Peter’s weakness does not stop Christ from entrusting to Peter the keys to the kingdom.

It’s Jesus Christ who has set this up, not Catholics. We are following our Leader in accepting the authority of our pope to infallibly interpret the scriptures to us.

I’m using pope here because that’s what magesterium comes down to. Whoever the pope happens to be, he may, by virtue of having the HS, infallibly teach us, or he may do it in concert with all the bishops. They cannot do it without him.

MB, do you see that you were researching human authority? and that that would be different from divine authority shared with the pope in order to have a divinely inspired teaching authority? I’m not asking if you accept it, I’m asking if you agree to the distinction?

now you’re making me study the CC…

 

[toaslan]

This may help. It’s CC#894

The governing office
“The bishops…govern…by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify…"

So the bishops, when in step with and especially including the bishop of Rome, ought to exercise their authority so as to edify. Not they are guaranteed to do so. They should always do so: sometimes, being sinners, they don’t do so. Whether or not they exercise their authority so as to edify, they still have the authority because it is vested in their office and not in themselves.

Maybe this example illuminates: A bad priest, one validly ordained but who went bad–cannot be “unpriested.” He can be defrocked–permanently without permission from a bishop anywhere in the world to act as a priest–but he cannot be unpriested. He is a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisidech. Nobody, not even the pope, can remove that permanent mark on a priest’s soul which occurs at ordination. He still has the powers of priesthood–he can still loose and bind from sin, still confect the Eucharist. But he is forbidden to exercise any of those powers (except in life-and-death emergency…).

His power rests on his office as priest, forbidden as he is from acting on his office; not on his holiness or sinfulness as a man. That’s why the power cannot fall away or be taken away from him.

This is my attempt to show that the Catholic Church teaches, and the Catechism reflects that teaching, that the Church’s divine authority does not rest on goodness, but on office. (not to say that those in authority should not be really, really, really good…)

 

[toaslan]

Also (and this is beside the point I was getting at above) note these thoughts from your CC:

2030 From the church he learns the example of holiness (emphasis in original)…he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it

2044 In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of the Christians

yeah, I like those quotes too. I agree with them. They sure are nice. Don’t see how they show that Authority doesn’t rest on office rather than on the personal holiness of the office-holder.

2051 the infallibility of the Magisterium of the pastors extends to al l the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine (emphasis added)

both totally in context about church leadership. thought your boys were infallible?
-MB

I think you must be misunderstanding something, because I sure got lost.

Let me put 2051 another way: the gift of infallibility guarantees freedom from error when the pope (or all the bishops together in union with the pope) formally teaches anything, including when he teaches on moral matters.

What did you think it said?

 

[toaslan]

Randy Carson’s SS Post #314 said

MountainBoy, If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

your answer at #7 in this thread was yes, but that yes rested on a citation from the CC which applied to another subject.

So, now what is your response to Post #314?:

…Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

And your responses:

from MountainBoy
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorites taht exist are appointed by God.cf. 1 Pet 2:13.

Like the Pope?

from MB
Spiritual authority is to be rejected if authority is immoral. I’ve been reading Ezekiel in teh mornings and God clearly rejects Israe’ls shepherds for their immorality. Ezek 34. Plus Saul, 1 Sam 15, plus all those I showed in post 311.

You showed those quotes in #311; in response Randy showed the above quotes in #314. Your exegesis has to allow for the quotes which don’t currently fit with your explanation, because all of these quotes are equally inspired.

This is why Scripture alone is the authrirty. SInful men cannot be trusted with this responsibilty.

MB, do you honestly think you have expained away all the material in post 314 about authority not resting on goodness?

 

[toaslan]

The role of the Holy Spirit for those who are not saved yet, is to convict them of sin. He uses the word of God to this end. So, yes the Holy Spirit can guide a non-believer towards salvation.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c3.htm

I was interested, and used your link to read your citation, but I don’t see that it supports the role you suggest for the HS. If you want to iron this out, I suggest we go private message?

 

[MountainBoy11]

Why would he rethink it? He’s right. Here’s what CCC 1903 is referencing if you take a look at the footnote:

The CC is logically flawed here: It does not get it right on a rational level.

Civil authority
Not the pillar and support of truth
Illegitimate when morally corrupt

Church authority
The pillar and support of truth
Legitimate when morally corrupt

The CC is exegetically flawed here. It does not get it right on a hermeneutic level:

Scripture always teaching submission to civil authority regardless of their moral qualifications. Rom 13:1

Scripture teaches rejection of church authority when morally unqualified. In the church, morality determines authenticity, not so in government. 1 Tim 3

Note, in Acts, the two times teh apostles reject authority it is religious authority. Acts 4:19, 5:29. It’s the religous leaders in question here.

This is what you, along with the Reformers, should be doing with your leadership as well…

By your own admission, your reasoning is flawed. I agree with you by the way. So tell me, why should we listen to someone who is unreasonable? .

Don’t listen to someone who is unreasonable. Don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to fallible interpreters such as your religious leaders.

LIsten to God alone in Scripture alone as interpreted by teh Spirit alone. You will be amazed at how much clarity you will find when you sit down with an open Bible and ask the Holy SPirit to make the meaning clear to you.

 

[Philthy]

The CC is logically flawed here: It does not get it right on a rational level.

According to everything you have written so far, I can only assume that this means that you approve of it as spiritual truth?
Didnt you reject “the rational level” in your first posts? The funny thing is that you then justified your approach with logic. I cant believe you will have too many people willing to engage you with such nonsense.
MB:

Scripture teaches rejection of church authority when morally unqualified.

Really? I seem to remember Christ commanding “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” Matt 23:1-3 I say you are flat wrong.
MB:

Don’t listen to someone who is unreasonable. Don’t listen to me.

OK
MB:

Listen to God alone in Scripture alone as interpreted by teh Spirit alone. You will be amazed at how much clarity you will find when you sit down with an open Bible and ask the Holy SPirit to make the meaning clear to you.

You are too funny. You mean your interpretations all seem perfectly clear… to you. That is simply too funny. The problem that has been REPEATEDLY observed with this “method” is that those who embrace it cannot keep their mouths shut and decide to “preach” to others. And guess what happens? They start contradicting one another with their doctrinal clarity. They even sometimes contradict themselves. It really is folly.
I dont mean to discourage reading Scripture and listening attentively for guidance from the Spirit so dont go there.

 

[tdgesq]

The CC is logically flawed here: It does not get it right on a rational level.

So now you’ve decided to start using reason.

Civil authority
Not the pillar and support of truth
Illegitimate when morally corrupt

Church authority
The pillar and support of truth
Legitimate when morally corrupt

The sacrament of holy orders preserves the legitimacy of the particular church authority who has engaged in immoral behavoir. If you had actually read and understood the CCC, that would be apparent to you.

The CC is exegetically flawed here. It does not get it right on a hermeneutic level:

You do not know what these terms mean, so please stop using them.

Don’t listen to someone who is unreasonable. Don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to fallible interpreters such as your religious leaders.

LIsten to God alone in Scripture alone as interpreted by teh Spirit alone.

You just told me not to listen to you, then you told me to listen to you about sola scriptura. I’ll choose the former.

 

[MountainBoy11]

Randy Carson’s SS Post #314 said

Sorry the formatting isn’t gonna be great. Randy’s comments here were thought provoking, but out of context as usual.

Randy Carson SS 314
…Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Of course Jesus knew Judas would betray him. But the point remains, once Judas defaulted morally, he lost his position of authority. Pretty simple.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

The grammar and the context are helpful. Jesus rails the Pharisees quite hard and quite direct throughout the gospels. THe strongest rebuke is shortly after this, in verses 13-30, where Jesus pronounces seven woes and calls them "brood of vipers, blind guides, full of dead men’s bones, etc. Highly doubtful that Jesus would affirm them in verse 3 then slam them in verses 13-30.

A closer look at the grammar lets us know that Jesus is clearly speaking sarcastically in verse 1. The Greek could also be translated, “They have seated themselves in Moses’ seat.” Jesus is here stressing the fact that the authority they have asserted upon themselves is an imaginery authority. And in case you are curious as to whether Jesus was really being sarcastic, he makes himself very clear in the following verses.

Any interpreter who could interpret this otherwise is clearly misled

 

[MountainBoy11]

So now you’ve decided to start using reason.
.

Yeah…I know. This argument got messy. I was trying to make the point that the catholic church is not only off exegetically, but ratinoally as well.

Don’t have time to clarify tonight…

Friends, I’ve got a family and a small business and can’t spend as much time as I would like to on this forum. Probably only one night per week so it’s hard to keep up.

I would just exhort you that Scripture is clearer than you think. Just give it a chance to speak for itself. Really. Just sit down with the Bible and read it as you would any other book. It containst the very word of God, and God did not mumble when He spoke it. God does not have a speech impetiment that needs to be clarified by your priests. especialy corrupt priests.

I love the Word (Psalm 119), and it is hard to see it so maligned on this forum. I REALLY wish I had more time to go through each point and show you its clarity.

-MB

 

[tdgesq]

Don’t worry about it - I understand. MountainBoy, this may surprise you, but most Catholics I know read the Bible. I’m reading through Isaiah right now. For many of us it is because of what we’ve read in the Bible that we are Catholic. Just something for you to think about. Have a good week.

 

[runandsew]

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

The grammar and the context are helpful. Jesus rails the Pharisees quite hard and quite direct throughout the gospels. The strongest rebuke is shortly after this, in verses 13-30, where Jesus pronounces seven woes and calls them "brood of vipers, blind guides, full of dead men’s bones, etc. Highly doubtful that Jesus would affirm them in verse 3 then slam them in verses 13-30.
A closer look at the grammar lets us know that Jesus is clearly speaking sarcastically in verse 1. The Greek could also be translated, “They have seated themselves in Moses’ seat.” Jesus is here stressing the fact that the authority they have asserted upon themselves is an imaginery authority. And in case you are curious as to whether Jesus was really being sarcastic, he makes himself very clear in the following verses.
Any interpreter who could interpret this otherwise is clearly misled

This is a very interesting insight on this passage, I have never hear of it before, do you know if any of the early church fathers held similar views as yours on the subject of Moses’ seat?
I tried to google it and only came up with two sermons of St. Augustine which referred to Moses’ seat, but he doesn’t seem to hold the view which you are talking about on this topic.

Sermon 24 on the New Testament

Sermon 87 on the New Testament

 

[Philthy]

Of course Jesus knew Judas would betray him. But the point remains, once Judas defaulted morally, he lost his position of authority. Pretty simple.

Yours claim is simple enough, but justifying is not nearly as simple. The fact of the matter is that Judas was replaced after he died - not when he “defaulted morally”. And just for the record, did Peter not morally default when he denied Christ? Did not all the Apostles except John default when they abandoned him? Yet they all kept their offices. Pretty simple.
I hope Im not breaking the rules by using common sense…

Randy:

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

MB:

The grammar and the context are helpful. Jesus rails the Pharisees quite hard and quite direct throughout the gospels. THe strongest rebuke is shortly after this, in verses 13-30, where Jesus pronounces seven woes and calls them "brood of vipers, blind guides, full of dead men’s bones, etc. Highly doubtful that Jesus would affirm them in verse 3 then slam them in verses 13-30…A closer look at the grammar lets us know that Jesus is clearly speaking sarcastically in verse 1.

Three things:

1. No one claimed Christ was “affirming them” as persons- what he affirmed was their position of authority ordained by God, just like Paul did with public authority.
2. Your assessment of the situation as “highly doubtful” is just that - an assessment.
3. If Jesus was being sarcastic (I cant think of another example of this in Scripture) he would not have said - “don’t do what they do” because that is no longer sarcasm. If he was being sarcastic he would have said something along the lines of:
   They sit in Moses’ seat, don’t they? Then, by all means, do whatever they say and model yourselves after them. Afterall, it’s plain for all to see how righteous they are.Wink, wink" That’s sarcasm my friend - what is recorded in Scripture and your flimsy interpretation of it don’t mesh and I see no reason - spiritually or logically - to consider your position.

MB:

Any interpreter who could interpret this otherwise is clearly misled

That’s pretty humble of you.
What I see with clarity is that you have:
A) Projected a present cultural norm (sarcasm) into the culture of the Jews
B) Failed to provide a single NT reference to validate that Christ would ever use it;
C) Dug into Greek grammar to reinterpret and contradict what accomplished scholars have put forth as the meaning of the verse; and
D) Failed to have your reinterpretation actually meet the challenge of remaining consistent with sarcasm.

And then you claim that all other interpretations are simply those who are being “misled”. I think Im getting more “clarity” on your theological world view now. It is as follows:

The holy Spirit leads me to perfect clarity in interpreting Scripture. All who present opposing views are, therefore, not being led by the holy Spirit - they are being misled. I can confidently ignore them - especially their appeals to reason and common sense.

Im sure you are a good person who means well - I dont mean to be too harsh. Just be a little more humble in your approach to respectfully disagreeing with others who are honestly seeking God.

 

[toaslan]

MountainBoy, tell me it’s not true!:

The holy Spirit leads me to perfect clarity in interpreting Scripture. All who present opposing views are, therefore, not being led by the holy Spirit - they are being misled. I can confidently ignore them - especially their appeals to reason and common sense.

If so, my modest hope crashes and burns. 'That hope is for you to see here for yourself that:

*the Catholic position has internal integrity, that is, while one may disagree with it, one cannot say it is internally inconsistent with itself; or simply dismiss it with scorn.

• the Catholic position has all kinds of biblical support.
  *the Catholic position has all kinds of witness from the Early Church Fathers.
  *much of what you hold as certain is held as incorrect by people who also have obviously studied the bible a lot, Protestant as well as Catholic sources, and who love our Lord and the bible too.
  *there are lots of reasons out there which contradict your reasons and do it with some merit.

Now agreeing to any/all of this about Catholicism would be impossible through this forum, because all the reasoning together is irrelevant IF such as this were assumed by the Protestant party:

The holy Spirit leads me to perfect clarity in interpreting Scripture.

While I assert that no one can justify this assumption; I do understand it is essential to Protestantism. I don’t expect Protestantism to crash, now that I have asserted a contrary; nor do I expect you to become Catholic just because the assertion is made.

I just would expect anyone to agree, from all the interchange here, that there is a huge world outside one’s own relatively new and small sect or denomination. And that no-one should be anti-Catholic. (That’s not the same as to say one should be pro-Catholic.)

This would be just a bad trap to fall into:

All who present opposing views are, therefore, not being led by the holy Spirit…

and one thinking so would be unable to truly engage a Catholic interlocutor–because one partner assumes everything the other guy says is being led by, well, not by the Holy Spirit. Inescapably, then, by whom? So of course one would need to be pretty busy just not listening. Not when one is fighting the devil.

I am NOT making any derogatory judgment on you. On the contrary, I am obviously relying on your honesty and love of the truth. And I respect your leading the way into these Catholic-filled waters where you cannot feel at home. I see your hurt on behalf of Our Lord, when you say you don’t like to see the scriptures “maligned.” That we have not maligned them is unknown to you, but I respect that tenderness in you for His written word.

I know you are too busy to respond post by post. That’s OK. Blessings!

 

[captaincoog]

Hey Mountainboy!!!

You’ve yet to reply to the question posed in Post #1 of this thread.

Here is post #1 copied and pasted here for your convenience. Please reply.

"**Mountainboy, how do you know you have the Holy Spirit?

Did you read some of the Bible and then “get saved”, thus receiving the Holy Spirit? If so, how did you come to a right interpretation of the Bible in order to “get saved” - before you received the Spirit to guide you to a right interpretation of those salvation passages of the bible?

You didn’t listen to some pastor in a church explain it to you, did you? How do you know they had the Holy Spirit to guide them? How do you know?

For all you know, you might have received a deceiving spirit who appeared as an angel of light, thinking this was the Holy Spirit. This spirit may have lead you into believing doctrines of demons, could it have not? Their intellect is far superior to yours and mine. This is what demonic spirits do with the time they have left. It’s their job. They’re good at it.

If the Catholic Church is actually the true church founded by Christ, and no other, then a deceiving spirit would only be too happy to make you think you have the truth, twisting the scriptures to your own destruction. Pride puffs up.

How are you so, so sure you are right? We all agree that the Bible is inerrant, but your interpretation can be wrong can’t it?

You must admit this as a possibility.

There are many opinions. Yours is one of them**."

I look forward to your response as soon as you can.