So whom should I beleive Heber and his sola scriptura interpretation that contradicts the interpretation of other protestanst by the way ie Anglcians and ancient church bodies such as the Orthodox and Catholics. What is plain to him is not plain to the 1.7 billion adherents to those 3 Christian bodies. In fact the denial of John 6 is a minority in Christiandom. But in low church protestant america you would never know that as they close their eyes to the more dominant opinion.
Heber vs Saint Ignatius a martyr for the Christian faith eaten by the Lions in the Roman Circus who walked and talked with the disciples or Heber with his nice leather bound bible with gold pages and himself as the arbriter of truth 20 centureis removed from the book he is reading in a time and continent Saint JOhn never knew of.
THe choice is simple the church with the apostlic tradtion that connects to the apostles logically would have the far better odds of interpreting its own history its own books she wrote, cannonized and preached to the world far better than a 20th century american with Bible and tow and his own opinion as the final arbriter of truth.
Even in a secular context the idea of handing down original teachings to a governing body with the authority to interpret the original documents is scene when the U.S. Supreme Court interprets for the entire country the writings of the fouding fathers via the U.S. Constitution. As with any anology its imperfect as Jesus gave the church his authority to bind and loose and Peter the keys of the kingdom and its judements are perfect form the gates of hell prevailing against it. So whatever authoity the Superme court is multiplied a million times over.
However it proves my point that to avoid anarchy (which protestantism ultimately becomes with its 30,000 differnt churches and every member interpreting the Bible for themselves) the founding fathers wisely choose an outlet to have order and keep the tradtion and intent of its documents through changing times. I would say Jesus would have even more insight to this wisdom than the foudngin fathers and would do the same at the very least but his seal of protection from error which secular authorites don’t have.
But if the founding fathers passed out the Constituion and let every citizen interpret it for himself and that was the truth all heck would break loose and anarchy would be the rule of law and not the order that a Suprem Court interpreting the Law of the land provides.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church
cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
THe very existence of thousands of churches deny the one truth the one church that scripture says is the pillar and foundation of truth. You can’t have multiple truths or churches.
Sorry Heber your truth is not true your interpretation is not true becuase you go to a church that was not founded or intended by Jesus and you interetation is not protected by the Holy Spirit. Only the true interpetation of the church founded by Christ (Catholic Church) is protected by the Holy Spirit he cannot give out multiple interpretations that deny each other as true.
