Protestants: Is the Bible true because someone repents after reading it?

[PRmerger]

Joe, Sola Scripture is not true for me because someone suggested it centuries ago. It is true for me because I am experiencing it.

I’ll try once more: The Bible is the word of God because:

1. having been raised in a church-going family, been “baptised”, singing about Jesus and praying to Him - yet not following Him in faith - there was no difference for me between living an ungodly life and living a godly life, except that I felt a little guilty when I had been a little ‘naughty’.
2. then, one day, when I least expected it and when I certainly did not want it, someone preached a sermon from the Bible which convinced me that Jesus was really the Son of God and that He really came so that I, a Gentile, may know Him. What happened to me at that moment was something I had been oblivious to previously. The word of God pierced right into my heart. Only it can do that: Hebrews 4:7 - “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
3. I got to truly repent that day (both of my efforts to impress God with my sense of good behaviour as well as my ignorance of Him as well as my disobedience to Him). I also got to believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord. This I confessed with my mouth openly and joyously. At that moment I gave my *will *over to Jesus and He became my Lord. Some time later I was baptised in a swimming pool - something I would never have done previously. Even later did I learn that the aforementioned things were necessary for me to receive a new spirit and be justified before God (refer John 3:3, Romans 10:9-10). The thing that made the difference was what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 2:13: “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
4. Amazingly, before all these things happened I had resisted the idea of being “born again”, which, to me, had been charismatic brainwash and manipulation. I vehemently debated with some of my class mates the legitimacy of the Bible as the only source of truth - “the word of God”. I was into philosophy and the wisdom of this world. But later I learnt that what had happened to me in church that day was Romans 10:17. I had heard the word being preached and faith *came *to me.
5. As I repented, believed and confessed, … from that moment I received a new spirit - something I had previously believed was just make-belief propaganda. Yet, the Bible was right: “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. Without it having been anything I had previously been interested in I developed a thirst for the Bible. Again, only later did I learn about 1 Peter 2:2 - “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby”
7. Then, my appetite for “fun” started to change. At one point, as I was about to do something silly - like before - I felt a strange disgust in me.
8. I had become a changed man - my tastes in entertainment, the way I liked to spend time, etc. Several things about me changed. Still, things are changing within me.
9. what is happening to me is what is written in Ephesians 5:25-27: “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”. I am being washed by the word.

I am a long way off from being truly sanctified, but looking back at only a few years since that wonderfully blessed day when I received a new spirit, I come to realise that none of this would have happened to me if the Bible had not been part of my story. For me the Bible, indeed, is powerful. For me the proof is in the life it changed. Nothing else can do that. It is the word of God. How was I so foolish to ever have denied it?

If the words written in the Bible is not the word of God then every other religious effort or writing is even less so. I testify that it is the word of God for the good that it has done within me without me trying. If that is not good enough for you, I am okay with that. If you want to knit-pick from technical analysis and miss the Message sent to mankind, then I regret that but that will be everyone’s choice. I no longer rely on my intellect, which was an obstacle to knowing Christ. And I do not rely on the wisdom of my education as I hope to say:

“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Philipians 3:7-9)

It sounds as if, from the above comments, that one can come to believe something is the Word of God if it causes a change in one’s life?

Is that an accurate summary of a non-Catholic Christian’s perspective?

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, Gerhard,

In answer to my post reproduced here below:

Originally Posted by Marybeloved forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Gerhard, No, Gerhard. What is already amazing is how you can believe that the donkey ever spoke for God in the first place- And you apparently do. So let’s quit the “Oh how shocking!” attitude. It is simply not becoming (and actually quite hypocritical) of a person who believes that God from then on speaks to all the other donkeys in the same way, forever!:shrug:And this also, despite the fact that all these other donkeys who claim to be used by God the same way couldn’t disagree more on what God is actually saying to save their lives! I’d say that’s the very definition of a "crazy" thought- It literally requires you to perform intellectual somersaults and gymnastics that if translated into the physical world, puts any Olympian to shame. What did Einstein say was crazy?..Doing the same thing…expecting different results…for 500 years! After 40,000 + divisions!.. Yeah, I think we can see what is a really crazy belief very well.

Secondly, you have not yet told us how you know that the donkey spoke for God that once but not all the other times it claimed to speak for him, in the same tone and the exact same way as it spoke when it spoke for him that one time that you accept.

I’ve asked you many questions now that you refuse to answer:

-You claimed you can believe the unbelievable claims of our Lord because of his fruit, but not the Church because of bad fruit- I asked you to show me Christ’s fruit apart from the Church he started- you haven’t.
-You tried to use the abuse scandals to prove that the Church is not what she claims, I gave you very few examples of unparalleled good fruit of the Church- You dismissed them by pretending to use a higher standard of goodness/excellence for judging fruit- I asked you to show me a better example of “good fruit” than Catholic Saints, in particular one you must already know about, called Mother Teresa- You haven’t.
-The above question still remains- Where did God say he was using the church only that once? By what authority do you accept that one decision and not others of the same authority? By your “bible only” beliefs- This belief is unscriptural and false!
-Up till now, you’re yet to show us the doctrine of sola-scriptura in scripture! How can any one say “I believe in only the bible” and yet fail to show “in only the bible” that that belief is true or founded? By your “Bible only” standard, the belief in only the Bible is itself unscriptural and false!

Now,** please answer the questions** that have been put to you.

Peace!

You answered

Originally Posted by gerhardc forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Hi Mary, can you have a look at my last three posts (#556 - 558) in response to other questions and see what is still unclear? Thanks.

And the posts you referred me to have been reproduced by PRmerger above.

So, Yes, Gerhard:
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what fruits of Christ you were referring to apart from his Church.
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what excellence you were judging the Church with apart from Catholic saints like Mr. Teresa.
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) where you derive sola-scriptura in the Bible (book, chapter and verse)
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what rule you use to select amongst authoritative statements of the Church given with equal language of authority.

If you have answered any of these, quote the specific sections where you’ve given the answers- Don’t just point to “posts” before that you know answer NONE of these questions. Anyone can say refer to post # this- I’m asking for answers! If you’ve given them- produce them.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

@ Gerhard,

I would add the question: Is sola-scriptura true because you repented after reading the Bible?

Peace!

 

[pablope]

It sounds as if, from the above comments, that one can come to believe something is the Word of God if it causes a change in one’s life?

Is that an accurate summary of a non-Catholic Christian’s perspective?

**Originally Posted by gerhardc View Post
Joe, Sola Scripture is not true for me because someone suggested it centuries ago. It is true for me because I am experiencing it. **

Well, the couple in this story does not think so…they applied it to a real world situation…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

 

[AmateurPianist]

It sounds as if, from the above comments, that one can come to believe something is the Word of God if it causes a change in one’s life?

Is that an accurate summary of a non-Catholic Christian’s perspective?

Different people have different stories.

With these different stories are different ways of coming to a belief of the truth of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Different people have different stories.

With these different stories are different ways of coming to a belief of the truth of Scripture.

Fair enough.

What’s your story?

And just so we’re clear: I’m not asking how you came to believe that Jesus is the way. Nor am I asking how you came to a belief that Christianity is true.

I am asking how you know that Philemon, 3 John, Titus (or any books of the NT) are inspired?

It seems as if one nonCatholic came to know that is inspired because it caused a type of burning in his bosom.

That, of course, prompts the question, if someone else reads and comes to an understanding of Jesus as his savior, does that mean that is therefore inspired?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Fair enough.

What’s your story?

And just so we’re clear: I’m not asking how you came to believe that Jesus is the way. Nor am I asking how you came to a belief that Christianity is true.

I am asking how you know that Philemon, 3 John, Titus (or any books of the NT) are inspired?

It seems as if one nonCatholic came to know that is inspired because it caused a type of burning in his bosom.

That, of course, prompts the question, if someone else reads and comes to an understanding of Jesus as his savior, does that mean that is therefore inspired?

Oh mine is not nearly as dramatic. Probably as simple as that was what I was taught at the church the Lord brought me into.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh mine is not nearly as dramatic. Probably as simple as that was what I was taught at the church the Lord brought me into.

So your church accepted the authority of the Catholic Church in discerning what was theopneustos, then?

If that is not what they would claim, then how did they determine that Titus is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

 

[CopticChristian]

Different people have different stories.

With these different stories are different ways of coming to a belief of the truth of Scripture.

The same can be said of Mormons, Jehovah Witness and anyone reading a book and believing that book changed their lives…the secular world is filled with life changing events and a book however in the secular world there is not often the leap to what they read is Scripture. I posted why christians cannot read Scripture. You actually read translations and there is the rub. How do you know that your translation is actually true?

 

[AmateurPianist]

So your church accepted the authority of the Catholic Church in discerning what was theopneustos, then?

If that is not what they would claim, then how did they determine that Titus is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

I dunno. I don’t do what books are inspired and what are not debates. If you want to use the 73 book or 81 book canon I really don’t care all that much. There are more important issues…

 

[CopticChristian]

I dunno. I don’t do what books are inspired and what are not debates. If you want to use the 73 book or 81 book canon I really don’t care all that much. There are more important issues…

The bible is the word of God or it is not. If the 73 book canon is the word of God and the 81 book canon is the word of God then did God say more in one than the other? Can there be two independent compilations that are the word of God? If you don’t care then this is admission that the word of God is not relevant or that God spoke more words and you have or have not read what God wants you to know. There must be some way to know if God spoke according to one Canon or the other?

 

[AmateurPianist]

The same can be said of Mormons, Jehovah Witness and anyone reading a book and believing that book changed their lives…the secular world is filled with life changing events and a book however in the secular world there is not often the leap to what they read is Scripture. I posted why christians cannot read Scripture. You actually read translations and there is the rub. How do you know that your translation is actually true?

How do I know my translation is actually true?

I for one am not a KJV only dude who is terribly hung up on my favorite version being the Word of God and everything else being a “perversion of the word”. But that would be a good question for a KJV only person.

 

[CopticChristian]

How do I know my translation is actually true?

I for one am not a KJV only dude who is terribly hung up on my favorite version being the Word of God and everything else being a “perversion of the word”. But that would be a good question for a KJV only person.

How do I know that my translation is actually true?

Let me side step that question and reframe this for you so that I never answer the question that all I have is a translation. Nice try.

How do you know that your translation is truly the word of God?

 

[AmateurPianist]

The bible is the word of God or it is not. If the 73 book canon is the word of God and the 81 book canon is the word of God then did God say more in one than the other? Can there be two independent compilations that are the word of God? If you don’t care then this is admission that the word of God is not relevant or that God spoke more words and you have or have not read what God wants you to know. There must be some way to know if God spoke according to one Canon or the other?

Yes…but every the Bible is 81 or 73 or 66 book debate that I have seen here has been a draw imho. No side has proven their point.

I have been here long enough to know what debates I will get sucked into and what debates I will pass on. The “how many books are in the real Bible debate” I have chosen to pass on because they appear to be unwinable by either side. Besides I don’t have the history expertise in this subject area that I think this topic would demand.

Perhaps I was being flippant above, but I really do not want to get sucked into another “how many books are in the bible” debate.

 

[AmateurPianist]

How do I know that my translation is actually true?

Let me side step that question and reframe this for you so that I never answer the question that all I have is a translation. Nice try.

How do you know that your translation is truly the word of God?

I thought I answered this.

I am not a literalist like the KJV only crowd who believes the KJV is the one literal word of God and that everything else is a perversion of the Word. So I am not going to sit here and claim the Bible that I use is “the authentic word of God” and the Bible you use is a “perversion of the Word”.

A KJV only literalist will be happy to oblige for you.

But outside of the King James Only crowd, I don’t know of anybody who would claim the version I am used to reading (New American Standard btw) is a bad Bible translation. Now if I come across something in my reading that seriously challenges the integrity of the translation that I am using, then maybe it would be appropriate to revisit the issue. But until then, this appears to be a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes…but every the Bible is 81 or 73 or 66 book debate that I have seen here has been a draw imho. No side has proven their point.

I have been here long enough to know what debates I will get sucked into and what debates I will pass on. The “how many books are in the real Bible debate” I have chosen to pass on because they appear to be unwinable by either side. Besides I don’t have the history expertise in this subject area that I think this topic would demand.
Perhaps I was being flippant above, but I really do not want to get sucked into another “how many books are in the bible” debate.

You identify yourself as …Assembly of God: educating myself

You admit that you have not the expertise to debate…

I ask, if you want to learn, not debate, then ask questions about history that you do not know, and then look them up on your own and verify if they are true…isn’t that what the Bereans did?

 

[AmateurPianist]

You identify yourself as …Assembly of God: educating myself

You admit that you have not the expertise to debate…

I ask, if you want to learn, not debate, then ask questions about history that you do not know, and then look them up on your own and verify if they are true…isn’t that what the Bereans did?

Yes…but I do not have an advanced degree in history with years of study in the area. Any knowledge I get to acquire in history I admit will be armchair knowledge level and incomplete. It is sort of like the more I know the more I realize what I don’t know.

There is a guy on this forum who is a PHD in history and teaches it I think. I am smart enough to defer to him in his area of expertise. since I do not have the time or energy to pursue a PHD in history. I actually enjoy it when he chimes in on a topic because I find his approach, knowledgeable and fair, which is what I respect.

You may or may not like him though because he is Protestant. I will leave that up to you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes…but I do not have an advanced degree in history with years of study in the area. Any knowledge I get to acquire in history I admit will be armchair knowledge level and incomplete. It is sort of like the more I know the more I realize what I don’t know.

There is a guy on this forum who is a PHD in history and teaches it I think. I am smart enough to defer to him in his area of expertise. since I do not have the time or energy to pursue a PHD in history. I actually enjoy it when he chimes in on a topic because I find his approach, knowledgeable and fair, which is what I respect.

You may or may not like him though because he is Protestant. I will leave that up to you.

There is history, there is revisionist history, and I love Protestants. They know about what I know, believe most of what I believe, deny some of what I believe, and it is easier to dialogue with them than others.

I am just a humble Catholic, goes to Church, listens to the Bible read to me, listen to others, study on my own and have no expertise in Christianity other than what I have learned from the Church.

 

[AmateurPianist]

There is history, there is revisionist history, and I love Protestants. They know about what I know, believe most of what I believe, deny some of what I believe, and it is easier to dialogue with them than others.

I am just a humble Catholic, goes to Church, listens to the Bible read to me, listen to others, study on my own and have no expertise in Christianity other than what I have learned from the Church.

Now I remember.

As far as the “How many books are in the Bible debate”

The last time I opened up the subject for consideration I decided the right question to ask was “What did Jesus use?” I was hoping this would be a straightforward question but from my quick glance at the issue it seemed to be anything but. I remember of reading 1 source that claimed Jesus would have used both. And of course there was the usual spin.

It seems to me that without this “what did Jesus use” question settled and agreed upon, that you really do not have any kind of baseline to work from. It then seemed to devolve into an issue of what metric do you use, which to me seemed to be an exercise in subjectivity.

And then I lost interest. Or maybe I lost patience. But I did make a “note to self” to ask Edwin this question if I ever saw him on one of these “How many books does the Bible have” debates. But I have not gotten to ask him that yet.

 

[PRmerger]

Now I remember.

As far as the “How many books are in the Bible debate”

Nooooo!

I will not let this thread devolve into a “How many books are in the Bible” debate.

I started this thread with the specific intent of trying to figure out how non-Catholics, who are recusant to the authority of anything except the Bible in theological matters, know that the Bible is inspired.

How do you know that Titus is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

So far your answer, by the transitive property, is: I don’t know.

Another person’s was: by the burning in my bosom and because it made me repentant.

Any other non-Catholics care to offer something?