The Bible is Catholic -

[Linda_Marie]

Jesus demonstrated this principle on the way to Emmaus when, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27).

Later that night in the upper room, he pointed out that everything written about Himself in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures . . . (Luke 24:44-45).

Here we have the Bible telling us that Scripture needs interpretation and explaining; that it is NOT clear and that Jesus explained it to them. The Apostles were familiar with Scripture [that is to say, the Septuagint only, being the Scriptures in use at the time and not any part of the New Testament because it was not yet written], but they didn’t understand it until Jesus interpreted it for them and told them what it means.

The Apostles and their successors, preserved all that He had revealed to them about what the Scriptures mean and the rest of His Teachings which were not written down in the NT, as Apostolic Tradition. Anything else is just man’s tradition, man’s interpretation, especially new interpretations that have come about 1500 or 1800 years removed from Christ, using abridged Scriptures and dodgy translations.

The Bible is a Catholic book. It was determined by the Catholic Church, for use in the Catholic Church. When you take it out of the Church, the protection of the Holy Spirit is lost and men/women come up with all manner of loopy and mutually exclusive interpretations. The promise of protection and being led in all truth was to the Church, not to Ellen White or Luther, or Hus, or Zwigli or Calvin.

 

[Protestant101]

Here we have the Bible telling us that Scripture needs interpretation and explaining; that it is NOT clear and that Jesus explained it to them. .

It doesn’t say that “the Bible is not clear;” it only says that Jesus “opened their understanding” just as He does today, through His Spirit.

It is a good thing that this is so; for the Holy Spirit is infallible; but the Pope is…

 

[Protestant101]

I actually lived in East Anglia England for 6 years. In a town called Huntingdon just north of Cambridge or just south of Peterborough. It’s pretty much a direct line down from the Wash. A lot of the area there are called the Fens (reclaimed marsh land) The english look at the people of the Fens as being backwards. England was great by the way.

Thanks

 

[joe370]

Prot. 101, you have left a lot of solid questions unanswered, while receiving a lot of solid arguments regarding your own unique polemic. However, like you said, you are only one person.

So, could you please just answer the following question by Lampo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post

The Bible is always it’s own best Expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, Scripture is its own light.

**How would this statement apply if it was the year 107AD?
**

BTW the C.C. regardless of the century, always used sacred scripture + sacred tradition to refute heresy, but that doesn’t make the bible the final authority on all matters of faith and morals. The bible cannot interpret itself, can it? People interpret it, right? The infinitely important question is, who was given the authority by GOD to do so? The C.C. (human beings) at the various councils (via the Holy Spirit—I will omit the passages that back this statement up due to redundancy) through the centuries are the decision makers, again with the Divine guidance of the Trinity!!! The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one just as the C.C. is and just as Jesus Christ intended!

Putting the canonized, codified bible before the catholic apostolic church that codified it is completely incongruous. Putting the 1st century uncanonized, uncodified writings of the apostles (selection was done by rigorously cross-checking these reputed writings with apostolic tradition, and the Catholic Church’s library of accepted apostolic writings, again based on apostolic tradition ) —before the C.C. is incongruous as well. All disciples (clergy) stemming from the 12 apostles comprise the C.C through the imposition of hands. (book of acts)
The early church fathers didn’t write the 27 books of the N.T. as some anti-catholics would like to think, or have been taught! (most of the apostles didn’t write either; they preached) The apostles, and their disciples who did commit the teachings of Jesus Christ to papyrus, have the C.C. (The early church fathers) to thank for preserving, safeguarding and transmitting everything imparted to them by Jesus, which included sacred tradition as well! The catholic apostolic church protected the deposit of faith from the various heretical movements through the centuries, and that was their job according to Jesus and your bible. Saint Mark and Saint Luke weren’t genuine apostles or even eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ, yet you accept their writings based on the traditions, passed on to them.“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”2 Tim. 3:15

We are privy to the genuine writings of the apostles, safegurded by the catholic apostolic church, and to the pseudo writings of the heretical churches that came and went, thanks to the C.C. --or should I say the Holy Spirit who is forever guiding the church —BECAUSE the C.C. ALONE via the Divine guidance of the Trinity, has made this possible! To reject the C.C. is to question the validity of the 46 books of the Old and the 27 books of the New Testament and the promise of perpetuity Jesus made to the apostles when He said He would be with them “FOREVER.” You can’t embrace the bible and at the same time reject the church that made it all possible, can you?

The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves through out the entire Mediterranean region. Luckily for us the C.C. through the inspiration of the H.S. has preserved the good news that Jesus taught to His disciples.

 

[joe370]

I took calculus in High School (and hated it BTW --LOL)—and would have been completely lost without the teacher. My calculus book, by itself, not unlike the Bible, will always give way to interpretive errors and foolish conclusions. Just look at some of the preposterous premises regarding the book of Daniel or the book of revelations or the Olivet discourse! My point is, if I needed a fallible teacher in High School to guide me along and steer me clear of erroneous conclusions regarding a fallible subject, I most certainly will need an infallible teacher (the C.C. VIA THE HOLY SPIRIT ACCORDING TO YOUR BIBLE) to guide me along life’s difficult journey, and steer me clear of erroneous biblical conclusions based on bogus premises and private interpretations formed by mere individuals, which is strongly frowned upon in your bible. The fledgling C.C. would have read this verse in 2 Peter, as they did with all reputed scripture, outside the apostolic sphere of influence —in light of what apostolic tradition taught, and would have drawn the conclusion that private interpretation (all interpretations outside the church established by Jesus Christ) is counter to what Jesus intended and what the apostles taught via oral transmission, which was the common vehicle for promulgating the word of God, right up until the invention of the printing press, 1500 years later. Even after Martin Luther created the doctrine of sola scriptura (bible alone), new churches kept popping up, and again, promulgating the word of God via oral transmission (totally contradicting their man-made doctrine of sola scriptura); the only difference was/is, this new church(s) was/is and will be, established by mere men, not Jesus Christ!

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-2

If the prophets of old were “holy men of God (who) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” how much more holy must the apostles of the New be, considering the fact that they spoke to God face to face? Private interpretation didn’t go over well with God in the O.T. and it certainly doesn’t in the N.T.

Jesus prayed for the unity of believers, not disunity. According to your bible, Jesus would have been or should I say, (IS) broken hearted, aghast and disappointed with all the “division” and “dissension” in the Christian world today.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:20-23

Paul champions Jesus’ cause when he said to the church at Ephesus, one of the many churches he established, with the Divine guidance of the Trinity: “…Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:3-6—and the C.C. agrees!!!

 

[joe370]

As a former Lutheran, the words, "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.—can only apply to the C.C. —that beacon of light that still maintains the requisite unity and oneness Jesus so passionately prayed for!!!

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:14

Jesus’ description of Christians and the Church as a city set on a hill (Matthew 5:14-16), is an obvious reference to the visibility of the Church. In no way can this city be regarded as invisible, which put to rest my notion that the unity and oneness Jesus spoke of subsisted primarily or solely in the inner, invisible, spiritual unity of all those, (regardless of denomination) who are claim to be in Christ by virtue of being justified, or born again, etc etc.

Other passages which presuppose a visible, identifiable, “concrete” Church include Matthew 18:15-17, in which believers are exhorted by our Lord to take errant and obstinate brothers to the church, which will then determine the appropriate verdict. This passage dispels any notion tha the bible is the sole authority on matters of faith and morals! It would be contrary to the nature of the New Testament if this were a reference to a local church alone —even apart from the utterly impractical consequences of such a scenario (where the sinner would simply attend another denomination and move on with his life, as is tragically all too often the case today).

St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, describes the “church of the living God” as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This statement is similarly almost nonsensical in the context of competing and often contradictory denominations. Where would a sincere, uninformed, unsophisticated religious seeker go to find this certain truth? Only within the sphere of a serious attempt at actual visible oneness of doctrine can this verse attain any pragmatic possibility; and where outside the C.C can we find this oneness coupled with continuity to the apostolic church?

Even John Calvin, contrary to many of his later followers, taught that the Church was visible and a “Mother” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV,1,1; IV,1,4; IV,1,13-14), the wrongness of sectarianism and schism (IV,1,5; IV,1,10-15), and that the Church includes sinners and “hypocrites” (IV,1,7; IV,1,13-15 - he cites Matthew 13:24-30,47-58). His difference with Catholics here is that he defines the visible Church as his own Reformed Church.

 

[joe370]

Once I stopped putting the cart before the horse, as John Calvin and the rest of the reformers did, E.G.—the codified bible before the C.C —the reformed churches before the C.C.—all the pieces of the puzzle fell right into place.

As a formal Lutheran I finally saw that to be logical and consistent, protestants must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Without sounding like a broken record, where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? The proponents of sola scriptura, to which alone they wished to refer, could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible; to rest their faith in the Bible alone is to open up all manner of doubts and inconsistancies which I myself grappled with in my protestant days! There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible within the pages of the bible. We are simply at the mercy of man-made churches, and their traditions!

For protestants to dispense with a Divinely authorized church in favor of the bible for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion, is a self defeating solution as can be attested in the world today by all the Christian division and disunity outside the C.C. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: “One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence.” The exercise of free inquiry in the protestant sphere, with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma, and the beginning of a new dogma, that of sola scriptura and sola fida. In my opinion, these disputes, anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine will of Christ, could it? Ergo the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret the Bible. As a former Lutheran, I soon realized, to say that the Bible was perfectly clear and sufficient to all was obviously a retort born of desperation, a defiance of experience andjust plain common sense.

Saint Paul said; “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Colossians 3:1-4—and these words never felt truer to me since I became a catholic!

In the end, all we can do is what Jesus asks of us: “Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37 ---- and if people do that and find themselves, free of any lingering doubts in a church other than the C.C., then your home!!! But to live by the bible alone simply contradicts everything the bible says!

I think mercygate is right! “Time to stop engaging in incessant and fruitless churning… We do not need to “close a sale” here. It would be a failure to recognize how deeply ingrained a lot of ideas are among non-Catholics. It takes even to acknowledge very straightforward historical facts – such as that “the Bible is Catholic.”

 

[Protestant101]

The proponents of sola scriptura, to which alone they wished to refer, could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible; to rest their faith in the Bible alone is to open up all manner of doubts and inconsistancies which I myself grappled with in my protestant days!

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Since the Bible is ultimately not the product of the human writers mind but of the mind of God revealed through the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor2:12-13), it is not possible to separate what it meant to the human writer to be studied without the aid of the Holy Spirit, from what it means to be applied by the help of the Spirit. Both the original meaning and its present application involve the thoughts of God, which according to Paul can only be adequately comprehended if we have the aid of the Spirit of God (cf. John 6:45; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13-14; 2 Cor 3:14-18).

Some have resisted letting the Spirit have a place in the hermeneutical spiral because it seems to them to allow the subjective element to overcome solid exegetical/hermeneutical research. It is true that spiritual exegesis alone–that is, an attempt to rely totally on the Spirit without conscientiously applying principles of exegesis and hermeneutics arising from Scripture,can lead to subjectivism. But the proper combination of dependance upon the Spirit with rigorous exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical procedures, far from leading to subjectivity, constitutes the only way of escaping subjectivity.

Modern scholars are increasingly more willing to recognize that all come to the Scripture with their own preunderstandings, presuppositions, biases. Including Catholics. This cannot be remedied by approaching the text scientifically without a faith bias. In fact, since the Scriptures call for a response of faith, an attempted neutral stance is already at cross-currents with the intent of Scripture (cf. Matt 13:11-17; John 6:69; Acts 2:38).

Believing and Spirit-led interpreters also come with their own biases and preunderstandings and are not impervious to error (cf. Acts 11:15). But for Christians who believe the promises of Scripture, it is possible to ask God to transform their minds so that they increasingly adopt and incorporate the presuppositions of Scripture and not their own (see Rom 12:1).

The Spirit of truth was promised to the disciples, and to us: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13). It must be noted that the you here is plural; the Spirit directs interpreters together in the fellowship of the church body (Ps 119:63; Acts 2:42; 4:32; Rom 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12; Eph 4:3-6), where they may be benefitted by exchange with and correction of other believers.13

Interpreters must make a decision that their preunderstandings will derive from and be under control of the Bible itself, **and constantly be open for modification and enlargement on the basis of Scripture. **They must consciously reject any external keys or systems to impose on Scripture from without, whether it be naturalistic (closed system of cause and effect without any room for the supernatural), evolutionary (the developmental axiom), humanistic (man the final norm), or relativistic (rejection of absolutes).

They must ask the Spirit who inspired the Word to illuminate, shape,and modify their pre-understandings according to the Word, and to guard their understandings to remain faithful to the Word.

“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet; and a Light unto my path.” (Ps.119:105)

 

[Protestant101]

Notice that John 16:13 says the Spirit will guide us into ALL truth, not some truth! it does not say the Church will guide us into some, the Spirit will guide us into some, no! Never is this dependent upon fallible humans!! Only on the infallible Word of God, and God’s Spirit.

 

[joe370]

Notice that John 16:13 says the Spirit will guide us into ALL truth, not some truth! it does not say the Church will guide us into some, the Spirit will guide us into some, no! Never is this dependent upon fallible humans!! Only on the infallible Word of God, and God’s Spirit.

**Man that was quick!!! LOL I totally respect your position and will stop beating a dead horse!!!

God bless Protestant 101…**

 

[joe370]

Now Joe! Hold back all those horses and all those men!! You stated above that “catholics do not “limit” themselves to just Scripture;” but you must note to interested members how that protestants are in no way limited by just the Bible.

I’m holding back all those horses and all those men. LOL —sometime I have a tendency to drone on and on.

I thought you said “the bible is always its own expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, scripture is its own light.”

But here you say, "Now Joe! Hold back all those horses and all those men!! You stated above that “catholics do not “limit” themselves to just Scripture;” but you must note to interested members how that protestants are in no way limited by just the Bible.

If you aren’t limited to just the bible, then what are those things you are open to? Perhaps sola scriptura, in the words of Austin powers— This (sola scriptura) sort of thing ain’t my bag. LOL

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings” - referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is ‘God breathed’ (given of inspiration of God) and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 —nothing else is needed!!!

Seriously what are these things outside the bible that you consider edifying? It’s nice to hear a non-catholic declare that there is more to Christianity than just the bible. My sister hates the C.C. says horrible things about it. She in fact is a sola scripturist to the PI power. She even told me I was going to hell, due to my affiliation with the C.C. She is involved in some cult by the name of kingdom of heaven ministries in Flint MI, and the couple goes by name apostle Brown and lady Brown. I pray for her often…

 

[Protestant101]

But here you say, "Now Joe! Hold back all those horses and all those men!! You stated above that “catholics do not “limit” themselves to just Scripture;” but you must note to interested members how that protestants are in no way limited by just the Bible.

If you aren’t limited to just the bible, then what are those things you are open to? Perhaps sola scriptura, in the words of Austin powers— This (sola scriptura) sort of thing ain’t my bag. LOL

You didn’t capitalize “Austin’s” last name!! That is heinous to be sure. “Great Zeus!” Maybe you are just mixing up Austin Powers with Hercules!!:dancing:

I guess I didn’t word my last comment too well. My intent was to make the comparison how that Catholics say they do not “limit themselves to “just” scripture,” whereas Protestants, who have “just Scripture,” are not limited either. You and others have utterly failed to show how a Protestant is “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.”

PS; I actually do find many things “outside the Bible” to be very edifying, including some Catholic books I have in my library. One book, in particular, “My Only Friend Is Darkness,” is a wonderful book written by a Catholic that I have valued for years. But as far as something being “Scripture;” I can only point to the Bible.

 

[Protestant101]

She is involved in some cult by the name of kingdom of heaven ministries in Flint MI, and the couple goes by name apostle Brown and lady Brown. I pray for her often…

“Kingdom of Heaven” “Ministries?” Usually, if they have to say it like that, they are not that. I would have no trouble joining you in prayer for that.

 

[joe370]

Notice that John 16:13 says the Spirit will guide us into ALL truth, not some truth! it does not say the Church will guide us into some, the Spirit will guide us into some, no! Never is this dependent upon fallible humans!! Only on the infallible Word of God, and God’s Spirit.

Actually in John 16:13, Jesus is talking directly to his apostles and no other! Jesus via the H.S. will guide the catholic apostolic church into all truth.

Just before Jesus made his ascent into the clouds he said, (keeping in mind that Matthew 16:18 preceded this final glorious departure) —" teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, **even unto the end of the world and this took place at Pentecost in Jerusalem—where the burgeoning of the Holy Spirit began his spiritual guidance for the church and he will continue to do so “until the end of time.” The church with the guidance of the H.S. is to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, **even unto the end of the world." Matt. 28:18-20

You said, “it does not (the bible I’m assuming) say the Church will guide us into some, the Spirit will guide us into some, no!”

According to the bible, Jesus created a church and he built in on Peter and the rest of the apostles and prophets, with Him as the irreplaceable cornerstone, and promised these chosen apostles that the H.S. would guide His church “forever.” and they were to again, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, **even unto the end of the world and this took place at Pentecost in Jerusalem—where the burgeoning of the Holy Spirit began his spiritual guidance for the church and he will continue to do so “until the end of time.” The church with the guidance of the H.S. is to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, **even unto the end of the world." Matt. 28:18-20

Jesus also said:" And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The C.C. is definitely guiding all who are willing to follow, bringing them closer to Jesus Christ and their ultimate salvation.********

 

[joe370]

You didn’t capitalize “Austin’s” last name!! That is heinous to be sure. “Great Zeus!” Maybe you are just mixing up Austin Powers with Hercules!!:dancing:

***I love Austin Power; it was just a little joke! ***

I guess I didn’t word my last comment too well. My intent was to make the comparison how that Catholics say they do not “limit themselves to “just” scripture,” whereas Protestants, who have “just Scripture,” are not limited either. You and others have utterly failed to show how a Protestant is “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.”

PS; I actually do find many things “outside the Bible” to be very edifying, including some Catholic books I have in my library. One book, in particular, “My Only Friend Is Darkness,” is a wonderful book written by a Catholic that I have valued for years. But as far as something being “Scripture;” I can only point to the Bible.

So when it comes to the word of God, the Bible, it will always be your final authority. All other religious books that you read are simply for entertainment? You said you read catholic books and find them very edifying; in what way if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[joe370]

You didn’t capitalize “Austin’s” last name!! That is heinous to be sure. “Great Zeus!” Maybe you are just mixing up Austin Powers with Hercules!!:dancing:

I guess I didn’t word my last comment too well. My intent was to make the comparison how that Catholics say they do not “limit themselves to “just” scripture,” whereas Protestants, who have “just Scripture,” are not limited either. You and others have utterly failed to show how a Protestant is “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.”

PS; I actually do find many things “outside the Bible” to be very edifying, including some Catholic books I have in my library. One book, in particular, “My Only Friend Is Darkness,” is a wonderful book written by a Catholic that I have valued for years. But as far as something being “Scripture;” I can only point to the Bible.

One last question(s). Who told you the bible is the infallible word of GOD —if not the C.C.–WHO! How can you really know for sure that it isn’t just another collection of fallible books like the Quran? How can you know without doubt that the bible is what it claims to be?

 

[Ronald_E]

One last question(s). Who told you the bible is the infallible word of GOD —if not the C.C.–WHO! How can you really know for sure that it isn’t just another collection of fallible books like the Quran? How can you know without doubt that the bible is what it claims to be?

Joe, I have been reading your posts this morning and have been extremely impressed with your expression of our Catholic faith. I returned to Catholicism after 40 years away Easter of 05. It was a series of miracles that God used in my work and my wife’s unknown prayers for 10 years that softened my heart and opened my eyes. I started reading the bible again before I returned to Catholicism and I began to read the same words as before but I received a totally different message. I saw what you described and I could not ignore what God was revealing to me.
There was no pressure from outside of me to return. There was pressure outside of me from non-catholics not to return. They couldn’t see what I was shown no matter what I said. At times, they thought I was crazy and at times I thought I was a little unstable myself. However, I know now that I was being made into a new creature and it continues to this day.
I hated authority all of my life and that included the Church. In human relationships there is always rebellion against authority because human authority is imperfect and our instincts tell us so. In the Catholic faith human authority errors at times when not guided by the Holy Spirit and this was seen by me as the Church being fallible. I then associated these errors and sins with the dogma of the Church and concluded through my own ignorance that the whole Church was in error. My bad.
My point is the Bible did not bring me home. God’s Grace brought me home and now I can see His Words in the Bible that His Church put together with new eyes. I do not try to see His Words with Catholic eyes. However, His Words show me why I am Catholic.
How did you see His Words differently?

 

[JRKH]

Notice that John 16:13 says the Spirit will guide us into ALL truth, not some truth! it does not say the Church will guide us into some, the Spirit will guide us into some, no! Never is this dependent upon fallible humans!! Only on the infallible Word of God, and God’s Spirit.

Notice it also doesn’t say that Scripture will guide (Bible) will guide us into ALL truth. Rather it says the Spirit.

Let us look at the Passage at John 16:13

13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

How will the Spirit Guide? By Speaking, and not on His own initiative, but by Hearing and Speaking what He Hears from Jesus, the Living and Complete Word of God.

Again, there is no promise of a Book. So If you wish to take Christ at His word, you can close your Bible now and Listen for the Spirit to speak to you and guide you into ALL truth.

If you wish to take God at His Word, Close your Bible, enter into prayer and fasting; into a period of profound internal examination and discernment; of listening for and to the Holy Spirit. By doing this, you will truly be acting in the manner and method of the first Christians who had no NT to read.
Pray - Fast - Place all before the Lord and LISTEN.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Since the Bible is ultimately not the product of the human writers mind but of the mind of God revealed through the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor2:12-13), it is not possible to separate what it meant to the human writer to be studied without the aid of the Holy Spirit, from what it means to be applied by the help of the Spirit. Both the original meaning and its present application involve the thoughts of God, which according to Paul can only be adequately comprehended if we have the aid of the Spirit of God (cf. John 6:45; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13-14; 2 Cor 3:14-18).

Some have resisted letting the Spirit have a place in the hermeneutical spiral because it seems to them to allow the subjective element to overcome solid exegetical/hermeneutical research. It is true that spiritual exegesis alone–that is, an attempt to rely totally on the Spirit without conscientiously applying principles of exegesis and hermeneutics arising from Scripture,can lead to subjectivism. But the proper combination of dependance upon the Spirit with rigorous exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical procedures, far from leading to subjectivity, constitutes the only way of escaping subjectivity.

Modern scholars are increasingly more willing to recognize that all come to the Scripture with their own preunderstandings, presuppositions, biases. Including Catholics. This cannot be remedied by approaching the text scientifically without a faith bias. In fact, since the Scriptures call for a response of faith, an attempted neutral stance is already at cross-currents with the intent of Scripture (cf. Matt 13:11-17; John 6:69; Acts 2:38).

Believing and Spirit-led interpreters also come with their own biases and preunderstandings and are not impervious to error (cf. Acts 11:15). But for Christians who believe the promises of Scripture, it is possible to ask God to transform their minds so that they increasingly adopt and incorporate the presuppositions of Scripture and not their own (see Rom 12:1).

The Spirit of truth was promised to the disciples, and to us: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13). It must be noted that the you here is plural; the Spirit directs interpreters together in the fellowship of the church body (Ps 119:63; Acts 2:42; 4:32; Rom 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12; Eph 4:3-6), where they may be benefitted by exchange with and correction of other believers.13

Interpreters must make a decision that their preunderstandings will derive from and be under control of the Bible itself, **and constantly be open for modification and enlargement on the basis of Scripture. **They must consciously reject any external keys or systems to impose on Scripture from without, whether it be naturalistic (closed system of cause and effect without any room for the supernatural), evolutionary (the developmental axiom), humanistic (man the final norm), or relativistic (rejection of absolutes).

They must ask the Spirit who inspired the Word to illuminate, shape,and modify their pre-understandings according to the Word, and to guard their understandings to remain faithful to the Word.

“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet; and a Light unto my path.” (Ps.119:105)

Is your name Richard Davidson?

 

[wisdomseeker]

to P101

how can one come to the Truth?
how can protestant be at fault?
once i went to a presbiterian congregation and the creed read: we believe in one christian church…instead of Holy apostolic Catholic Church…
so they made their own creed.
they claim to believe in Jesus but in their own way.
they claim to have the power to interpret SS and the CC does not.
they claim the CC fell into apostasy therefore God abandon the CC and gave them the correct interpretation of the SS.
they claim anybody is able to interpret SS on their own therefore the idea of Jesus have building a Church is not the same as ours.
History to them is something of the past. because early christians did not have the right to interpret SS either.
it wasnt untill 1500 years later that the real interpretation was given. that is when the Truth was revealed to real christians.

So how can anyone convince a protestant of where the Truth is? only God can if one does not harden their hearts. Jesus says: noone come to me unless the Father draws him to me.

How can one convince a protestant of where the Truth lies?
i honestly think that is more about i am right CC is wrong and that is final. even if Jesus says that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. It did to me.

“Who am i that the Mother of my Lord should come to me.”
:bowdown: :byzsoc: