Uncommon Problem with RCC

[YoungTradCath]

I fail to understand why being against democratization/republicanization–which is a completely legitimate position to hold–should be a roadblock to faith. It is not a moral issue, it is not a faith issue per se, so

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
How do you know that is not the right context? How will one know or determine the right context?

 

[zz912]

Perhaps you are right and I’m ignorant, and illiterate, and cannot comprehend language. That makes me easily dismissed and a waste of time to talk to.

You’re right, after re-reading, my comment was overly harsh. My apologies.

Quite the contrary, I’ve read several instances on the forum where it is quite clear; RC’s are supposed to interpret scripture inline with the RCC. What is there to hide? This is, by definition, a true statement.

Your statement claimed that the Church had given all interpretation to the faithful. The Church presents the Deposit of Faith, and all interpretation must be in line with this. The Church has actually definitely interpreted very few passages.

And if they read scripture and see that it isn’t inline with church teaching? What are they taught then? Are you allowed to interpret scripture and believe that interpretation if it goes against the RCC? No.

There is no Church teaching that is not in line with Scripture. None. You may believe that is the case in your fallible opinion, but that is all it is, an error-prone opinion. As noted above, no you can’t interpret passages in a way that contradicts the Christian faith.

The Holy Spirit is quite a capable instructor.

Yes, but you were never promised to be instructed directly by God. God promised that His Church would never teach error. That promise was never made towards you.

The Bereans checked oral teaching against written teaching to see if what people were telling them was truth. I do the same.

So the Bereans were checking the OT to validate all of Paul’s teachings? Did they check the OT to see if it was ok to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His Blood? Did they check the OT to see if we should be baptized? Or checking to see if circumcision has ended for entrance to God’s covenant and been replaced? Or what about checking the OT to see if God’s people were now to become an invisible body of believers united by nothing? What exactly were they checking the OT for to verify Paul’s teaching? (Hint, most of what Paul was teaching them was NOT found in the OT. Mostly they would be looking for the references he would have made to prophesy fulfilled.)

It’s not my job to prove someone wrong, nor am I infallible. Again, the catch 22, this is your house, your rules, and I respect that. I have no wish to go into a formal argumentation as to why I believe the RCC’s teaching on a certain point is in error. That’s rude, as well as being against the rules of this forum.

So we can agree that absolutely nothing you state in this thread can be guaranteed to be free from error. So how can you claim with any certainty that we are wrong and you are right? You’ve admitted you are not infallible.

 

[pablope]

I will not argue points that are disrespectful on this forum and to the RC faith. I have no wish to do so.

I will explain my view, and I do realize, fully, that it is not the view taught by the RCC.

 

[Kliska]

There are only so many ways to ask and answer the same questions. The OP was pointing out their issues, and I’ve commented on that. I’ve no wish to proselytize protestantism.

Truly, thank you all for your time and efforts.

Grace and Peace.

 

[steve_b]

But, you see, from our perspective we never divorced the One Church. We separated from a man-made institutional organization whose leaders were not upholding Christ or His teachings.

Reality:

• Jesus established His Church in the 1st century. The Catholic Church. All His promises went to His Church. His Church will be here forever. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. For one to uphold Christ and His teachings, one then has to be in His Church and remain in His Church.
• That shows faith, Hope, trust, and love for Him.

Leave His Church, or refusal to enter His Church, they face no salvation.

[Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)
K:

True believers are always a part of the church. Again, I believe in the invisible church made up of all believers; we are the body of Christ.

These 2 passages show the necessity of being in the Church and remaining in it for salvation. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)
K:

Again, (and for example) the claims of the RCC are that there is a position and a title of “Vicar of Christ.” What the RCC would have Christians believe is that even when these “Vicars of Christ” were killing, fornicating, buying and selling salvation, that they are Vicars of Christ even then. For many of us that is a ludicrous proposition.

have a listen. catholic.com/video/what-about-the-bad-popes
K:

Jesus didn’t just bring His word and teach it, He lived a life of actions being meaningful. Paul didn’t allow Peter to act against truth, but withstood him to his face and corrected him on a matter of church doctrine.

Jerome had a discussion with Augustine about this episode in [Gal 2]

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm scroll down to ch 3 and start reading there.
K:

Actually my beliefs are exactly opposite. He taught just that in scripture; faith in Him is how we become one, not through the literal eating and drinking of flesh and blood. (I know that I won’t be arguing on this, but just trying to answer your question; So, yes, it does say in the bible that we become one body through faith in Him.)

the literal eating and drinking of **His **flesh and blood." makes us one with Him.
K:

My perspective that I glean from scripture it that it is by faith in Him that we become part of His church, we don’t place our faith in the church to become a part of Him, there is a subtle difference. He is preeminent; Truth is a literal Person and we have to come to Truth to be a part of it, and I see in scripture it is by faith in Him that it happens. Literally by coming to know He is who He says He is, by trusting what He has done, by knowing Christ and Him crucified and trusting all of that, His work, His faith, His life, death, resurrection, His blood to save us and cleanse us.

What makes Protestantism disconnected from reality as well as outside the Church

• Jesus builds His Church with Peter as the leader. Whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever Peter looses on earth is loosed in heaven. Yet Protestants don’t have faith in OurLord’s Church.
• Scripture says the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. That’s the Catholic Church. Yet Protestants say they have no faith in it?
• The Catholic Church writes the NT and collects the books to be declared as scripture and canonizes those works calling it “scripture” and later those books are called the “bible”. The Protestant claims the bible is their only source of truth, putting their faith completely in the bible, yet no faith in the Church that wrote it.
• In settling matters, Jesus says a dispute is to be taken to the Church as the final judge. If a person won’t listen even to the Church consider that person outside the Church. Have nothing to do with them.

K:

I don’t think it can be, as anyone that is a member of the RCC puts tradition alongside scripture. As with other things, it is probably best if we didn’t go down the path of argumentation, but I do appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, truly. It does clarify things for me.

Tradition is both oral and written. Catholics hold fast to both because that was a command to us directly from an apostle [2 Thessalonians 2:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Thessalonians+2:15&version=RSVCE)
K:

The OP’s question is outside of the realm of Sola Scriptura, in that it is referring to historical happenings. I’m trying to shed some light on what would be the scriptural response

Grace and peace.

Scripture + Tradition + the teaching of the Church is what Catholics use

 

[UbiCaritas15]

True believers are always a part of the church. Again, I believe in the invisible church made up of all believers; we are the body of Christ.

We agreeish there. We just call it the Catholic (universal) Church. We certainly have no idea who is a part of the Church or isn’t and it isn’t our place to determine, but to minister to all.

I think the real underlying difference is that the assembly has to be a group and therefore has to be visibly identifiable. Otherwise, it is an individual salvation and there is no precedent for that in the bible. From the moment sin enters the world, to the marriage supper of the lamb, we are all in this together. Jesus died for each person, but not in a manner that undoes all of the work the Trinity put into creating the visible body of the people

 

[Brendan_64]

I will not argue points that are disrespectful on this forum and to the RC faith. I have no wish to do so.

I will explain my view, and I do realize, fully, that it is not the view taught by the RCC. To start, the Holy Spirit is God Himself. He resides with us, and in us, when we become Christian. Christ is the head of the church, so God the Son is the head of the church, and God the Spirit is in us. The Holy Spirit works within us to lead and guide us, as well as to sanctify. We also have Holy Scriptures. When we read we are reading the word of God, with God to guide us. We are told in scriptures that the Bereans checked scripture to be assured what they were being told verbally was true. That’s what I believe is right.

So what then do you make of “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”? And why did Jesus specifically give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and give him the power that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? Christ did not say that to all his disciples, he said that quite specifically to one man. He was clearly designating that one man as head of His Church on Earth, and bestowing him with specific powers of authority.

And as for the canon of the Bible. It wasn’t the 18th Century Berean Calvinists that decided on the original canon of the Bible, it was the early Church authorities that decided on that. By whose authority did the Catholic Church decide on the original canon? Or was it just coincidence and ‘pot luck’ that we got it right?

 

[steve_b]

I’m sorry, but this is not the context.

Re: διχοστασίας , the context is correct.
K:

We don’t agree on the application of the verses you are citing.

The application is correct.
K:

It’s not an arguing matter. You see this as Paul instructing them about being loyal to the RCC, I don’t see that meaning at all looking at the context.

Re: RCC v Catholic Church please read the following Roman Catholic

Re: instruction from Paul on the passages I presented,

being “in” the Catholic Church and remaining “in” the Catholic Church is what Paul is teaching there. He’s warning that διχοστασίας from Our Lord’s Church is condemned and those who do it. Bottomline, the condemnation is really coming from Jesus through the HS to Paul John 16:12-15

Those warnings are forever. No expiration date to those warnings and consequences.
K:

We’ll have to disagree on this as well.

again, the application and context is correct.

 

[Tomdstone]

So what then do you make of “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”? And why did Jesus specifically give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and give him the power that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? Christ did not say that to all his disciples, he said that quite specifically to one man. He was clearly designating that one man as head of His Church on Earth, and bestowing him with specific powers of authority.

And as for the canon of the Bible. It wasn’t the 18th Century Berean Calvinists that decided on the original canon of the Bible, it was the early Church authorities that decided on that. By whose authority did the Catholic Church decide on the original canon? Or was it just coincidence and ‘pot luck’ that we got it right?

I heard that the E. Orthodox say that each bishop is a successor of St. Peter. And that St. Peter was at Antioch before he was ever at Rome.

 

[steve_b]

I heard that the E. Orthodox say that each bishop is a successor of St. Peter.

Seems nobody takes that seriously.
T:

And that St. Peter was at Antioch before he was ever at Rome.

He was at Antioch for a short period before going to Rome. When a bishop moves, A bishop’s see is where he IS not where he was. Rome is Peter’s last see. St Peter’s basilica is built over Peter’s tomb.

 

[ezeekl]

Daughter of Eve here, not a Son of Adam.

Well then, that explains the lack of logical reasoning.

Just because you call a dog a cat doesn’t make it a cat. Reading through all of this my response is, of course you are going to respond that way, that is the perspective of those you personally consider to be designated by God to tell you those things.

Here’s the problem from a protestant perspective with what you wrote; we already know that false teachings and teachers were invading the churches at the time of the Apostles. How? Because it is recorded in scripture. Galatians, for example, was written so that the church would not fall into legalism. There were those, at that time, amongst the Galatians preaching falsely and the Galatians were believing it. Paul wrote to them and we have that letter, so we can check teachings against it, you can’t do that with verbal teaching. I have no problem with tradition that does not conflict with the word of God.

Even RC theologians will point out that the early church teachers were not infallible, they made mistakes. What you are putting forth is that there is no way for believers to check the teachings of various individuals without resorting to circular logic. That is not so. It wasn’t true for the Bereans, and it’s not true for us. We are told to personally check for the truth when someone tries to tell us something, we are to test the spirits, personally. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Thanks to the writers of the OT and NT, inspired by the Spirit, we don’t have to rely on a game of telephone to know is something conflicts with the teaching of the Apostles. I propose that people teach by action as well as by word; Paul certainly thought so, or else he would not have opposed Peter to his face when Peter’s actions went against the truth. I say it is acceptable to look at the actions of others and institutions to see if they are inline with the word of God or not. The OP is struggling with that.

You make the same mistake that all protestants make. A mistake they have to make or else their argument falls flat on its face. The early church writers give us their testimony. That testimony is witness to what was believed in their time as orthodox doctrine. They are not infallible but they give us something that we can check our beliefs against. How well do they match up? For Catholicism they match up very well. From any form of protestantism, not so much. The early church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They did not believe that the Eucharist was a mere symbol as do protestants. The Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

Notice it is always the heretics who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Notice also that it is not just one church writer that teaches the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist but all of them do it. Notice too how early we see this teaching Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Elvodius writes in 110 AD:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius, along with Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John.

Continued…

 

[ezeekl]

Continuing…

Then there is Cyprian, bishop of Carthage who in 251 AD wrote this [referring to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:23-29]:

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

That is and has been the Catholic teaching for 2,000 years. But show me one church writer of the early church who denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There aren’t any. Does that make them infallible? No, but what it does do or should do, is give you pause as to consider where you got your doctrine that the Eucharist is a mere symbol. Obviously not from the early church. Every protestant I have met claims that God is immutable, meaning He is unchanging. Protestants like to say God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If that is the case and I don’t doubt it is, then God’s word given to the church is also the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So is your teaching on the Eucharist the same as yesterday [meaning the early church]? Ours is. Did we go wrong or did you?

Furthermore God always had a designated earthy figure to interpret His words. Be it Abraham, Moses, David or the prophets. There was always someone who said, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” So tell me who was the person that God designated who said which writings were inspired? And if you can’t tell who that person was how can you trust that the books of the Bible are indeed inspired? Take the letter to Philemon. Shortest of the New Testament writings. Why is it inspired. It comntains no teaching unless you accept the lack of condemnation of slavery as a christian teaching. Who said it was inspired and why and why do you believe it is inspired? The truth is that the books of the bible were determined to be inspired by the Catholic Church. In the New Covenant it is the Church that says, “Thus sayeth the Lord…”

 

[Dorothy]

Yes, it’s amazing how quickly we forget to love our neighbors… even our enemies, to do good to them, to pray for them.

I’ll not fruitlessly argue with someone who won’t read the context of the scriptures they quote. Besides, I’ve been told here that RC’s aren’t allowed to interpret scripture anyway, but go by what other men have deemed appropriate interpretation, so even if I showed error, no error would be recognized. It’s kind of a catch 22, and only results in the protestant getting in trouble on the forums.

There is only a small amount of Scripture that needs to be interpreted authentically by the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[adf417]

There are only so many ways to ask and answer the same questions. The OP was pointing out their issues, and I’ve commented on that. I’ve no wish to proselytize protestantism.

Truly, thank you all for your time and efforts.

Grace and Peace.

Dear Kliska, surely you do not mean to leave this thread and anyone wondering what the answer to this question is…

How will this lead you to the right context, to the truth? Can you be absolutely sure you are the only one doing study and prayer? If one does the same as you said, and leads to a different conclusion as you do…then who is right?

How would you tell or determine who is right or wrong?

How can you post anything on this forum without answering this question? If you don’t answer this question then what are we to think of what you have posted thus far? If a person who you are evangelizing and has never heard the gospel ask you these questions, how do you answer?

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

Dear Kliska, surely you do not mean to leave this thread and anyone wondering what the answer to this question is…

How can you post anything on this forum without answering this question? If you don’t answer this question then what are we to think of what you have posted thus far? If a person who you are evangelizing and has never heard the gospel ask you these questions, how do you answer?

I’ve answered the question repeatedly. Just because someone doesn’t like the answer doesn’t mean I haven’t answered it. The key is always Jesus. He is the Truth, His word is alive and active, and the best two-edged sword you could ever want, and yes, I do mean the OT as well as the NT. If a person is not saved, the first step is introducing them to Jesus, which can be done directly in, and through, the word. The Holy Spirit is the one Who brings people to Him, He is the one Who quickens the word. Upon salvation they have the Spirit indwelling them, and the Spirit testifies to our spirit.

I am a Christian apologist online, I’ve done it before and will continue to do so. Paul taught Christ and Him crucified, the Ethiopian needed to hear of Jesus for everything to make sense, etc… It is Jesus Who we point to. The good news of the gospel is something we are commanded to spread. There is obviously a reason for that.

Again, I believe in the 5 Solas, and believe the Spirit is what makes it all work.

Peace!!!

And to you!

Again, I have no wish to get an argument here, I respect this place and its rules.

 

[ezeekl]

I will not argue points that are disrespectful on this forum and to the RC faith. I have no wish to do so.

I will explain my view, and I do realize, fully, that it is not the view taught by the RCC. To start, the Holy Spirit is God Himself. He resides with us, and in us, when we become Christian. Christ is the head of the church, so God the Son is the head of the church, and God the Spirit is in us. The Holy Spirit works within us to lead and guide us, as well as to sanctify. We also have Holy Scriptures. When we read we are reading the word of God, with God to guide us. We are told in scriptures that the Bereans checked scripture to be assured what they were being told verbally was true. That’s what I believe is right.

Someone tells me tradition, and I’m going to check with the written word of God to see if it lines up or not. There are teachings in the RCC that I feel contradict scripture as well as actions of the hierarchy, priests, etc… (that’s the topic at hand) that I don’t feel line up with scripture. Again, I’m not here to go into specifics in your own house, and argue disrespectfully.

I would say that the first thing you have to do is find out if your test of using scripture to check anything is valid. I would think Paul’s words to the Thessalonians would give you cause to, at the very least, wonder about it. Here I am referring to 2 Thess 2:15 wherein Paul writes:

“15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [RSV]

Paul is telling the Thessalonians that they are to hold onto both the Written Tradition as well as the Oral Tradition. That is definitely not sola scriptura. In fact, the sola scripturists mentioned in the scriptures were the Judiacizers who were rebuked at the Council of Jerusalem . See Acts 15 on this. They wanted a scripture alone answer which the early church rejected. In fact the decision of the Council did not come from scripture but rather they claimed a special revelation from God when they said, “28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” Acts15:28-29] [RSV]

When you look at the history of the early church you will see that the church emphasized Apostolic Succession not scripture to check if a teaching lined up. Scripture was subject to interpretation and every heresy began with someone’s private interpretation of scripture. That includes protestantism. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. But is Apostolic Succession based on scripture? The answer is yes. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

So your use of scripture as a litmus test to see if it “lines up” is in itself scripturally and historically incorrect. I suggest that you first try to justify “scripture alone”. scripturally an historically. I think what you will find is that there is no scriptural basis for it and historically the idea of “scripture alone” first appearred in the 16th century with protestantism. That means it was new; it was unscriptural and it was unchristian.

Now you state, "There are teachings in the RCC that I feel contradict scripture as well as actions of the hierarchy, priests, etc… " Let’s deal with one of these. You pick out your best one and let us see if there is any contradiction.

 

[adf417]

I’ve answered the question repeatedly. Just because someone doesn’t like the answer doesn’t mean I haven’t answered it. The key is always Jesus. He is the Truth, His word is alive and active, and the best two-edged sword you could ever want, and yes, I do mean the OT as well as the NT. If a person is not saved, the first step is introducing them to Jesus, which can be done directly in, and through, the word. The Holy Spirit is the one Who brings people to Him, He is the one Who quickens the word. Upon salvation they have the Spirit indwelling them, and the Spirit testifies to our spirit.

I am a Christian apologist online, I’ve done it before and will continue to do so. Paul taught Christ and Him crucified, the Ethiopian needed to hear of Jesus for everything to make sense, etc… It is Jesus Who we point to. The good news of the gospel is something we are commanded to spread. There is obviously a reason for that.

Again, I believe in the 5 Solas, and believe the Spirit is what makes it all work.

And to you!

Again, I have no wish to get an argument here, I respect this place and its rules.

Sorry Kliska but I just don’t understand your answer and I certainly do not want to argue either. It’s not that I don’t like your answer, I really do, but how does it really work in my family?

My whole family is bitterly divided from Catholic to Protestant, including non-denominational, to Jehovah Witness and they all say and believe what you are preaching but all believe differently because their interpretation of scripture is different so forgive me when I say your answer is just is not sufficient.

I hope you can understand my dilemma in not understanding your paradigm and like I said I am not trying to argue, just trying to understand in hopes of having my own family back together one day, at least within the Christian religion.

As always,
Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

Sorry Kliska but I just don’t understand your answer and I certainly do not want to argue either. It’s not that I don’t like your answer, I really do, but how does it really work in my family?

My whole family is bitterly divided from Catholic to Protestant, including non-denominational, to Jehovah Witness and they all say and believe what you are preaching but all believe differently because their interpretation of scripture is different so forgive me when I say your answer is just is not sufficient.

I hope you can understand my dilemma in not understanding your paradigm and like I said I am not trying to argue, just trying to understand in hopes of having my own family back together one day, at least within the Christian religion.

As always,
Peace!!!

Ahhh, I see what you are asking, in terms of your example. What I can say is this; there is no power that can “force” people to see truth. Even God works within the confines of human will, because He chooses too (He doesn’t force us to believe in other words). But, the Spirit can influence and the greatest help that we can offer that influence is Holy Scripture.

So, in the case of JW’s it is a matter of showing their fallacies in scripture. In their case, you should see stark differences between what they are saying and what you or your protestant kin are saying. If JW’s argue about “changed scripture” it is fairly easy to show them that it wasn’t changed the way they claim (or that their translation is not from the original Greek/Hebrew). But, that is not going to make them change their mind, that is up to the Spirit and their own will.

What you are experiencing is the same from your perspective as if someone gave me a catechism (I have one, but just using an example ). I’m sure that you believe it contains all true teaching that lines up with scripture. When I read it, I would assume your hope is that the Spirit guides me and *my will lines up *and I am converted to the RC faith, and join the RCC. My view is the same; the truth is there, and it is up to the person through study and prayer, as well as the influence of the Spirit to come to that truth, only using scripture and not catechism.

Not everyone is always going to agree (as we even see in scripture), and there are some disagreements that are important to salvation, and some important to sanctification, and some that are individual opinion (or as Paul states it, some are weaker or stronger in the faith). Ultimately I believe as Paul wrote in that idea of us working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I believe the 5 sola’s work along with the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I understand why some don’t feel the same.

Grace and Peace!

 

[adf417]

Ahhh, I see what you are asking, in terms of your example. What I can say is this; there is no power that can “force” people to see truth. Even God works within the confines of human will, because He chooses too (He doesn’t force us to believe in other words). But, the Spirit can influence and the greatest help that we can offer that influence is Holy Scripture.

I think all parties would agree with this.

So, in the case of JW’s it is a matter of showing their fallacies in scripture. In their case, you should see stark differences between what they are saying and what you or your protestant kin are saying. If JW’s argue about “changed scripture” it is fairly easy to show them that it wasn’t changed the way they claim (or that their translation is not from the original Greek/Hebrew). But, that is not going to make them change their mind, that is up to the Spirit and their own will.

You and I both know the ridicules fallacies of the JWs and how easy it is to point out. But the point is they interpret scripture differently not unlike you and I or my protestant kin. So your argument is equally on their side, my side, and my protestant kin side. so we are back to the original issue. Who’s interpretation is correct and how do you know?

What you are experiencing is the same from your perspective as if someone gave me a catechism (I have one, but just using an example ). I’m sure that you believe it contains all true teaching that lines up with scripture. When I read it, I would assume your hope is that the Spirit guides me and *my will lines up *and I am converted to the RC faith, and join the RCC. My view is the same; the truth is there, and it is up to the person through study and prayer, as well as the influence of the Spirit to come to that truth, only using scripture and not catechism.

That is not my hope but if the spirit moves you then so be it. My hope is that we can all see the same truth and share the same unity as Jesus prayed in John 17.

Not everyone is always going to agree (as we even see in scripture), and there are some disagreements that are important to salvation, and some important to sanctification, and some that are individual opinion (or as Paul states it, some are weaker or stronger in the faith). Ultimately I believe as Paul wrote in that idea of us working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I believe the 5 sola’s work along with the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I understand why some don’t feel the same.

I agree we are not all going to agree on the unimportant things but I don’t think that was what he worried about in John 17 but if this is your ultimate answer then I guess I will go on wondering how someone, who knows nothing about religion, can take this paradigm and wind up 50% of the time JW and the other 50% Christian. You have said nothing different than any JW preaching their message. Please don’t take this harshly. I just honestly don’t see the difference.

Grace and Peace!

And more to you!!!