Who Has Authority?

[sterryfamily]

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word. The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

But, you only have the Bible by the authority of the Catholic Church.

(BTW - you are Catholic, you just don’t know it yet )

 

[Keikiolu]

I originally posted this in a thread about Sola Scriptura, but it got no response so I thought I’d start a new thread with it.
From reading the debates between Protestants and Catholics on this forum, it seems Protestants believe the following (implicitly, if not explicitly; and as a former Protestant I accepted it unconciously):

1. 
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the sacred writers wrote Holy Scripture.
   *]The Holy Spirit was able to prevent error when the Church leaders compiled Holy Scripture.
   *]But the Holy Spirit was unable to prevent error when teaching the true meaning of Holy Scripture.
   Protestants believe that Catholicism became corrupted and thus necessitated the Reformation. I want ask something: If the Catholic Church erred in its teaching, to where is the Christian to go to to find the Scriptures expounded without error?
   
   I am being serious, deadly serious. There is nothing in this world more important than the salvation of our souls. I am not interested in a “close-enough Christianity.” That is not what our Savior intended.

1. 
   If all men are tainted by original sin, then we can only hope to reach TOWARD our salvation as best we can, if we choose to do so.
   
   If you are looking for ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that you have PERFECT INFORMATION about that which you seek, then you deny the necessary existence of “mystery”, and the unknowability of certain things, and your reliance (ultimately) on faith.
   
   There is no absolute assurance about anything, other than in faith.
   
   Therefore, the only alternative is to strive to do the best you can, and have faith that god will give grace to him who does so so as to grant him salvation.
   
   To despair at the realization that you must rely ultimately on faith and not your senses (which is an idolatry) is to not REALLY believe that which you profess as a Catholic.
   

   The Apostles taught for years before a word of Scripture was written, and did not have the New Testament as we know it today, but were able to teach the faith without error. Who teaches with their authority today? If there is a Church outside the Catholic Church (not counting the Orthodox) that teaches with the same authority today, then I will abandon the Catholic Church for that church.

   Who would you trust to answer the question “Who teaches with authority?”
   
   Would you trust the person who answered you?
   
   Why?
   
   Just as you trust the “early church” to have been informed without error,… you must trust that you are being informed by a trustworthy source, to the best of your discernment,… which means that ultimately you must trust in the holy spirit to do the informing of both yourself and your “teachers”.
   
   So,… once again,… it comes down to “who do you trust?”
   
   What is you answer?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

But you are also a human being, and your interpretation also can be just as wrong.

Yes it can but only if I interpret it in vain and not under the guidance of the HS.

jmcrae:

Nobody has their own personal “Holy Spirit” guiding them into all truth.

Maybe you don’t but some do.

jmcrae:

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, and we gain access to His wisdom by following the Church - not by following our own independent little “burning of the bosom,” which is a lot more likely to be our personal, very fallible opinion, rather than being anything from the Holy Spirit - especially if it is leading us away from the traditional teachings of Christianity from the time of the Apostles until now.

That’s what Catholics believe.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Just keep in mind, men spoke it, men re-told it, men eventually wrote SOME of if down, and men decided which of all this was or wasn’t the INFALLIBLE WORD. The Church did that, and it continues too. The Bible reigns true because men, with the grace of the Holy Spirit, said it to be so. Look into the history of the Bible and decide if you trusted the decision of those ‘men’ and who they where and why you put so much faith into what they deemed, Canonical. Interesting to read about either way. BTW, what is you affiliation, if that’s not to private to ask? Just curious.

Those men were inspired by the HS and instructed by God to do so.
Why do you want to know my religious affiliation? Is “follower of Christ” not enough?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

But, you only have the Bible by the authority of the Catholic Church.

(BTW - you are Catholic, you just don’t know it yet )

I know and I am forever grateful to the CC for composing the book for us to have to study and learn about Christ and the history of Christianity.
That’s funny that you say that last part because I said that once when arguing why I don’t agree with the CC in some areas and I was told that I’m not Catholic unless officially a member of the CC. Interesting, huh?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes it can but only if I interpret it in vain and not under the guidance of the HS.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Catholic Church.

Maybe you don’t but some do.

Any spirit that leads away from the Catholic Church is not “holy.”

 

[Blue_Serenity]

The guidance of the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Catholic Church.

Any spirit that leads away from the Catholic Church is not “holy.”

Again, it’s a Catholic view.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, it’s a Catholic view.

Well, I don’t find any other view endorsed in Scripture. In order to be considered Christians, they had to be in accord with the Apostles. The Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles to the people - not directly to each individual, other than to bring them into the Church.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Well, I don’t find any other view endorsed in Scripture. In order to be considered Christians, they had to be in accord with the Apostles. The Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles to the people - not directly to each individual, other than to bring them into the Church.

We ARE in accord with what the apostles taught. In a spiritual sense though, not literally like Catholics.
I think we’ve had this coversation many times before. What answer do you want me to give?

 

[jmcrae]

We ARE in accord with what the apostles taught. In a spiritual sense though, not literally like Catholics.

In “a spiritual sense,” one can claim to be anything at all - the only limit is the human imagination.

I think we’ve had this coversation many times before. What answer do you want me to give?

That you have become convinced of the claims of the Church and are wondering when the next RCIA starts …

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The guidance of the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Catholic Church.

Any spirit that leads away from the Catholic Church is not “holy.”

Hi,

The Apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. 1 Corinthians 12:13 declares, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Romans 8:9 tells us that if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ - “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” Ephesians 1:13-14 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe, “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession-to the praise of his glory.”
These three Scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit must be received at the moment of salvation. Paul could not say that we all were baptized by one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink if not all of the Corinthian believers possessed the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 is even stronger. If a person does not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore, the possession of the Spirit is an identifying factor of the possession of salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit could not be the “seal of salvation” (Ephesians 1:13-14) if He is not received at the moment of salvation. Many Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our salvation is secured the moment we receive Christ as Savior.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,

The Apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. 1 Corinthians 12:13 declares, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

And what do we Catholics drink? (God’s blood.) What is in God’s blood? (God’s Holy Spirit.)

Romans 8:9 tells us that if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ - “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”

Yes. We receive the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

Ephesians 1:13-14 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe, “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession-to the praise of his glory.”

We receive that seal of anointing in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

These three Scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit must be received at the moment of salvation. Paul could not say that we all were baptized by one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink if not all of the Corinthian believers possessed the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 is even stronger. If a person does not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore, the possession of the Spirit is an identifying factor of the possession of salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit could not be the “seal of salvation” (Ephesians 1:13-14) if He is not received at the moment of salvation. Many Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our salvation is secured the moment we receive Christ as Savior.

And how do we receive Christ as Saviour? Merely by wishing so? No - rather, through the Sacraments of the Church.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

And what do we Catholics drink? (God’s blood.) What is in God’s blood? (God’s Holy Spirit.)

I have never seen that ever before anywhere and it is certainly not in Scripture. Where do you learn this?

Yes. We receive the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

How? What if someone goes through all the sacrements and does not believe the way the above Scriptures mention. Do the sacrements save you regardless of what you believe? If so, how and again prove it through Scriptures:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae View Post
And what do we Catholics drink? (God’s blood.) What is in God’s blood? (God’s Holy Spirit.)
I have never seen that ever before anywhere and it is certainly not in Scripture. Where do you learn this?

John 6:56-57 seems very plain, to me.

How, because you are not part of the church until you have believed and have the HS in you.

Yes, that’s how we get into the Church. The first Sacrament of Initiation is Baptism: the person receives the anointing for learning (the “ephatha” blessing of the opening of eyes, ears and mouth) and is cleansed from all their sins, thus opening the way for the Holy Spirit to work in that person’s life.

Quote:
We receive that seal of anointing in the Sacrament of Confirmation

. What if a person does not believe at confirmation. Do they still get the seal of the HS just because they went through the sacrements. If so prove it biblically.

They do, but it is an unopened gift. It will be opened when they come to understand the meaning of what happened to them.

In Acts 16:25-34 we see the conversion of the jailer - he and all his family was baptized and confirmed the very same hour - can he have possibly understood what he was undertaking? He himself had heard the preaching of Paul and Silas, but his family heard less than an hour of teaching, and what of the babies and little children, who could not have understood it very well, being so young? Yet, they all received the Sacraments that same night.

How? What if someone goes through all the sacrements and does not believe the way the above Scriptures mention. Do the sacrements save you regardless of what you believe?

No; the sacraments are conduits of grace, but if we don’t partake of them in faith, then it’s like water spilling out into the desert and going nowhere, instead of being drunk by a thirsty person. A person can receive the Sacraments all his life, but if he doesn’t believe in the God who is giving them to him, then it’s just empty. But if someone believes, but then never receives the Sacraments, it’s like a thirsty man who believes in water, but then never opens the tap and takes a drink, but just talks about it all the time.

 

[Petergee]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcrae
Nobody has their own personal “Holy Spirit” guiding them into all truth. **

Maybe you don’t but some do.

That’s NOT what Jesus said as recorded in the Bible. He DIDN’T tell all of His followers that they would each receive their very own personal Spirit of Truth who would guide them personally into all truth without any reference to anybody else. He told the 12 Apostles only, as a group, at the Last Supper, that they would collectively receive ONE and one only Spirit of Truth. Then He prayed most earnestly in their presence that they and all their followers and even the “sheep” who would leave their “fold”, would all be ONE, just as the Father the Son and the Spirit are ONE.

 

[E.E.N.S]

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word. The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

How do you know that the Bible is the infallible Word of God?

 

[Petergee]

Again, it’s a Catholic view.

We know that. We’re asking you what are the logical reasons why you reject this “view” which the overwhelming majority of Christians have always had.
I’m afraid that, to make the slightest impression on most Christians, you’ll need a lot more to justify your decision to reject it than simply repeating that it doesn’t correlate with what you personally deduce from studying the Bible.

 

[seekerz]

The Bible reigns true even when men don’t.

Exactly: the problem with personal interpretations of the Bible lies not with the Bible, but with the person interpreting.

Only recently, a non-Catholic friend asked why I wouldn’t join her denomination. My response reflected skepticism about the soundness of their doctrines.

Her solution was simplistic; whatever of her denomination’s beliefs I took issue with, I should just look up Scripture to see whether it was right or not. She, and many others like her just will not see the fact that even well-meaning people who love Christ, disagree over various passages of Scripture; so how could referring to the Bible solve the problem of who’s being guided by the Holy Spirit in their particular interpretation?

There just has to be a teaching/interpreting authority (which cannot err and teaches unchanging truths ) because as Blue Serenity would doubtless agree, God is not the author of confusion.

As for the Holy Spirit guiding people personally - outside of the shelter of the Church’s guidance and authority, this is an area fraught with spiritual peril. Whether out of pride or ignorance, it’s easy for man to forget that he was created with a mind and that not everything arising from it is the verbatim prompting of God.

 

[RNRobert]

But I’m not Catholic so the Bible is the most reliable source I have since it’s God’s infallible Word.

But doesn’t an infallible Bible deserve an infallible interpreter? What good is an infallible Bible if no one can infallibly interpret it?

 

[RNRobert]

If all men are tainted by original sin, then we can only hope to reach TOWARD our salvation as best we can, if we choose to do so.

If you are looking for ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that you have PERFECT INFORMATION about that which you seek, then you deny the necessary existence of “mystery”, and the unknowability of certain things, and your reliance (ultimately) on faith.

There is no absolute assurance about anything, other than in faith.

Therefore, the only alternative is to strive to do the best you can, and have faith that god will give grace to him who does so so as to grant him salvation.

To despair at the realization that you must rely ultimately on faith and not your senses (which is an idolatry) is to not REALLY believe that which you profess as a Catholic.

Who would you trust to answer the question “Who teaches with authority?”

Would you trust the person who answered you?

Why?

Just as you trust the “early church” to have been informed without error,… you must trust that you are being informed by a trustworthy source, to the best of your discernment,… which means that ultimately you must trust in the holy spirit to do the informing of both yourself and your “teachers”.

So,… once again,… it comes down to “who do you trust?”

What is you answer?

The problem with this is that it is really easy to get into relativism (I think this is why many Protestant churches either become fundamentalist, or they become liberal and deny everything, like Bishop Spong).
There is alot of mystery to faith. I wasn’t there when Jesus was alive. I didn’t see him perform his miracles, or rise from the dead, or ascend to heaven. I cannot understand how he could be fully man and fully God, or how God could be three persons yet one. I accept it.
However, because I accept Jesus, I accept his promise that the Holy Spirit will guide His followers into ALL truth (John 16:13). Not 50% of the truth, not 75% of the truth, not 99%, but 100% of the truth. He also promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church. Therefore, His Church will not teach error. Also, Jesus, Paul, Jude, John and Peter condemned false teachers. It is pointless to call something false unless there is an objective standard of truth.