You can't have it both ways.

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;7018690:

So, in your mind, there is no way to discern, with certainty,the doctrinal truths (eg the Eucharist ) - found in the holy bible. Well, if that were true, I wouldn’t be a Christian. What good is the word of God if truth found in the word of God cannot be ascertained, with certainty my friend?

Let’s leave Rome out of it…

He transformed and changed everything about me. He saved me. That is where the discussion could start Joe.
70% of the world does not with certainity accept the Truth of Christianity.
Of the 30% who are Christians, wide disagreements exist.
I am not a Christian because of some intellectual doctrinal truth.
Doctrinal truth is important. Doctrinal truth is foundational to what we believe.
But Christ changed my life in every way. That is my doctrinal truth. My fate was hell like all lost sinners.
So that is where I am coming from.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy, let’s assume that you are right about SS. Let’s assume that the inspired word of God (bible alone) - is the sole source of truth and the Christians only authority regarding faith and morals, and everything and anything outside the purview of sacred scripture is extraneous at best.

With that said, surely God left the world with an inspired interpreter for His inspired word - yes or no?

Yes.

If yes, then can you please identify the inspired interpreter of the inspired word of God?

Either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

If no, then there is absolutely no way for the world to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when people cannot agree, doctrinally speaking? For example,Christianity is divided regarding the Eucharistic doctrine. Most protestants believe that Jesus meant:

This is a symbol of my body…

The CC, EOC and most Lutheran churches believe that Jesus meant:

This is my body…

And since there is no inspired interpreter (church) - there is no way to know with certainty, the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ.

Is this your contention as well?

Possibly. The Catholic view makes sense. And the Sola Scripture/Prima Scriptura does seem a bit weak. It only makes sense if I assume that the Catholic Church has gone wrong. And while I think the Catholic Church possibly has gone wrong I can’t build much on an assumption. Perhaps God wants everybody to be a Catholic? I’ll keep on thinking. Thank you for posting.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

No. A Luther uses scripture as the primary truth but tradition is the structure and framework in which they approach their hermenutical framework from a historical perspective…I think. I dont know for sure I guess.

You are right sir! In fact, Martin Luther himself removed from the New Testament a number of books including the Epistle of James which he called “an epistle of straw” because of its teaching on faith and works. He also removed the book of Revelation. It was only in the 1700’s that the Lutherans returned to the 27 books of the New Testament.

Interestingly as well, the Ethiopian tradition has 35 books in the New Testament, the Assyrian has 22 (I believe Luther followed this canon).

Ultimately, I believe that what we need today is a renewed reverence for God’s Word, assiduous reading of it, including memorization of its texts. Scripture enlivens our minds and souls, joins us to God as prayer does, and is like an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit on our lives.

The Protestant family of Nicholas Ferrar who lived at Little Gidding in England recited the Psalms twice in each day (they did a four hour night vigil from 9:00 pm to 1:00 am). They all knew the psalms by heart and got children in the village to memorize them too.

We should all, Protestant/Evangelical and Catholic, ask ourselves - what is it that occupies our free time today? What do we know by heart? Is it Scriptural verses, the psalms? Are we connected to God through His Word?

Peace!

Alex

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are right sir! In fact, Martin Luther himself removed from the New Testament a number of books including the Epistle of James which he called “an epistle of straw” because of its teaching on faith and works. He also removed the book of Revelation. It was only in the 1700’s that the Lutherans returned to the 27 books of the New Testament.

Alex

lutherbibel.net/
Here is a the 1545 version and it has James and Revelation. What is the source of your information?

 

[Nicea325]

I know infallible doesn’t mean “sinless”, and I’m prepared to forgive a fairly high degree of naked ambition, venality, corruption, etc., but the history of the Church as Wills has presented it shows plenty of examples, repeated many times, of the Church teaching in error, very grievous error, such as a number of Popes deliberately perpetuating the myth of Jews sacrificing Christians for sinister purposes. I don’t see the CC as having a better handle on the Truth than other Christian churches, so it seems to me the doctrine of infallibility has been shown to be untrue.

So would you apply the same above words to Peter who denied Jesus three times? Did Peter not have a handle on the truth? I am sorry,but I disagree about other Christian churches having a handle on the Truth just as good as the CC.

 

[schaick]

always seem to be the later comer to these threads! Some of my thoughts

Actually, I find it hard to be both “Sola Scriptura” and Trinitarian at the same time.

Why? The concept of the Trinity is in Scripture.

OK Patrick. If all truth is revealed through the bible alone, then provide scriptural proof that all truth is revealed through the bible alone? No commentary please, just scriptural passages to bolster your claim.

Show me where scripture** (actual verses as opposed to your personal opinion) **- says that scripture is the highest authority, and all Christian authorities **must submit to it? **

BTW, all Christians belonging to the CC agree that: All Scripture (not only scripture) - is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but that passage is silent regarding the all sufficiency of the bible alone as the Christians final authority.

What I think is really odd:
Catholics always accuss Christians of being unwilling to accept authority, yet Catholics are unwilling to accept the authority of GOD’s Word.

In terms of what we need for our salvation GOD’s Word has all the information we need.

Why would GOD have to say my Word is final? Isn’t that a no brainer? I mean it is GOD’s Word, how dare we question it!!

Well, that depends on one’s interpretation of that verse, doesn’t it? So we get back to interpretation as the great divider.

I’ve asked your question many times and the answer is always the same…one or several verses from which the protestant apologist has stretched the meaning to fit their POV…and I do mean stretch. But for them it’s not a stretch.

I get differing interpretations of Scripture; I just don’t quite understand the outright rejection of Tradition (Big T).

What proof do you have that your Tradition is GOD sanctioned, is correct?

Jimmy B aren’t you using GOD’s Word as final authority to prove that tradition is ok? Traditions are ok they make our worship much fuller

The BIG QUESTIONS is your tradition accurate? Is that tradition required for your salvation? Are you saying a certain Tradition is required when the Holy Bible doesn’t count it as a requirement?

If you say that I must believe in Mary’s **perpetual **virginity in order to be saved - that is there is no Bible verse stating such and it was never a command by GOD.

Is there a Sacred Tradition that says you have to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity? Can you show the chain of that being passed down from the time of Jesus?

A while back there was a thread on a similar subject and what I came away with is the Sacred Tradition is that the Catholic Church has authority. Everything else had roots in the Holy Bible.

If Catholics say a person must believe that a bishop remain celebrate in order to be saved- that is false tradition.

We all know this verse:

2 Timothy 3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Where does the Bible say that it is NOT the sole rule of faith?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

What I think is really odd:
Catholics always accuss Christians of being unwilling to accept authority, yet Catholics are unwilling to accept the authority of GOD’s Word.

First this is baseless. Some Catholics may have said this but certainly “Catholics always accuse” is quite wrong. This Catholic never has. Second it is full of needless generalizations. Catholics do accept that the Scrptures are authoritative. Third I take exception to your words that Catholics say this about Christians as if Catholics are not themselves Christian.

God bless

 

[schaick]

First this is baseless. Some Catholics may have said this but certainly “Catholics always accuse” is quite wrong. This Catholic never has. Second it is full of needless generalizations. Catholics do accept that the Scrptures are authoritative. Third I take exception to your words that Catholics say this about Christians as if Catholics are not themselves Christian.

God bless

Thank you for catching that generalization. I was going to correct that and got side tracked!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy B aren’t you using GOD’s Word as final authority to prove that tradition is ok? Traditions are ok they make our worship much fuller

Yes, because “God’s Word” is found in His Church, in Holy Tradition and in Holy Scripture.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.
_________________________________________

You’re not claiming that the Bible… a book… a Catholic book… is in fact God, are you? It sure looks that way…

 

[Jimmy_B]

2 Timothy 3
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Where does the Bible say that it is NOT the sole rule of faith?

2 Timothy 3:15-17
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I’m glad that you referred to 2 Timothy 3, because it is important to know that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years, has and does teach, refute, correct and train in righteousness so that the ones who belong to God may be competent and equipped for every good work. It’s just that many non-Catholic Christians have rejected many Christian truths, the Sacraments and so on… that have been taught over the years, so that they can have God on their terms and not on His terms and this is just one more example of that.

 

[Jimmy_B]

What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible?

The Bible is a collection of writings, which God’s Catholic Church and Catholic Popes have solemnly and infallibly recognized as being inspired by God. The Bible is not, itself God. However, reading some of these opinions here regarding Sola scriptura, one might wonder if some here believe that the Bible, is in fact… God.
.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m glad that you referred to 2 Timothy 3, because it is important to know that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years, has and does teach, refute, correct and train in righteousness so that the ones who belong to God may be competent and equipped for every good work. It’s just that many non-Catholic Christians have rejected many Christian truths, the Sacraments and so on… that have been taught over the years, so that they can have God on their terms and not on His terms and this is just one more example of that.

I guess for some here the “teach, refute, correct and train” part of 2 Timothy 3 only apply to those things that they happen to agree with.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

What I think is really odd:
Catholics always accuss Christians of being unwilling to accept authority, yet Catholics are unwilling to accept the authority of GOD’s Word.

Not true; they except the authority of their church leaders via their leaders’ interpretation of the bible alone or, in some cases, just their interpretation of the bible alone, all the while rejecting the authority of the same church that gave them their bible.

All catholics except the authority of the word of God; what a strange accusation. If the bible is the inspired word God, and it IS, then help me find the inspired interpreter? Surely God did leave the world with the inspired infallible word of God without a means of interpreting it infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit in perpetuity???

Without an inspired interpreter, more than one truth regarding certain teachings, will continue to plague Christianity, and we both know that there can be only one truth regarding any one teaching, found in the holy bible. So far the only non-Catholic that has ever answered this question, in my experience, is UniversalGuy.

In terms of what we need for our salvation GOD’s Word has all the information we need.

If that is so then God’s word must state that fact. Please provide verses that bolster your claim. Again, if you are right then help me find the inspired interpreter that can discern truthful information from bogus information.

Why would GOD have to say my Word is final? Isn’t that a no brainer? I mean it is GOD’s Word, how dare we question it!!

If you believe that God’s word is the Christians final and only authority for resolving doctrinal differences among other things as well, then, using the bible alone and the Christians final and only authority, answer the following questions:

Did Jesus mean:

1. This IS a symbol of my body, as most protestants believe?

or

1. Did Jesus mean this IS my body?

If you choose number 1, a whole bunch of non-Catholics are going to tell you that you do not possess truth regarding this particular doctrine.

If you choose number 2, then catholics are going to tell you that you do not possess truth regarding this particular doctrine.

Show me how bible alone, as the Christians final authority, can resolve this critical problem, considering the fact that this teaching is about eternal life.

Unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you.

Thanks…

Why? The concept of the Trinity is in Scripture.

Show me where the bible says that the father and the holy spirit are one or that the son and the holy spirit are one? The following 2 passages are as close as you are gonna get and these passages do not say that they are one. By accepting the doctrinal teaching of the Trinity you are accepting the authority of the CC. The CC defined this particular teachings as dogmatic in the 4th century.

“This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: the **Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
**
"…baptizing them in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit…

I could say: I baptize you in the name of Peter, Paul and John, but that doesn’t mean what the CC teaches regarding the Trinity!

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide, you said:

He transformed and changed everything about me. He saved me. That is where the discussion could start Joe.

No need to start there, for I agree with you.

70% of the world does not with certainity accept the Truth of Christianity.

OK…

Of the 30% who are Christians, wide disagreements exist.

I don’t know if it’s 30% but I agree…

I am not a Christian because of some intellectual doctrinal truth.

OK…

Doctrinal truth is important. Doctrinal truth is foundational to what we believe.

Your not a Christian because of doctrinal truth but doctrinal truth is important and doctrinal truth is foundational to what you believe?

But Christ changed my life in every way. That is my doctrinal truth. My fate was hell like all lost sinners.

Amen brother and that is truly awesome.

I ask again because you forgot to answer the question:

So, in your mind, there is no way to discern, with certainty,the doctrinal truths (eg the Eucharist ) - found in the holy bible. What good is the word of God if truth found in the word of God cannot be ascertained, with certainty. I thought doctrinal truth is foundational to what you believe?

 

[joe370]

UniversalGuy thanks for answering my question regarding an inspired interpreter for the inspired word of God.

What made you narrow it down to these 2 churches. (Either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) - I only ask because that was where my journey to truth led me before finally choosing the CC.

You said:

Possibly. The Catholic view makes sense. And the Sola Scripture/Prima Scriptura does seem a bit weak. It only makes sense if I assume that the Catholic Church has gone wrong.

You lost me there brother? I don’t see how it makes sense even if the CC has gone wrong, which of course means goud failed to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church of which He is supposed to be the savior - right???

And while I think the Catholic Church possibly has gone wrong I can’t build much on an assumption. Perhaps God wants everybody to be a Catholic? I’ll keep on thinking. Thank you for posting.

Good luck on your journey my friend.

 

[joe370]

What I think is really odd:
Catholics always accuss Christians of being unwilling to accept authority, yet Catholics are unwilling to accept the authority of GOD’s Word.

Hey Shaick…Oops, typing to fast…

I meant: Not true; they accept the authority of their church leaders via their leaders’ interpretation of the bible alone or, in some cases, just their interpretation of the bible alone, all the while rejecting the authority of the same church that gave them their bible.

I forgot to include the word NOT:

All catholics accept the authority of the word of God; what a strange accusation. If the bible is the inspired word God, and it IS, then help me find the inspired interpreter? Surely God did NOT leave the world with the inspired infallible word of God without a means of interpreting it infallibly, via the guidance of the Holy spirit in perpetuity???

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, you said:

No need to start there, for I agree with you.
OK…
I don’t know if it’s 30% but I agree…
OK…
Your not a Christian because of doctrinal truth but doctrinal truth is important and doctrinal truth is foundational to what you believe?
Amen brother and that is truly awesome.
I ask again because you forgot to answer the question:
So, in your mind, there is no way to discern, with certainty,the doctrinal truths (eg the Eucharist ) - found in the holy bible. What good is the word of God if truth found in the word of God cannot be ascertained, with certainty. I thought doctrinal truth is foundational to what you believe?

You had indicated you would not be a Christian if you could not ascertain doctrinal truth to your satisfaction. If that is not correct, its mostly what you are saying. That is completely and utterly foreign to me and what happened to me.

So I indicated that Christ changing my life is what made me Christian. Even before I knew the difference between justification and sanctification, I had my life transformed. I suppose in that sense nothing would have persuaded me to abandon my faith. My interest in doctrinal truth came second.
A transformed life came first. Yes, everything I believe turns out to have a doctrinal foundation but that came second to Christ transforming me.
It turns out you are 100 percent certain in your infallible interpreter. I am not. Most of us go around believing in what we believe but are rarely 100 percent certain.
But understand, I do not believe in your infallible interpreter. What else do you want me to answer??
I am trying to be clear and respectful about what I believe and I am not sure I can improve on how I have explained myself. If that is still unclear, I really am sorry.

 

[JHow]

Folks:

This is an amazing thread. I am impressed at the combined knowledge here. I am moved to post, since I am a former Protestant (Campbellite, Independent Christian Church, Restoration Movement-type church), and I would have said of my church at the time that we based our beliefs exclusively on scripture and nothing else. I would have said tradition was a bad standard to judge anything by.

As you can see by my tag I am now in a very different place - but maybe didn’t come as far as you might think. I want to bring out a few rough points (since there is only so much room in a post, and since I am not a theologian, they will be very rough indeed), but I found several things wrong with my orginal way of thinking, and it was really an encounter with the creeds (mostly the Nicene) that moved me form my former position. Understand that in my orginal way of thinking, these creeds were just something somebody made up after the fact, not part of scripture, not reliable in my book.

My old church holds to a view of the trinity that is orthodox. In fact, if you had just asked me in conversation, did I agree that Jesus was one in being with the father, True God, begotten not made, I would have said yup! Right on! Just like it says in the Bible. Only, these truths are not written out exactly like that in the Bible, we get them out of our understanding of various scripture passages. I think those passages are clear when you read them, but you dont have to look to far to find people who stumble over them. In the creeds, however, I found them condensed, thoughtfully, in one place, distilled. Here was a case where the tradition that I didn’t like, was actually helpful and had preserved a really important thing.

Another area where I found a flaw in my thinking was around communion. My Campbellite branch actually held to a pretty rigorous view of that too (as far as Protestants go). They have communion every week, they say it is the central part of their worship service, and it really is, it’s right in the middle, they rightly point to Jesus’ commandment in scripture “This do in remembrance of me” as the foundation for the rite. If you asked them, they would tell you that communion is the most important part of the worship service - and they also used grape juice because they don’t like alcohol of any kind - and they would say that communion was a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice. Now these last two are not in the scripture either (despite all the arguments about weak fermentation in ancient times, the most basic rendering of “wine” is “wine” - and despite relying on symbolism where our usual tendency was to lunge for a literal intrepretation of scripture, “this is my body” was right there in the ceremony). There was an additional clue to the last bit about communion, and that was that we didn’t treat it at all as if it was just a symbol - we had have it, we wanted it - it was way more important than just a symbol, it was a living thing outside the book.

The last thing I’ll leave with is just a historical argument, thinking about how the Bible was put together. You all know the story, even if you don’t think about it because you have it in one place, but obviously, the early church didn’t have all the NT writings. Paul didn’t likely take a copy of his own letters around with him on his missionary journeys. He was taught, he taught others, at the very begining (and my old church wanted to be like the early church, that was the standard for everything - what idd the early church do?), in the early church, the apostles transmitted everything orally, person to person. So there is the gap, (and there has to be, no matter how far you push it back), in the chain of custody, so to speak, that relys on tradition.

Obviously, there were a lot of other things to think about, but clearly I was never relying on just scripture at any point. Don’t know if I added anything here, but that’s how I saw it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Folks:

This is an amazing thread. I am impressed at the combined knowledge here. I am moved to post, since I am a former Protestant (Campbellite, Independent Christian Church, Restoration Movement-type church), and I would have said of my church at the time that we based our beliefs exclusively on scripture and nothing else. I would have said tradition was a bad standard to judge anything by.

As you can see by my tag I am now in a very different place - but maybe didn’t come as far as you might think. I want to bring out a few rough points (since there is only so much room in a post, and since I am not a theologian, they will be very rough indeed), but I found several things wrong with my orginal way of thinking, and it was really an encounter with the creeds (mostly the Nicene) that moved me form my former position. Understand that in my orginal way of thinking, these creeds were just something somebody made up after the fact, not part of scripture, not reliable in my book.

My old church holds to a view of the trinity that is orthodox. In fact, if you had just asked me in conversation, did I agree that Jesus was one in being with the father, True God, begotten not made, I would have said yup! Right on! Just like it says in the Bible. Only, these truths are not written out exactly like that in the Bible, we get them out of our understanding of various scripture passages. I think those passages are clear when you read them, but you dont have to look to far to find people who stumble over them. In the creeds, however, I found them condensed, thoughtfully, in one place, distilled. Here was a case where the tradition that I didn’t like, was actually helpful and had preserved a really important thing.

Another area where I found a flaw in my thinking was around communion. My Campbellite branch actually held to a pretty rigorous view of that too (as far as Protestants go). They have communion every week, they say it is the central part of their worship service, and it really is, it’s right in the middle, they rightly point to Jesus’ commandment in scripture “This do in remembrance of me” as the foundation for the rite. If you asked them, they would tell you that communion is the most important part of the worship service - and they also used grape juice because they don’t like alcohol of any kind - and they would say that communion was a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice. Now these last two are not in the scripture either (despite all the arguments about weak fermentation in ancient times, the most basic rendering of “wine” is “wine” - and despite relying on symbolism where our usual tendency was to lunge for a literal intrepretation of scripture, “this is my body” was right there in the ceremony). There was an additional clue to the last bit about communion, and that was that we didn’t treat it at all as if it was just a symbol - we had have it, we wanted it - it was way more important than just a symbol, it was a living thing outside the book.

The last thing I’ll leave with is just a historical argument, thinking about how the Bible was put together. You all know the story, even if you don’t think about it because you have it in one place, but obviously, the early church didn’t have all the NT writings. Paul didn’t likely take a copy of his own letters around with him on his missionary journeys. He was taught, he taught others, at the very begining (and my old church wanted to be like the early church, that was the standard for everything - what idd the early church do?), in the early church, the apostles transmitted everything orally, person to person. So there is the gap, (and there has to be, no matter how far you push it back), in the chain of custody, so to speak, that relys on tradition.

Obviously, there were a lot of other things to think about, but clearly I was never relying on just scripture at any point. Don’t know if I added anything here, but that’s how I saw it.

Excellent, interesting and a well worded post! Thank you.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rightlydivide

You had indicated you would not be a Christian if you could not ascertain doctrinal truth to your satisfaction. If that is not correct, its mostly what you are saying. That is completely and utterly foreign to me and what happened to me.

Correct. I do not believe that God would give to the world, His infallible doctrinal truths, (some of which are critical to everlasting life eg - unless you eat my flesh, you have no life in you…) - which of course came/come to us through His established church, forever guided by the HS into all truth regarding said truths, without the means to discern, doctrinally speaking, those infallible doctrinal truths.

So I indicated that Christ changing my life is what made me Christian. Even before I knew the difference between justification and sanctification, I had my life transformed. I suppose in that sense nothing would have persuaded me to abandon my faith. My interest in doctrinal truth came second. A transformed life came first.

OK…

Yes, everything I believe turns out to have a doctrinal foundation but that came second to Christ transforming me.

The doctrinal truths found in your bible, taught by Jesus Christ, comes second to Christ transforming you? Most SS advocates insist that it’s those doctrinal truths found in the word of God alone that brought them to Christ and that it is those same doctrinal truths, found in the word of God alone (such as the following passage) - that transforms/renews their hearts and minds, molding, shaping and better configuring them to Christ. Is that the case for you? If so then knowing the truth regarding the following doctrine that deals with eternal life, seems of the utmost importance:

*3Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. *

It turns out you are 100 percent certain in your infallible interpreter. I am not.

My infallible interpreter is the Holy Spirit, who is guiding, not me, but Jesus’ church** into all truth, **in spite of all the fallible sinners leading Jesus’ church, beginning with the apostles. All of the Apostles were fallible sinners but you have no problem believing that they gave the world, (via the CC) - the inspired, inerrant infallible word of God, in written form? Why do you trust this to be true? Do you believe that the HS guided the apostles into all truth, regarding just what they wrote, and upon their demise, stopped guiding Jesus’ church (the guardian and steward of the word of God) - into all truth, leaving the world with only the inerrant word of God, with no means to discern the doctrinal truths found in the word of God? Yes, if that were the case I most definitely would not be a Christian.

I just do not understand why you find it so hard to believe that God would provide the world with some way to know, with certainty and clarity, the truth, doctrinally speaking, regarding the word of God, written by fallible people?

Most of us go around believing in what we believe but are rarely 100 percent certain.

That’s true of many people in many respects. It’s only true about Jesus’ church leadership (which started with the fallible apostles, and only regarding revealed truth) - if you believe what your bible says about the HS forever guiding His church into all truth.

Well, then you don’t believe that the holy spirit is guiding the CC into all truth and that’s fine by me. Each to their own is what I always say. Sadly you do not believe that the HS is guiding any church, (regardless of denomination) - into all truth, regarding revealed truth only?

I am trying to be clear and respectful about what I believe and I am not sure I can improve on how I have explained myself. If that is still unclear, I really am sorry.

Forgive me if you already answered this question for I might have overlooked it, but if you didn’t, I ask again:

In your opinion, did God leave the world with a way to discern the truths (revealed truth that is) - found in the bible? For example, is there any way to know who is right regarding the following teaching that is so very important:

This is my body…

or

This is a symbol of my body?

Is there any way to know the truth regarding the same teaching, which has mutually exclusive interpretations:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Yes or no?

Thanks Rightly…