The $64,000 question

Did you ever affirm T2U's assumptions as to your positions? And I must side with him; those positions, if you do hold to them, are the same positions that many, many different people hold to and claim and yet arrive at many, many different interpretations than you do. I think what he is getting at is why are yours all correct and others' are not? How do you know that you individually are right?

In Christ,
Neal

 

This is from page 2. Already posted here. Showing my response to the objection - that points 1-3 in the opening list supposedly "don't work"

I did read it.

You said, "In the end it is trusting the John 16 and 1John 2 promise of the Holy Spirit "guiding us into all truth" combined with objective compelling models of "exegesis" in the case of each text and looking at the big picture for each doctrine."

In other words, your answer appears to be 1, 2, & 3.</font>[/QUOTE]True. I also point out that the "alternative of believing your own magesterium on top of that" solves nothing. Every church STILL has their own even the RCC.

Indeed AND they ALSO claim that their magesterium ALSO agrees with them.

Yes they are correct.

And yes they do hold up.

The only way you could "prove" they do not is to show that everyone is wrong. Merely showing that SOMEONE is wrong does not prove EVERYONE is wrong.

In the mean time - the word of God is true. The Spirit "OF Truth guides you into ALL truth" - but you have to have a love of the truth - a desire to accept the Word of God.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The "evidence" that the opening list does not work (as Neal points out) is that "someone is wrong".

I deal with that argument above - showing that in order to prove that 1-3 do not work - you have to show that ALL are wrong.

Otherwise the problem is simply a question of how consistently each group is taking advantage of the Bible principles of 1-3 in the opening list.

That is easy to see -- right?

Care to respond to the point rather than continually pretending it is not being posted?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that the Protestant view is correct. I applying the first three items in the opening list - the reformation, protestantism etc has left many RC heresies in the dust - embracing truth after truth walking towards the light and away from the dark ages.

Suppose now the RCC objects saying "yes but which one of you has the MOST truth and how are you getting it?". If the answer is still the Holy Spirit than why do SOME uncover the pure doctrines of scripture better/differently than others among that protestant group that has so surppassed the foibles of the RCC in the dark ages?

There is clearly no Urim and Thumim that light up for us -- it is STILL the John 16 principle of the Holy Spirit and it is STILL the interaction of that work of God with the free will of man in choosing to submit or to reject it (as Peter chooses to reject it in Matt 16).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob.....I asked about YOU! Not some generalized, theoretical situation. How do you know that YOU are right and I am wrong (because, as much as you hate it, I claim the same thing you do )?

In Christ,
Neal

 

Which one? Why are SDAs more right than Baptists?

In Christ,
Neal

 

Ron, we can't know but we can cling to the cross and our hope of salvation, our blessed assurance. You have not commented to either of my posts yet. Are they that good? or that bad! Let me know.

In Christ,
Brian

 

And I "keep answering" that the first 3 items in your own list above - are the ones contained in God's Word - and "these work".

Your example above is that "someone dissagrees". I have repeatedly stated the fact that "someone dissagrees" on a given doctrine is not a kind of proof that that the Holy Spirit is "insufficient".

In my recent examples I showed that the groups in general have used this model and "it worked" because they all generally walked away from a vast amount of error that had been merged into the church during the dark ages.

Your point seems to be to observe that even given that - there are still places where differences exist. I agree. There are differences even then.

Obviously all can't be right and "at most" one can be right on any given point in debate. At worst "none are right" on that point.

The "mechanism" for "getting to the right position" is still in 1,2 and 3.

"Failure to get there" (as we seen in Peter's case in Matt 16) is not a problem with God - it is a problem with man who makes a choice and turns from an "unpleasant truth".

The problem is that truth is not "always pleasing" to the heart of man. We always have the option of "pulling back" from that 1,2, 3 model.

But the good news is that our fellow believers will encourage us not to turn back. For example - if a Baptist decides to embrace the practices of infant baptism that came into the church during the dark ages - their fellow Baptist will encourage them not to fall back from the truth.

By the same token - A Catholic might be compelled to accept the truth that the essence of Baptism is as Peter says "An Appeal to God for a clean conscience" RATHER than having the essence be "a magic sacrament". Baptists might encourage that Catholic to embrace that truth and some others as well. And they would do so using the Bible, the promise of the Holy Spirit and by appealing for a "Love of the Truth".

These "examples" may be hard to hear - but try assuming the non-RC position (as you claim to be doing at the start of this thread). Assume that position and observe what problems remain -- as you claim to be doing.

There is no question that doctrinal "differences still exist" between groups but that is not an argument for denying the very mechanism that has lead those groups out along a path of truth as far as it has. It is like saying that diet and exercise do not work - since we can always observe that those who have attained a measure of health by engaging in that discipline do not "continue in it" and go on to become olympic champions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well that is to be expected Neal. The same is true of Baptists that differ with me on some point and with Prebyterians that differ with Baptists on some point (say infant baptism for example).

But the solution remains the same -

Peter may well have viewed that his way was the way of God when he said to Christ "no Lord may it never be" regarding the death and torture of Christ. Surely we can all see who "not torturing" his Lord would "seem like a good thing".

But Christ was revealing an "unpleasant truth".

There were lots of ways for Jews to "Rationalize" about the teachings of the Carpenter's son vs the teachings of the educated doctors of theology in the "one true church started by God at Sinai".

But in the end - the methods listed - the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and careful exegesis "continued to be the path of light" even in the NT post-Cross era as we see in Acts 17:11.

The Bible model is that of "convincing" non-believers by using the Bible as the revealer of truth NOT by saying "Hey I am a stranger to you but just go ahead and believe anything I tell you - change religions, join me, get killed. After all - some people you don't know call me an Apostle". That is not what we see in Acts 17:11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is general "disbelief" among our RC posters here. They doubt it is even "possible" to read the Bible and actually know what it says. They doubt any doctrine at all from scripture could simply be "read" and then have the person come away with the sure knowledge that what you read is "actually true".

With that as the starting point - we can all see how their questions here make perfect sense.

But I would urge our RC brethren to try a simple test. Assume for a moment that the word of God is trustworthy and true. When you read Genesis 1 - you accept it "as is" no "editing to please the atheists". When you read Exodus 20 saying "For in six days God created the heavens and the earth" it too is "true" no need to "edit" or play with the text to fit and extra-biblical bias.

In that "Scenario" the "Bible is true" and you are right to accept its teachings. IN that scenario you "start off" with success because (you are right) -- right out of the box with chapter 1. Now how hard will it be to "keep reading" and still "Get it right"?

I think you can see the point. We are starting from entirely different contexts when we come the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The same holds for the non-RC. Lets say they opened the Bible and their first chapter is John 6. Without knowing anything else they start in the middle of the chapter -- as their first introduction and sure enough - biting Christ is "the way to get life" right then and there.

They close the book without reading John 1:1-10 and without reading the end of John 6. I say they should then "be Catholic". But if they keep "reading" to the end of the chapter and start even reading the first 10 vs of the book of John - they quickly become Protestant just by using this simple "trust the Bible" model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

T2U:
Since a lot of folks gave answers that you didn't address, I hope that goes for them as well.

The overall consensus appears to be that we can't absolutely know; we have faith in scripture based on our interpretation.

We believer our interpretation is in the right direction, though it probably isn't perfect. We look to other believers, teachers, scholars, lexicons, concordance, history, dictionaries, and debate to clarify our perspective.

Where you're coming from colors your perspective.

Prayerfully we rely on the Holy Spirit, and hopefully we don't get in His way.

Looking forward to your reply,
Cotton

 

Thanks Ron, Looking forward to your answer!,
Take care,
In Christ, Brian

btw, things are budding and starting to grow in WI, what about in MI??

 

How to properly interpret the Bible?
Here are some helpful hints from John MacArthur. The entire article can be found at:
How To Study Your Bible

DHK

 

So when someone comes to a different interpretation that conflicts with yours, by using the same methods, how do you know that you are right? </font>[/QUOTE]If you read the article, and follow the advice given, which is basically sound hermeneutics, then you won't come to a different interpretation unless you are very biased, and are doing precisely what MacArthur says not to do--forcing your pre-conceived ideas into the Bible, when in reality they are not there.
DHK

 

Hi Ron,
I believe it is now time for your answer as this thread is just about dead. I know that after you answer you will respond to my posts as well so let it rip. God's blessings to you and your family this Easter season.

In Christ,
Brian