Replies

And whose interpretation are you following, FK? Let me guess: it's yours, but it's "guided" by the Holy Spirit?

I follow the Bible's interpretation of itself. The Holy Spirit leads in His own way for every Christian, in His own time. Further truths are revealed as He sees fit. BTW, is every jot and tittle of the Bible settled in interpretation in your Church? I doubt it. What do you do for interpretation when the Church has not ruled on an issue? Since the Holy Spirit does not speak to you as a layman, according to your beliefs, you must be left hung out to dry on all of those issues.

You keep ignoring the fact that (1) the bible was not available for people to study for at least 300 years after the Lord departed from earth.

I'm not ignoring it, I have said before that I think that the Apostles taught correctly. After that, it's anyone's guess. I'm sure that many were correct on many things, but error appeared, and then grew, until finally God had had enough and decided to start the Reformation movement.

(3) The only people who knew anything about the faith were church fathers, bishops, priests and deacons who were schooled in the faith ...

None of this saves any of them from potential corruption. Men are fallible.

(4) Even if the Bible were available, the majority (90% or more) of the population was illiterate.

That's what teaching FROM the Bible (or from the teachings of the Bible) is for. We support that. Baptists spend tens of millions of dollars a year sending missionaries to countries where the Bible hasn't even been translated in their language yet, or is otherwise illegal for a person to own. The teachings go forward, and we believe it is God's will. Sola Scriptura includes oral teaching.

(5) The Bible in the west was written in Latin whereas the majority of the people did not speak that language.

Don't blame the Protestants for that! :) In the West, there was a concerted effort to keep the Bible inaccessible to the layman, supposedly for his own good. I don't buy it for a second.

I follow the Bible's interpretation of itself. The Holy Spirit leads in His own way for every Christian, in His own time

And just how do you know that? Don't you think that if this were true then we would not need a church, we would not need preachers, we would not need thousands of "feel-good" Protestants books about the Bible and, more importantly, we would all come to the same conclusion!

Oh, yes sir, we wold not be having this discussion at all! All believers would read the Bible the same way. Yet, it turns out that once you leave the Church the number of denominations and interpretations and churches multiply with geometric progression!

And all the Fathers of the Church would have been on the same sheet of music, for they were believers. Let me tell you something: Arius was also a believer. Oh, he believed in God, and he believed in Christ, that's for sure. Yet he did not see God the same way as we do. And so did Nestorius, and so did iconoclasts and monophysites, and Gnostics, and Pelagius, and monothelians, and so did Luther and Calvin and Zwigli, even satan himself — they are all believers.So, how is it then that they interpreted the Bible differently?

If Bible "interprets" itself why are there tens of thousands of different "churches" under the Protestant umbrella, all somewhat in agreement, and all different on some key issues which cause them to split.

So if your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit and mine is, that means your understanding is as good as mine? That is called relativism and is it is a kiss of death when it comes to religion, because there is nothing relative about absolute truth. Absolute truth can be either accepted or rejected, but not relative.

None of this saves any of them from potential corruption. Men are fallible

But you yourself claim that the Holy Spirit will not let you (the elect) fall away. In other words, we are corruptible, but Christ saves you. What you are really saying is that the Church was made corrupt because it is/was made of non-believers, of the non-elect.

This is the bottom line of the Protestant justification for their own existence: the Church fell into apostasy from the beginning and was resurrected by "true" believers, no doubt "guided by the Holy Spirit." The Church was made up of pretend-believers for 1,500 years; otherwise it would have never become corrupt? Isn't that what you are saying? After all, Christ will not let satan snatch His flock from Him, right?

For, there is no other possible reason for you to say this other than the message that is so loud and clear: the Church is made up of fallible and corrupt men, who were not elect, who could never "hear" or "understand" the Bible correctly. The Protestant community is a group of elect men and women who read the Bible "correctly" despite the fact that they are themselves corruptible by nature, because Christ will not let them fall away.

In that case, we have nothing to talk about.

I'm not ignoring it, I have said before that I think that the Apostles taught correctly. After that, it's anyone's guess

Well, if all you have is the Bible, you would certainly be in the dark about that, wouldn't you? But, fortunately, the Church has preserved the teachings of the Fathers who walked with Apostles and were ordained by them (St. Ignatius, for example), and their teachings are recorded so one doesn't have to guess. We would also presume that the Apostles would never allow their disciples to teach anything but true Faith.

You discard the evidence of the early Fathers and then use lack of evidence as "proof" that nothing is known, when in fact there is a contnuous stream of writings and accounts of the of life of the Church, form the Apostoles to this day, so we don't have to guess too much.

I'm sure that many were correct on many things, but error appeared, and then grew, until finally God had had enough and decided to start the Reformation movement

The Reformation movement was hardly wihtout error. Its legacy includes were mass murders, extermination of anabaptists, and endless splintering (Calvinsits, Armenians, etc). You present the Reformation in idyllic terms as if it were free of any corruption and error. It was and it is nothing even close.

BTW, is every jot and tittle of the Bible settled in interpretation in your Church? I doubt it. What do you do for interpretation when the Church has not ruled on an issue?

No, that is not necessary. The Church only 'rules' on such matters when heretics come forward and teach something that doesn't match the Faith. Thank God for the Church, as we'd never know the truth...

Since the Holy Spirit does not speak to you as a layman

How sad. You continue to ignore posts from us that speak the opposite. The Spirit speaks to individuals during Scritpure reading! But He doesn't do it AGAINST the Church's teachings, because the Spirit was given to protect the Church, not individuals.

I have said before that I think that the Apostles taught correctly. After that, it's anyone's guess

What basis do you use to say that the Apostles taught correctly, but "who knows after that"? Where the Apostles super geniuses? Is God unable to lead people after those 12 supermen died?

None of this saves any of them from potential corruption. Men are fallible.

Jesus made it quite clear that He chooses damaged goods to fulfill God's Will. Consider what Paul says about himself, yet, God worked powerfully AND INFALLIBLY through him.

Well, that is good that Protestants send missionaries, except that they USUALLY are sent to Catholic countries to conduct proselytism, tickling the ears with false doctrine. And if they teach what YOU have been advocating on these posts, I wonder about the "Traditions" they are learning, since it sounds like you have a "cut and paste" Scripture. Case in point is that "Baptism does not save", despite nearly ten verses I posted otherwise.

In the West, there was a concerted effort to keep the Bible inaccessible to the layman, supposedly for his own good. I don't buy it for a second.

I don't buy that the Church kept the Bible inaccessible to laymen, either.

Regards

Since the Holy Spirit does not speak to you as a layman, according to your beliefs, you must be left hung out to dry on all of those issues

This is not a difference between us, arrogance is. Of course I make my own decisions of what is or is not Christian and scriptural all the time and very rarely do I consult the authority. But (1) I have Catholicism well internalized, so I am unlikely to stray from it, and (2) if my Church tells me that my interpretation is wrong I will obey the Church right away and will work to understand why the Church is right and I was wrong; I will nor arrogate to myself the power to interpret Christianity my way. For example, I used to think that Mary did not keep her virginity but rather had physical relations with Joseph, because I was never taught otherwise (I was very poorly catechized) and I realized that it would not have been sinful for her to do so. Then I learned that the Church teaches perpetual virginity. Once I satisfied myself that it was in fact the dogmatic teaching and not just a pious opinion, I stopped arguing against it and set out to understand why. As you can see, now I can argue for perpetual virginity both scripturally and theologically. This is how my religious formation was made more nearly complete, just like St. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy.

Sola Scriptura includes oral teaching.

It is the reverse: historically, the oral teaching preceded Sola Scriptura by about 400 years, and given the limited literacy of the laity, by additional 1000 years or so. Of course no one blames you for teaching orally now when for whatever reason the scripture is unaccessible, but that is just neither here or there, -- except it again illustrates that what is necessary for evangelization is knowledgeable teachers, and not written scripture.