Replies

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.

FK: "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!

I know that because that is what we see throughout Christianity. Does everyone in your church have identical knowledge and wisdom? Of course not.

We still need churches and preachers etc. because God ordained that they be there. It is His will. All Christians do not come to the same conclusions at the end because not all Christians appropriate the truth from the Spirit equally. Many Christians do not recognize the Spirit as their personal authority on teaching, and believe God chose other means of sanctifying the believer. It is doubtless then, that different conclusions will be reached.

... 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?

I do not believe that it is true that a person is a true believer based on only his claim to be. There are many who claim to be believers but have never been. The Bible is full of them, like Judas (by all evidence). Of course we cannot know for sure about the faith of others, we can only be certain about our own faith.

Obviously, there are not tens of thousands of Protestant churches that are unlike in faith. The Spirit leads and men appropriate at varying rates.

So if your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit and mine is, that means your understanding is as good as mine?

Oh, I never said anything like that. :) There is a great likelihood that our understandings are different, perhaps very different. The Spirit leads individually as He sees fit, and men appropriate according to their faith. There can also be outside influences that hamper the believer from learning the truth from the Spirit.

The Spirit will not let the elect fall away permanently, beyond salvation. That leaves an open spectrum on the "saved" scale on where they end up in the process of sanctification. The elect do not all die with equal maturity. I do not make any judgment on the men of the Church as to whether they are believers or not. I assume that some are and some are not, just as with any church.

The world is made up of fallible and corruptible men, including the Church. This is one point I disagree with the Church upon. The Church believes that en mass, it is incorruptible, and that the Pope (for Catholics) is incorruptible when he decides to be. The Protestant community contains those of the elect and those who are not of the elect, the same as in your community and the Catholic community.