Yes, but what happens when the truth of the thing asserted is fully dependent on its historical accuracy? For example, if David never lived then Jesus' whole lineage and indeed His title "Son of David" would be a complete sham. BTW, I got that stuff on limited inerrancy from Religious Tolerance. It doesn't appear to be particularly friendly to Catholics, but not overly mean either. I just found it randomly, and was curious about to what level Catholics could take the Bible metaphorically.
So apparently, there are many truths now, some diametrically opposed... Where does the Spirit guarantee that every individual will be shown the full truth that God has revealed? God guarantees this truth to the Church as a Body, not as an individual.
No, there are not many truths, just one. But, people apprehend the truth at different rates and times. The Spirit governs all of it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be the lifelong process it is described as in the Bible. And, there is no guarantee that ALL truth will be revealed to anyone during life. That would leave such a person with nothing left to learn. I don't see that as possible. Apparently, this guarantee also does not apply to the Church, since different Apostolic faiths have different beliefs, AND, within the Latin Church anyway, some beliefs (truths) have been modified or changed over time. It appears that "the Church" learns in much the same way as individuals do, as the Spirit wills.
Why in the world are there so many denominations of Protestantism, all claiming to be 'Spirit-led'? What gives?
There really aren't that many among Bible-believing Protestants. Anyone can say he isn't Roman Catholic and start some weird "faith". They have nothing to do with us and we are not responsible for them not being Roman Catholic. There is no "Protestant" hierarchy to determine who may call themselves Protestants. Bible-believing Protestants follow Sola Scriptura and have much in common. Perhaps one of the biggest differences we have is the synergist-monergist problem. Nevertheless, the faiths are fairly compatible on the core elements. As I said above, the Spirit leads as He will.
That is a matter of opinion. The Bible doesn't even make THAT statement - that it tells us EVERYTHING we need to know.
Well then, here's a passage you've never seen before: :)
2 Tim 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
To you, does "thoroughly equipped" somehow not equal "everything we need to know"?
FK: "God's chosen DO have no choice but to follow them: Phil 2:13 : ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
Where does that say that the "saved" have no choice but to follow God? It only says that God works in us the will to act according to His purpose, not that our will is totally destroyed.
If this referred to the lost, then God would be the author of sin (God working IN the person), and nobody believes that. Secondly, you're watering it down with "God works in us the will to act". That's not what it says. Instead, it says "God who works in you to will and to act". It is a subtle but significant difference, and I understand why you made it. The actual text says that it is God doing the work, not Him working to persuade us. The text has God in charge and in control. The will being "destroyed" is a non-issue because for the believer, the will has already been changed by God. The heart of stone is removed, and a heart of flesh has taken its place. And of course, a remnant of the sin nature remains, even after conversion, hence, we believers still sin from time to time. Therefore, the old will is not completely destroyed, but is almost completely replaced with a new will in favor of Christ. It is not a matter of God forcing against choice, it's a matter of God literally changing our minds.
Then we believe it. When the author asserts the historical veracity of something, then so it happened. However, it is not so black and white in determining whether the author IS asserting the historical veracity of something. The Jews were not concerned like we are of such matters.
there are not many truths, just one. But, people apprehend the truth at different rates and times.
LOL! Yes, eventually people become Catholic at different times!
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
My problem with your statement is that some "truths" are diametrically opposed. Opposite. This is not a matter of different rates. We have the "Spirit" leading people in opposite directions, if we would believe every person who said "I am led by the Spirit"... Thus, I see this statement as self-serving. The only way we KNOW we are being led by the Spirit is by our works of love, our obedience to the Commandments (e.g. Acts 5:32 or Mat 7:21)
Apparently, this guarantee also does not apply to the Church, since different Apostolic faiths have different beliefs, AND, within the Latin Church anyway, some beliefs (truths) have been modified or changed over time. It appears that "the Church" learns in much the same way as individuals do, as the Spirit wills.
Nothing is changed over time, it is the understanding that improves, as you say. I still do not think that the Apostles knew the exact and total implications of what we now call "Trinity". They taught it in kernel form, implicitly. But I sincerely doubt that Peter or Paul taught that Jesus is a hypostatic union of God and man, or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father/Son and is equally God, different only in this procession from the Father and the Son.
You are correct that the Church learns more about God as time advances - since the Church IS the community. It consists of theologians and bishops and so forth, who build upon previous generations and attempt to present God's Word and Gospel in a language that has meaning for people of today.
Nevertheless, the faiths are fairly compatible on the core elements. As I said above, the Spirit leads as He will.
I question that. In my experience, no matter the topic, I find Protestants of different groups taking different sides of a theological question: Does Baptism save? What is the Eucharist? Can we baptize infants? Do works have anything to do with salvation? What is the relationship between grace and free will? Can a Christian fall away? I do not see Protestants lining up on these questions into two groups, but they cut across the board.
To you, does "thoroughly equipped" somehow not equal "everything we need to know"?
Yawn. If I had a dollar for everyone who thought that this verse proved anything... Perhaps you should consult the dictionary. Thoroughly equipped doesn't mean EVERYTHING. Nor does this verse even refer to the NT!
Ephesians 4:11-13 gives us ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints - and the Bible is not even mentioned. Thus, the Bible is NOT the sole source of our faith. If it was, Ephesians could not say that God gave the Church preachers, teachers, and evangelists to perfect the saints. You jump to conclusions when you think that "thoroughly" means "everything".
Case in point, FK. HOW did the first Christians get by without a NT the first 25-30 years? Were they not able to become "perfected"? Were they in "limbo" waiting for the Bible that would some day be written to guide them to truth? NO. The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible.
If this referred to the lost, then God would be the author of sin
Isn't that what Calvinists believe, although they won't admit it, their theology says the same thing.
Secondly, you're watering it down with "God works in us the will to act". That's not what it says. Instead, it says "God who works in you to will and to act". It is a subtle but significant difference, and I understand why you made it.
"God works in you to will and to act". Yes, that is me doing it, God moving my will to desire to do it. Not sure where you are coming up with your interpretation that I am a puppet and God pulls the strings. God works in me the DESIRE, the WILL to ACT. It doesn't say that God acts. It doesn't say that God desires and I do nothing. That is your paradigm thrust upon the Scriptures.
In your paradigm, man is not even judged, although the bible clearly tells us over and over that man WILL be judged. HOW can man be judged if he is not responsible for his own will to act???
I don't expect an answer, as this question has been asked before many times.
Regards