The Holy Spirit and Me

This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary

And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.

For the non-Catholic this web of 'interpretative authorities' are unacknowledged and even denied.

Hogwash ... to the extreme.

LOL! QED!

And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.
Is that why, do you think, there are over 33,000 "Christian" denominations?

Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen ... but hey we just do a prayer to the Holy Spirit and our horrible “living translation” of the Bible will convey everything perfectly!

Got it ... the extrabiblical sources the catholic church uses are more reliable that those used by non-catholics ... because ... they are catholic extrabiblical sources.

Just a load of self-contradictory tripe ...

Why beat around the bush? ... just say “The catholic church is correct because its the catholic church” and be done with it.

Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen ... but hey we just do a prayer to the Holy Spirit and our horrible “living translation” of the Bible will convey everything perfectly!

Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen

You're joking right? I admit that I seldom understand catholic humor.

And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.

While you might quibble with his exact wording, the truth is that Fr. Longenecker's overarching point is correct.

I'm sure you've met plenty of folks for whom the "Holy Spirit" has a way of just happening to go along with what they wanted in the first place. Perhaps that's even happened a time or to to you, as it has to me.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, how we receive and interpret Scripture, really is guided by various factors in our own lives.

A church may not be a perfect guide -- being populated by humans, how could it be? But it's almost always a more reliable guide than the nice folks on TV or wherever.

I propose changing the term Church to Quibble..
As in what Quibble do you belong to..

There little doubt that, there are many quacks Quibbling queerly..

>> This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary.

It remains extremely convenient that they use that “extra-Biblical interprative authority” find themselves in exclusive possession of “extra-Biblical interprative authority”.

It seems to be an interpretation that is at least a little self-serving.

SnakeDoc

I propose changing the term Church to Quibble.. As in what Quibble do you belong to..

LOL.... There's an uncomfortably large measure of truth in that....

It is true that if you ask God for Wisdom, He will give it.

But God has already given us much wisdom in scripture and for us to ignore it or be unaware of it, is like a starving man asking for food and ignoring the feast before him, or the proverbial man on the roof during the flood, ignoring the two boats and the helicopter that God sent his way, insisting that God would save him.

The problem with the Mormon approach is that they typically ask you to pray and see if you feel peace. Well the very act of being still before God and praying and asking God for direction, brings a sense of peace. But that peace may not be the answer to the question you are asking, the way Mormon's imply it is.

Scripture says Scripture is of no private interpretation. We are commanded to fellowship with each other. And one of the key reasons is that a group can often help put scripture in context of other scripture and reach the correct interpretation. Scripture commended one group of Christians for "searching the scripture to see if these things were true".

The Catholic hierarchy has resulted in errors, because it lacks this type of group interpretation. That top down hierarchy led to the abuses that resulted in the Protestant revolution.

Interesting read -

I do have to disagree though (as any Baptist worth my weight would do ..)

“For the non-Catholic this web of ‘interpretative authorities’ are unacknowledged and even denied. They want to believe that they really do “read the Bible on it’s own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit” and that all their views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture. Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives. “

I think there are as many non-Catholics who feel this way as there as many Catholics who really believe if they just do the Sacrements they’ll see heaven .. not truly grasping the need to have an individual relationship with God and the Son ..

The thing I found MOST interesting about the article is that it is written by Dwight Longenecker .. I knew him at Bob Jones University and have often wondered what happened to him ..

“I propose changing the term Church to Quibble..
As in what Quibble do you belong to..”

Hate to quibble but shouldn’t it be
‘To which Quibble do you belong?

:)

Will

Well thats indeed a queer quibble from a quack..

The willingness of Catholics like yourself to use such a polemic shows how free Catholics are to promotes ignorance.*

Upon what basis are we to ascertain that Rome is the one true church whose magisterium is protected from error when speaking in union with the pope to the whole church on faith and morals?

However, the premise of Rome is that because relying upon the Scripture as the supreme authority often engenders division, while implicit trust in an Assuredly Infallible Magisterium (AIM) results in unity, then the latter is correct. And yet apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.

Although RC's appeal to fallible human reasoning to seeking to convince me from the Bible to believe in the Assuredly Infallible Magisterium which is protected from the fallible nature of when they speak according to their Infallibly Declared Formula, (if they do say so themselves), yet once one becomes a Catholic he/she is not longer to search the Scriptures to ascertain the verity of what her church has defined, or to objectively examine claims to the contrary.

However, the fact is that God Himself reasons with men in seeking to convince them, (Is. 1:18; Acts 17:2) and abundant appeals to the authority of Scripture, including reproving those who presumed, like Rome, an authority over the Scriptures. Implicit trust in an Assuredly Infallible Magisterium is not how unity was achieved in the Bible, nor is unity by itself a goal of the Godly, as division is actually necessary because of truth, and is better than unity in error.Instead, unity is the result of God affirming His truth to those who hear and obey it, and thus the most essential unity is that of the "unity of the Spirit," (Eph. 4:3) resulting from faith in the truth which the established and infallible Scriptures teach.

And apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.

The Divine inspiration of Scripture is affirmed by both of us, and which is affirmed to be assuredly infallible, but which appeals to human understanding for assurance, (1Jn. 5:13) and affirms being like a noble Berean to determine how know that he/she is listening to this nebulous "Living Voice of the Holy Ghost." and to which God provides other attestation which complements, not contradicts it.

But this means we affirm the core essentials we both concur on, as being truths revealed by the Holy Ghost to the Church, being well substantiated by the Scriptures, while contending against those who deny them, which is typically the result of effectively exalting the authority of mortal men and or an office above the Scriptures. And thus we also contend against those teaching of Rome that also commit the error of the Pharisees. Mk. 7:6-13)

The following is from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html See also http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/look-unity-argument-just-doesnt-work.html Tuesday, December 15, 2009

*The special pleading of Sola Ecclesia-ists' claims to unity

A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of ~~22,000~~ ~~25,000~~ ~~30,000~~ ~~33,000~~ 58 gazillion denominations!"
What are they saying? Mostly that Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith is insufficient to bring about institutional, organisational unity to the church of Jesus Christ. And of course, Christ would obviously want His church to have institutional, organisational unity! Evidently, setting the

Scripture alone up as the sole infallible final rule of faith for the church doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is false.

I've created this crude and very maladroit drawing to illustrate.

Let's analyse, then, the alternatives of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, we of course like to accuse them of Sola Ecclesia; that is, we contend that their sole infallible final rule of faith is Whatever The Church® Says. But they don't like it when we say that, so let's be conciliatory and lay the contention aside. Their "real" rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur'an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman or EO priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman and EO Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one's presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to "Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian" or "That was just his opinion" status.
But let's leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.

The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special.

So let me break this down as clearly as I can. "The Protestant Church" does not exist. Self-named "Protestant churches" vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" as rule of faith? Answer that and you'll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that - talk.

Both sides often misconstrue each others unsubstantiated beliefs, and that “ non-Catholics reject ‘interpretative authorities’ and so all thy they really need to do is “read the Bible on it’s own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit,” and that all their “views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture” is neither the historical or today’s position on sola Scriptura, which is not “Solo Scriptural, but it most essentially means that while the Bible materially provides for the church and its teaching office, the Scriptures alone are the supreme doctrinal authority but which all is judged, as it is the only source that is affirmed to be wholly inspire of God and thus assuredly infallible.

And while these writings requires interpretation, so do Rome’s pronouncements, and thus one cannot escape interpretation, but the Bible is formally sufficient in providing the truth needed for salvation and to make one perfect in every good work, (2Tim. 3:1-17) although like food, to be effectually, other body parts are needed.

And while born again evangelical Christians (though they are no others) are marked by “hearing from God” as they read the Scriptures, they idea that the get their doctrine this way is absurd, and in fact survey after surveys shows that they are more unified in core moral values and truths than Catholics.

“Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives.”

Although this is increasingly a problem in some churches, it is evident that no type of churches contend more (in relation to size) against those who disagree with the core essentials (as in the Nicene Creed) we both agree on than fundamentalist evangelical types. And those who deny them also, like Rome, effectively hold a man and or office as the superior doctrinal office.

Unity itself is not a goal of the Godly, but an effective unity that is of the Spirit, which depends upon God’s confirming His truth in those who believe, not implicit trust in mortals. It is the church of the living God that is manifest as His, not its institutionalized counterpart despite what it may autocratically proclaim.

I also came across this the other day, for what is worth,

Synergy,

In the context of organizational behavior, following the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member. These conclusions are derived from the studies conducted by Jay Hall on a number of laboratory-based group ranking and prediction tasks. He found that effective groups actively looked for the points in which they disagreed and in consequence encouraged conflicts amongst the participants in the early stages of the discussion. In contrast, the ineffective groups felt a need to establish a common view quickly, used simple decision making methods such as averaging, and focused on completing the task rather than on finding solutions they could agree on.

Also,

Group think is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in cohesive group, when the member’s strivings for unanimity override their motivation to appraise realistically the alternative courses of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy