Posted on 06/09/2014 9:26:16 PM PDT by Salvation
Scripture and Tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
This can only work on Catholics...People who read and believe the bible won't be fooled by this nonsense...
Absolutely everything a person needs to know about how to become saved is written in the books of John...There is nothing outside of scripture that can or will contribute one iota to the knowledge on how to become a born again Christian...
Scripture alone is ALL we need to become Christians...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And THAT proves Sola Scripture...Scripture alone...
Never has there been such a thorough reference as the two large volumes, running 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Barrett has doggedly visited most of the lands in person, collecting raw material, including national census figures and United Nations data, and recruiting the 444 specialists who feed him material. Among them: Vatican missions librarian Willi Henkel and editor J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Barrett's encyclopedia sought to count each human being in each religion and religious subcategory in each country as of 1900, 1970, 1990, 1995 and 2000, with projections to 2025.
The 2001 edition, successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.
Wrong.
As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:36, 38)The early Christians baptized with water. What you have done is a classic example of forcing the Scriptures to agree with your predetermined theology. And it is this man-made Protestant theology that you are placing above the clear words of the Bible. So much for sola scripture.
And there you have a major problem with sola scripture. How can the Bible alone be a sufficient rule of faith if we cannot know what is the Bible. And note here that we are not talking about the dispute over the deuterocanonical books but of the Gospel of Mark. In fact, why do we accept Mark or Luke as Scripture since neither was an apostle nor a witness to our Lord? It is only on the authority of the Church which accepted them as Scripture. If it is not the church which can determine and authenticate the canon of Scripture who can?
If the doctrine is taught elsewhere in scripture then I will develop the evidence from that instead. Sound reasonable?
No, it does not! If this passage is authentic, which it is, then this is sufficient to accept the necessity of Baptism. Nor is this something that we can pass over as unimportant; one's very salvation is at stake.
This passage doesn't mention baptism, which passage is correct? Mark 16 or Romans 10?
It is not a question of either/or but of both/and. If a person believes then he believes in everything that Jesus taught and commanded, including the necessity of Baptism.
The allusion is that the flood of Noah prefigured Baptism. What is not an allusion is the simple statement: "… baptism, which saves you now." It is only because you are coming to Scripture with the preconceived notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation that you must find ways to negate these passages. Thus this is just one example of Protestants putting the teaching of the Reformers above the plain words of the Bible.
If Peter is saying baptism is required for salvation, how can you possibly harmonize the Romans 10 passage (and an absolutely huge array of other passages) that do not mention baptism at all?
Quite simply, if you have faith then you believe all that Jesus taught and commanded, including the necessity of Baptism.
It is quite clear on the statement: Kepha (Peter) is the kepha (rock) on which Jesus will build his church. But more to the point, the two of us have a dispute over this and many other issues of the faith. Jesus commanded that we should go to the church, not merely search the Scriptures. Where is this church that we can submit this dispute?
Most problems come from people adding to or removing words from the scripture, or, just not believing what they read...
May I lend you a mirror?
Protestant mythology. The very reason the Latin Vulgate was produced is because Latin was the vernacular in the West. There were numerous translations of the Bible before Luther or the King James. What was objected to were mistranslations. Even Luther admitted that he added "alone" to the phrase "by faith alone" in Romans.
wanting services that people’could understand in their own language, ditto.
Which is why, I guess, that the Church promoted the use of hand Missals with a vernacular translation of the Mass. Not very smart if you do not want anyone to understand the liturgy.
the rcc kept the laity uneducated and in the dark and totally dependent on them, on purpose.
Again, which is why, I guess, the Catholic Church established all those great universities during the Middle Ages. Rather than trying to keep anyone uneducated the Church was the only institution that preserved education during the Middle Ages. The various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were originally founded as institutions to support the poor attending those universities.
Saved? Yes or No.
may have had it at one time, but certainly not now in light of the emphasis place on Mary.
Seeing as there IS no "canon of tradition" that can be proven to have been passed down through the Apostles that is not also declared in the ONLY infallible and divinely-inspired writings of Scripture, the Catholic Church declares essentially that it can invent new doctrines at will. I do not believe for a minute that this is what Paul told Timothy nor what St. Peter had in mind when he referred to Paul's writings to the churches as "Scripture". What is absolutely certain is there can be no tradition that contradicts or cannot be proved BY Scripture.
As Irenaeus stated in Against Heresies III.1.1:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
It is clear that Jesus wasn't referring to Peter since Peter is a stone...And secondly, Jesus was speaking to Peter and said , 'this' rock, NOT 'you'...Jesus wasn't even referring to Peter...
Just like a Catholic to rely on a foreign translation that the bible wasn't even written in to prove his point...
But more to the point, the two of us have a dispute over this and many other issues of the faith. Jesus commanded that we should go to the church, not merely search the Scriptures.
Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Right from the lips of Jesus...
The scriptures, the words of God are all sufficient...Those scriptures provide the way of salvation while at the same time condemn your religion...
You say follow the (your) church...Jesus says follow the scriptures to know that you have salvation and, to know if you have the right church...
Jesus tells us to stay away from that church that attacks his scriptures...
If this be the case, then why isn't the Bible sufficient? They wrote these teachings down so we would have them for later. It's still about Christ today as it was then. The story of the NT hasn't changed.
While I agree the initial message was given to the apostles, you have to start somewhere, there is nothing to suggest that only the apostles are the ones who can continue to share/teach the Gospel. This would contradict the teachings regarding spiritual gifts which are given to all followers of Christ in one form or another according to 1 Corinthians. Some apostles, teachers, some prophets, and so on.
Do we really think the initial apostles were the only ones able to share the Gospel? Acts 8:4 records that those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. Later in Acts 11:19-20 we learn they where in Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch. They spoke to the Jews first and then men from Cyprus and Cyrene who went to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks preaching the Lord Jesus Christ.
So here we have evidence that non-apostles can preach and teach just as the apostles did. Why? They're preaching and teaching the same message.
The church grows by people like you and me sharing the Gospel with people we encounter. It happens everyday all around the world.
Praise God that He allows us to share in His Kingdom and to share His glorious offering of forgiveness through His Son Jesus Christ!
1. There is no list of Traditions - or you would post it. No list, no traditions.
2. “The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. “
This is simply a misrepresentation of sola scriptura. The inspired Scriptures are completely sufficient for salvation and Christian maturity. There is nothing equal to God’s inspired Word.
“Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.”
Fantastic! This is good news. It prevents the corruption of the Body that comes from central authority and religious dogma.
“If it is not the church which can determine and authenticate the canon of Scripture who can?”
There was a day, where it was the roman church who “authenticated” the canon. They largely got it right. After the Reformation, this has been revisited with far more detail and authenticated by protestants, correcting earlier errors.
30,000 of them are Protestant denominations, I read. Amazing, isn't it, the diversity of faiths that God implanted.
From Google:
The Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Pope. Together with the Latin Church, they make up the Catholic Church as a whole. They preserve many centuries-old Eastern liturgical, devotional, and theological traditions, shared in most cases with the various other Eastern Christian churches with which they were once associated, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church, and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy, identifies itself as the present-day continuation of the theology and episcopacy established by Jesus Christ through his Apostles. The Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian church in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,primarily in Eastern Europe (especially Greece and Southeastern Europe), throughout the Middle East and across Russia.
===============================
I'm starting to get cross eyed. Time to shut down and think of beddy-bye.
It's 8:38 P.M., still light and some poor bird is singing outside, TOTALLY confused, NOT knowing that s/he should be in beddy-bye by now.
No, you are wrong for exactly the reasons you state. The very Church that authoritatively selected what books constitute the Bible and what “teaching” was to be rejected must authoritatively interpret scripture. This authority comes from Christ given to Peter to go forth and teach…That is, teach one truth, a revelation from not only the Bible, but from tradition, handed down ritual, forms of worship, and revelation. Christ as the Son of God did not put forth a basis for contradictory teaching. This is an absurd proposition for anyone to make.
Acts 11:15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
This one notes the difference between Baptism with Water and Baptism with The Holy Spirit:
Acts 8: 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Water is not necessary for Baptism with the Holy Spirit
Acts 1: 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
I say this more from experience than reading the scriptures, but I find the scriptures very supporting of my experience.
There is a big difference between being Baptized with the Spirit and being Baptized with Water. The water is merely a metaphor for the cleansing that takes place in order for the Holy Spirit to enter a person. While it is important, it is not the end result desired. Baptism with water is not necessary for Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
” I have heard several folks say they’ve read the same passages several times at’different times and have found something new, every time.”
Very true. Jesus taught in parables as not all have ears to understand. When the Holy Spirit fills you it acts as a translator and all of a sudden the same scriptures have new meaning. Knowing Jesus becomes experiential rather than just theoretical. It becomes based upon knowing which is stronger than believing/faith.
However, there is much power in the scriptures and you must be careful giving it to people who are not ready, lest they take your pearls and turn and devour you. Thanks to God, the Holy Spirit entered me after I died, left my body and returned. So when people ask me how to do what I do when their motive is for power and not for growing spiritually, I merely say to them, “Die and come back and you can do it as well.” That usually keeps them at bay.
My best advice to those who are seeking is to read the Bible and meditate & pray for guidance to learn and follow its teachings. Then the same gifts will be bestowed upon you as the disciples of Jesus. But do not seek the gifts as what becomes the rung on the ladder to pull you up to one level becomes the anchor that holds you back from climbing higher if you attach yourself to the gift as your identity.
I was not a Bible believer when I experienced the Holy Spirit. However the Bible quickly became my operating manual to understand what I had experienced. It’s really profound as all of a sudden your perception of reality and the people around you changes as you begin to perceive from your soul or spirit rather than your physical senses. (Not 100% true statement as your soul/spirit (and other people’s) is also physical when you perceive with the Holy Spirit within you.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.