Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[metmom]

I read it and also it does is confirm how confused, inconsistent and incoherent Luther often was.

Says the guy whose religion took 1500 years to officially determine canon.

[metmom]

Catholics cannot think outside of the following one man box.

They follow the pope and cannot conceive of someone not following a human leader.

I can’t remember how many times I have told them that I DO. NOT. FOLLOW. LUTHER and DO. NOT. CARE. what His opinion was about anything. And yet they keep throwing up Luther and what he allegedly said in my face as if it means anything.

[metmom]

Luther is the founder of Protestantism, so naturally many people assume he was the one who decided for Protestants which books were in the Bible.

Luther did not *found* Protestantism unlike Constantine who founded Catholicism.

And there is a big part of your problem. You are assuming too much instead of reading what boatbums posted and learning the truth.

[Elsie]

Catholicism has no inherent authority to determine what is and is not Scripture.

Au contrare, mon ami!

'When I tell you what imagery found in Scripture REALLY means,'

 the magnificant Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather superior tone,

' it means just whomever I choose it to mean, neither more nor less;

but sometimes two or more different things at once.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can define imagery to mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, C.SS.R, S.S.L., O.F.M, S.T.D 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[Elsie]

...and SOME stuff even LONGER!!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=catholic+doctrine+change+in+last+500+years&ia=web

[Elsie]

Class, this is todays project: Look for Luther here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

[Chicory]

I can see by your words that you really love God, and since you mentioned you are a minister, it seems that you dedicated at least a large portion of your life to Him.

The ability of many Protestants I have met to talk so easily about their faith and to dedicate themselves to God is something I really admire about them. (I used to live in the south, so I met a lot of wonderful Protestants!)

I bet you even read the Bible frequently, if not daily, and reflect on what His Word means in your life. Maybe you read something about patience and think that maybe you should stop snapping at the annoying person in your life—your bundle, as the Quakers would put it.

You “cultivate” your friendship with God. Maybe you even want to become a better person for Him, just as husbands want to become better people for their wives.

And sometimes He might ask you to do Him a favor. Would you turn Him, Who has done so much for you, down? Would you say, no, God, no Jesus, I won’t help those poor people because that would be works and I don’t have to do works for my salvation so forget about it.

Surely we want to become better people and do things to help others because the love of God—our love for Him and His love for us—simply wells up inside us and spills over?

I look at someone like St. Fr. Damien of Molokai, who went from Belgium to the leper colony of Hawaii to care for those suffering souls. Or Deitrich Bonhoeffer, who died opposing many evils but especially the evils of Naziism.

I sincerely believe that our belief on this matter is very similar but divided by semantics, by our understanding of the words involved and how to apply them.

I agree that this has been a good conversation!

[Roman_War_Criminal]

I’m shocked that they actually do put their trust a mortal man in cloth over The Creator of the Universe for their eternal soul.

Shuddering to think, but blind men cannot see - nor do dead men hear/listen.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Sad...

[Roman_War_Criminal]

All credibility is lost - and that goes back centuries.

Look at the manifestation of what they call their “Vicar of Christ” now?

The devil himself in disguise, with folks crying on their knees in his presence.

Roman Catholicism is the epitome of Superstitious Beliefs with spells, chants, and ceremonies.

I am on my knees daily Thanking The Lord Jesus (Praise Him!) that His Holy Spirit yelled at me to get out of that organization.

[daniel1212]

Given the length of your comment, I must ask if there is a summary in there somewhere for those of us with limited time? It looks like a powerful rebuttal, but many if not most of us just can't take an afternoon to parse such a comment.

You should ask the OP of this poor prolix polemic for a condensed version if you want a condensed response to its 3,000 words. After all, I could have written even more in response, though unnecessary.

But in "short" (for me) besides many false statements, the RC argument against "Bible only," which actually misrepresents Sola Scriptura, and for what is essentially "sola Roma," is, in brief, basically that since the early church had no Bible (as if they had no Scripture),

and thus the Lord and His Apostles preached orally (leaving out their reliance upon Scripture in so doing),

and that there is in doctrines that can be known that what the Lord taught while on earth, citing John 20:30; 21:25,

and that Catholicism was essential in establishing a sure canon and preserving Scripture,

and Scripture needs explanation lest there be division, and which division invalidates the "Bible only" strawman,

means that the oral tradition of Rome is likewise of God and that she is to be submitted to.

Which argument is refuted by the facts that

an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture,"

which shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium, the establishment of which is essentially due to their surpassing heavenly qualities and attestation.

And which writings provided the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation for the NT church, for God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of His Word.

And that Scripture does not say that there is oral tradition of additional doctrine, but that Christ did command writing of His word via His Spirit. (John 16:12-15; 2 Tim. 3:16; Revelation 1:11)

And while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do so. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

The premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome (and basically in cults) is nowhere exampled, taught or promised. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power.

And that being the historical magisterial judges on what is of God, and instrumental preservers of writings of God, simply cannot, does not, and did not translate into required submission to such.

For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel, the historical instruments discerners and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead, truth seeking souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved upon Scripture being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Catholic priests are not NT pastors, nor are distinctive Catholic teachings manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Having a claimed sure supreme interpreter of Scripture as per Rome does not mean unity, even among those who place a priority among doctrine, for the interpreter itself is subject to interpretation, and thus the fractured condition of Catholicism.

And thus to be a RC also means to be part of an mixture of at least a near majority of liberal and conservative Catholics (who actually are most likely to be criticized by hierarchy) , since all of which are indeed considered to be members by Rome, which reveals her interpretation of her own doctrines by what she does. (cf. Ja. 2:18) Which, with interpretations of the interpreter, has resulted in more division, mainly of TradCaths vs., the Vatican, and divisions among the former (the OP himself apparently represents a church with no living pope) . Yet as with conservative Bible Christians, their divisions are mostly due to taking doctrine very seriously, and thus such also has the strongest basic unity in faith and morals.

Therefore, the "living magisterium" to which RCs are sppsd to submit to, has actually resulted in more disunity, vs. being the vaunted solution to it.

In addition, after over 1,000 years, Rome and the EOs have yet to resolve their substantial disagreements.

In addition, SS simply does not mean the "Bible alone," as if "the due use of ordinary means" (Westminster Confession) excludes the church and teachers.

Meanwhile, despite divisions, those in what is called Protestantism who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired sure and supreme authority have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

And the really deleterious division under the vast umbrella called Protestantism is because only about half or less of denominations actually believe in the Bible Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired sure and supreme authority.

Yet the ideal is one unified organic church, if in variety and not clones, and the NT church manifested its unity in heart and basic beliefs under manifest men of God, in Scriptural probity, purity, power, passion and perseverance, (2 Co. 6:4-10) due to full Scriptural surrender and consecration in heart to the Lord, which is overall lacking today. Thus in summation:

Scripture began before the church, and which provided the the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation for it, as well evidenced by the multitudinous quotes and direct references to it in NT teaching.

Apart from this foundation, the Lord and His apostles would not have any substantiation for their oral and written teaching, apart from miracles and their own holiness, which by themselves do not establish authenticity of message.

Men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither popes and councils cannot claim to do. Thus the latter can only self-proclaim that she cannot teach salvific error, or any error in certain formats.

Yet the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome (and basically in cults) is nowhere exampled, taught or promised. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power. As did the Lord Jesus and His disciples.

Being the historical magisterial judges on what is of God, and instrumental preservers of writings of God, simply cannot, does not, and did not translate into required submission to such. For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, under men who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Having a claimed sure supreme interpreter of Scripture as per Rome does not mean unity, even among those who place a priority among doctrine, for the interpreter itself is subject to interpretation, and thus the fractured condition of Catholicism.

The strongest basic unity is among those to take doctrine most seriously, which groups also typically see the most division - unless repressed - but the means to unity is full Scriptural surrender and consecration in heart to the Lord, as manifested by the NT church, which was definitely not Catholic, and with a strong basic unity which increasingly saw diversity as it spread. (Rv. 2,3)

And with the closest to this today being among a remnant of conservative evangelical Bible Christians, as part of those which have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

Among which the written word is the assured infallible word of God, and the sole sure supreme standard for Truth, but not as alone in enabling understanding of its teachings, and by which all Truth claims are tested.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

RomoHomo is dumb…

[RoosterRedux]

You should ask the OP of this poor prolix polemic for a condensed version...

The thing is, I don't read everyone's comments. But I do try to read yours because I know you are coming from a good place.

That said, to quote Polonius, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

[daniel1212]

The thing is, I don't read everyone's comments. But I do try to read yours because I know you are coming from a good place. That said, to quote Polonius, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

I do tend to prolixity, partly because of wanting to be rather thorough, and also because of I have a lot from previous responses to the same refuted polemics that RC persist in posting and which I can use in a current iteration of such. But sadly, much due to smartphones and effects of media on our minds, most web pages and search results prioritize brevity over more comprehensive content. When most reading on the Internet is on tiny screens and competing with so much else a touch or look away, then it is no wonder most people just follow the crowd.

[RoosterRedux]

it is no wonder most people just follow the crowd.

Do you think that a love of brevity is "following the crowd"?

I do think people in, say, Victorian England had more time to spend reading lengthy treatises. But, not only was life slower then, there just wasn't as much written information available.

I spend all day reading. Like most people, I have to cut to the bottom line pretty quickly in the material I digest or I wouldn't be able to cover much ground.

As Einstein said, “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

[gitmo]

Luther came 100 years after John Hus. Hus was more of a founding father of the Faith than Luther. Hus lived in what is today The Czech Republic.

He was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for preaching in a language that the people spoke and urging people to read the scriptures for then in their own language. He had also spoken out against indulgences and selling the grace of God. The Catholic Church had demanded he come to the Council of Constance in 1415 and they guaranteed he would return safely. They burned him at the stake.

Hus defended Wycliffe and his writings. The church had condemned anyone who read Wycliffe’s writings

Before the flames took his life, Hus proclaimed that liberty and spiritual reform would flourish despite his execution. Hus was followed by John Comenius who fled the persecution of the church and established a Christian community in Germany called The Moravian on the property of Nikolai’s Von Zinzendorf.

Before lighting the flames, they demanded Hus renounce his teachings. He replied “My Lord Jesus Christ was bound with a harder chain than this for my sake. Why should I be ashamed of this rusty one? I never preached any doctrine from an evil tendency and what I taught with my lips I now seal with my blood.”

[wita]

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

I submit that conclusion based on the verses mentioned is in error.

The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

The principles found therein do not lead one to declare the Bible incomplete. It might lead one to thirst for more, knowing more exists. It does not lead to a declaration that the Bible is all there is.

[RoosterRedux]

I had some excellent writing composition courses in college. My professors drilled into me the fact that no one wants to read long rambling essays.

They used to say, "Write like Hemingway...no extra words, no rambling paragraphs, be extremely economical, try to write without using adjectives and adverbs."

They called wordiness an exercise in vanity.

I have often wondered if that's where the Free Republic use of the term "vanity" for Freeper-authored threads came from.

[daniel1212]

And sometimes He might ask you to do Him a favor. Would you turn Him, Who has done so much for you, down? Would you say, no, God, no Jesus, I won’t help those poor people because that would be works and I don’t have to do works for my salvation so forget about it.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy, that of a false either/or dilemma, as if salvation by faith means that one considers obedience superfluous, as if faith and obedience to the object of faith can be separated in effect, and ignoring that the issue is which is the cause of justification, which is faith in the Lord Jesus is imputed for righteousness, and effects obedience by the Spirit, and in this sense they both go together, as both Jesus, Paul and James teach.

Rather than sola fide meaning salvation by a mere inert, ineffectual faith, as if one can actually believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and not have it also effect his life, or that one is justified by actually becoming good in heart (as per Rome), it is penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) who was sent by the Father to be the savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)

And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And those who die in that obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39; 2 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:5) Thus a very good man needed salvation, and was told by Peter, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

And which he manifestly did, magnifying God, (Acts 10:46) attesting to salvation, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto ["indicating the point reached or entered" - Strong's], salvation." (Romans 10:10) "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

And these faith-washed, Spirit sanctified and imputation-justified souls (cf. Rm. 4:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11) were baptized, which is a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus by "body language,' confirmatory of saving faith, (cf. Mk. 16:16) as was that of previously justified Abraham (Gn. 15:6) in later offering up his beloved son, (Genesis 22) which confirmed/vindicated/justified him as being a true believer.

For faith and obedience by the Spirit (Rm. 8:14) go together as cause and effect as does forgiveness and healing in Mark 2 (thus used interchangeably as "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" Mark 2:9). However, the effect is not be to confused as the cause.

Penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) is what is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Divine Lord Jesus, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) who was sent by the Father to be the savior of the world. (1 John 4:14) And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) To whom the true believer will directly go to be forever with, at death or at His return, whatever comes first (1 Thessalonians 4:17 cf. Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8) - if the convert dies in that obedient faith, in contrast to eternal punishment for those who were never converted/regenerated, or who terminally fell away after having received so great salvation by obedient faith. (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-31, 38-39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5)

This union of faith and works as cause and effect, but not confusing effect with cause, is not some new teaching of sola fide. See Reformation on faith and works , by the grace of God.

Which is in contrast to the RC process of salvation which begins at baptism, which act itself (ex opere operato) is imagined as actually making one righteous enough so that the baptized could go to Heaven if he died right then, before the sin nature that remains makes it manifest that he is not fit to enter Heaven, and which thus (usually) necessitates Purgatory, so that he may once again become good enough to be with God. To wit (emphasis throughout is mine): Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies. (CCC 1227) The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification... (CCC 1266) Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (CCC 1992) The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift...infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. (CCC 1999) 

Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) 

Thus it is believed that the newly baptized, who are thus inwardly just, formally justified and made holy by their own personal justice and holiness, would go to Heaven if they died before they sin: 

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . .) have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. (CCC 1023) 

However, since the unholy sinful Adamic nature is all too alive and manifests itself in these "inwardly just" (righteous souls), meaning that unless   they died having  attained to the level of practical perfection needed, then they are in in need of purification when they die:

Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized , such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence. .. (CCC 1264) 

And thus, what flows from the original error of believing man must actually become good enough to be with God (rather than faith being counted/imputed for righteous, - Rm. 4:5 - and with obedience and holiness being evidential fruit of regenerating faith) is that of the doctrine of RC Purgatory, by which, besides atoning for sins not sufficiently expiated on earth, serves to make the baptized good enough to be with God. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness " etc. (City of God XXI.24.)  

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness ". 

One "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) 

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC 1030) 


"The purpose of purgatory is to bring you up the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants). 

"Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected." Purification must be complete..." "This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory." — John Paul II, Audiences, 1999; http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999.html 

Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states, 

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

However, this premise of perfection of character for final salvation eliminates the newly baptized from entering Heaven (if they died before they sinned), since while innocent (not that the act of baptism actually regenerates, as  Catholicism teaches), yet they have not yet attained to "spiritual excellence," to  elmination of "every trace of attachment to evil," to "perfection of the soul," to the level of practical holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 

And this premise would also exclude the contrite criminal of Luke 23:43 from being with Christ at death, yet who was told by the Lord that he would be with Christ in Paradise that day. And likewise imperfect Paul, (Philippians 3:13) who attested that to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:7; cf. Philippians 1:23) And indeed it would exclude all believers who were told that they would be forever with the Lord if He returned in their lifetime (1 This. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. 

In contrast, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) 

And rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ to inherit the kingdom of God, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff) 

Note also that the tradition-based Eastern Orthodox reject RC Purgatory, among some other substantial RC distinctives  

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6) The Lord Jesus, in being "made perfect" (Hebrews 2:10) as regards experientially  "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15) was subjected to this in the life.

[RoosterRedux]

Perhaps the Bible is incomplete (if it is) because the Lord expects the Holy Spirit indwelling believers to reveal its meaning and truth.

People not indwelt with the Holy Spirit just don't get the essence of the New Testament (or the Old for that matter). That is for a reason.

The Bible isn't written for non-believers. Its Truth is hidden from non-believers.

As people have said of Satan, he and his followers do not understand the language of love. Their hearts are blinded to such things for a reason.

I can't remember who said this, but it made a deep impression on me...

The Holy Spirit is like a living Rosetta Stone to believers. He reveals to believers the hidden messages of the Scriptures.