The Obscurity of Scripture - Casey Chalk
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- 00:00:00 - Introduction
00:00:50 - Casey Chalk
00:05:06 - Conversion
00:10:24 - Biblical Perspicuity
00:13:53 - Clarification
00:16:09 - What Protestants take for granted
00:16:50 - When things become obscure
00:19:28 - The Reformation and Denominations
00:21:49 - Assuming the Worst about Others
00:25:00 - Perspicuity = Question Begging and Ad Hoc
00:29:20 - Suan's Thoughts
00:31:00 - "Necessary for Salvation"
00:33:47 - Borrowing from Catholicism
00:35:06 - Protestantism = University and Intellectualism
00:38:48 - God is a bad communicator?
00:41:05 - Kent Hovind
00:41:40 - Suan: Inconsistency
00:43:50 - Communicating with Protestants
00:45:25 - Conservative Protestantism
00:46:06 - Perspicuity more important than Sola Scriptura
00:47:57 - Sola Scriptura w/o Perspicuity
00:51:30 - Church Fathers
00:55:50 - How Catholics should debate
00:59:47 - Conclusion
Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church. - บันเทิง
This is so obvious to anybody who grew up outside of a Christian paradigm.
I grew up in a secular family. I was so secularized that I didn't even know that Christians thought that Jesus Christ was a real historical person until I was a sophomore in High School.
Eventually, I went to a few of my friends' churches, mostly because I was sincerely curious as to why people believed in God. Also, I was specifically curious about Christianity because it was often brought up on the news during political discussions.
So, I decided to just give church a try, and I ended up going to two different types of Churches. The first church I ever went to was a Pentecostal church that handled snakes and "spoke" in tongues. I thought it was completely insane, and asked to leave 20 minutes in because I didn't know that Christians worshiped with snakes, and I was completely terrified.
Anyway, I ended up talking with another one of my friends who was a Baptist, and I told them that I never wanted to go to another church again because of the snakes. I kid you not, they thought I was completely crazy because I had thought that churches used snakes during worship. But I don't know, I made this crazy assumption that people who all claim to be worshipping the same God would worship the same. So, I ended up going to their Baptist Church, and it was completely different I was so shocked that the religion wasn't uniform. Which prompted a lot of questions from me.
Eventually, I started asking all the Christians in my inner circle, what I needed to believe to go to heaven. What shocked me even more was every time I would ask a different Christian, I got several different answers on what I needed to do. After, about 8 different interpretations on how to be saved, with all of them appealing to the bible, I concluded that Christianity was an incoherent religion. From there, I made the default assumption that the religion was false because it was painfully obvious to me that they had no way of ascertaining any form of definitive truth from the bible.
Now, I did think that maybe one of their interpretations could have been correct, and the others were wrong. But at the same time, when they would give me arguments to support their views, I would think that their readings of their quote text could be a consistent reading. However, I didn't have the context or even basic biblical knowledge to know if their interpretations were correct.
Eventually, I thought that maybe I could read the scriptures for myself and come to my own conclusions. However, I thought that presumption was entirely ridiculous. I, somebody who up until 6 months ago didn't even know Christians thought that Jesus was a real person, is supposed to read and become the arbiter of the Christian religion? Surely, this isn't how Christians come to truth?
But, every Christian would point me to the bible and proclaim it was clear. However, the more they did it, the more ridiculous the Christian religion became. Therefore, my judgment of Christianity was that if the Christian God was true, then he wasn't one worth worshipping because he didn't care enough to make sure that his followers wouldn't drift away in error.
It would be about half a decade before I had decided to even look at Christianity again. Suffice to say, the scandal of protestantism almost prevented me from ever becoming a Christian.
Thank you for sharing! God bless you on your journey!
@@intellectualcatholicism oh my goodness I feel famous now lol. Suan thank you for your work, it was your defending of the papacy and the magisterium that the Christian religion actually started to make sense to me. You helped me and my Husband tremendously. Seriously, without you I don't know if I would have become a Christian. Please never stop educating people and making videos over the magisterium, you have been so helpful on my journey when I started looking into Catholicism 3+ years ago.
Thank you for your clarity and voice! If there’s one God, then there must be one teaching!
I grew up in an abusive home and the first time I felt normal and welcomed was in a very bland non-denom church. Looking back I really wasn't accepted by them or really a part of any of it but the little inclusion I received made me so willing to fight their cause. One of my greatest projects was researching the unity of the invisible "church". I tried so many different ways to show they're the same in essence but nothing seemed to work. Agreement on sola scriptura, conservatism vs liberalism, how people viewed baptism, even basic Trinitarianism. Approaching it all this way was a roller coaster of a ride for my theology but I never saw it as a problem. It was just a great mystery I'd finally unfold at a later date.
It all fell apart in 2019. John 17 was a chapter I had read probably a dozen times but we , a bible study at my church, were reading it. At a certain point Jesus prays to God that the Church should be one. That night , when I read that in private, my internal world collapsed yet I was fine with it. The creator of the entire religion, Jesus, specifically prays for His later disciples and adherents to join together in faith and it was so bluntly obvious that protestantism wasn't doing it. I was a protestant who suddenly realized protestantism wasn't viable. Immediately, I came back to baseline and got back to work trying to solve the sudden and overwhelming issue.
Questioning people on the verse, never letting on to my doubts, they'd always give the same answers. Eventually, I entered the Catholic Church unable to find an answer.
Neither before that moment nor after have I had any such eureka moment as salient as reading that verse and I just chalk it up to some kind of miracle
I hope you finally got it . Yes it needs knowledge but do NEVER get your information from protestants, however nice they could be. They do not have a clue because it is everybody’s personal opinion which counts and we have a Teaching Authority which nobody can distort or change. Not even the Pope.
Yesterday I read an article by Casey on the website, Called to Communion, where he summarized his book and even answered a slew of comments on the article. I was so impressed with the depth of his explanations and how he dissects every Protestant claim purporting ‘perspicuity of scripture’. Some explanations were a bit advanced for someone like me, but the effort I put in to grasp it was well worth it.
And Casey’s steadfast charity and patience in replying to one guy's litany of comments on the article also impressed me.
Thanks for your great efforts, Casey. That article alone sharpened my apologetic game on said issue so much.
Thanks for sharing this!
Awesome interview. Early last year I prayed for many nights and cried out to the Holy Spirit for a Church....and was guided away from the Protestant avenue and fell straight into the Catholic Church. Happy hearing Casey's testimony it is so familiar it seems.
Awesome talk! Thank you Suan and Casey!
The Acts 8:30-31 DRC1752
[30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Thank you Jesus for leaving your Church here to teach us!
Thank y'all for another great video.
My summary about the hot topic item here in the comments- I'm glad that the Church has authority, so that the truth of Scripture isn't a democracy.
Have you been born again by the awesome power of the Holy Spirit? Do you perceive the inner witness of the Spirit of God assuring you that you are redeemed and that you have eternal life with God? I hope so. We must be born again.
@@rexlion4510Everyone knows that. We've all read that we have to be born in water and spirit. That's basic Christianity. All Christian sects know that.
It's so annoying when Prots do this. We don't show up at your videos and try to tell you that Jesus died on the Cross or anything so basic, it's insulting to try to inform you of.
Thanks for the new video!
Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Mio.
I never could wrap my head around Sola F/S. It’s like you become your own Pope.
The Holy Spirit who indwells a truly born-again follower of Jesus Christ will never mislead or abandon that follower. But how do you know the Pope is always leading you correctly? At the judgment, you will be personally responsible for your walk of faith in Jesus; no one will be able to excuse mistakes by saying, "But I followed the Pope! If I erred, it's the Pope's fault because he misled us!"
@@rexlion4510 Theres so much wrong with this statement. Judas was truly born again and still betrayed the Lord. You should read up on the Popes, theres a book called Pope Peter thats worth a look into.
@@haronsmith8974 You wrote: "Judas was truly born again..." Are you kidding me?? No one was born again until Jesus sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost!
Incidentally, none of the Apostles had been baptized into Christ before they were filled with the Holy Spirit and born again, on Pentecost. Think about that.
Oh yes, they might have received John's baptism. But that wasn't Christian baptism. (Read Acts 19:1-6 and observe that John's baptism was insufficient.)
@@rexlion4510 Being born again is being baptized. If St. John had wished to show a dichotomy between water and the spirit, he would have said, “born of water and of the spirit,” thus indicating two births. When John speaks of being born of water and the spirit, he mentions them as being a part of the same spiritual rebirth that takes place at baptism (Tit. 3:5). All of the early Christian writers understood John to be speaking in this way, and they unanimously agreed that John 3:5 referred to baptism.
@@haronsmith8974 You wrote: "If St. John had wished to show a dichotomy between water and the spirit, he would have said, “born of water and of the spirit,” thus indicating two births."
Oh. You mean, like this?
(CEV) Jesus answered: I tell you for certain that before you can get into God's kingdom, you must be born not only by water, but by the Spirit.
(EMTV) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(Geneva) Iesus answered, Verely, verely I say vnto thee, except that a man be borne of water and of the Spirite, hee can not enter into the kingdome of God.
(KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
You see? Many scholarly Bible translations put it precisely that way.
Joh 3:3 _Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”_
Nicodemus is confused. He thinks Jesus means that one must go through two *natural* births.
Joh 3:4 _Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”_
Jesus explains that He is talking about two different types of birth: the natural birth and a subsequent supernatural birth.
Joh 3:5 _Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God._
In verse 5, Jesus corrects Nicodemus by explaining that He's talking about only 1 natural birth, but an additional 1 spiritual birth (the 2nd birth). The natural birth is this: being born when the woman's "water" (the placental fluid) breaks. The supernatural birth is being "born of the (Holy) Spirit," which is also called, being "born again."
Joh 3:6 _That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit._
In verse 6, Jesus clearly *continues to talk about 1 natural birth and 1 spiritual birth,* these being the two separate and distinct births that one needs to be "born again." Interpreting v. 5 to mean that being "born of water" is baptism, rather than natural birth, is not only inconsistent with the context of the surrounding verses (3-6), but it also does violence to Jesus' subsequent promise that "that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (v. 15, reiterated for emphasis by Jesus in verses 16 and 18). If Jesus meant (in v. 5) that one must be baptized as the means of being born again, then He would have said 3 times in the following verses, 'whoever is baptized may have eternal life.' The fact that He instead indicated belief (faith) in Him as the determinative factor clearly shows the proper context for v. 5 to be: a natural birth (via the birth canal) followed at some point by a spiritual birth (via belief in Him).
Therefore, Jesus was not commanding baptism in John 3:3-7. Baptism is not the instrumental means through which God bestows saving grace and justification unto eternal life. Faith (belief in Him as Savior) is the means which Jesus repeatedly indicated. Observe how Jesus continues in this same discussion:
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever -is baptized- believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever -gets baptized- believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever -is baptized- believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not -get baptized in the Catholic Church- believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Not one time did Jesus ever say that those who are not baptized will be condemned. Instead, He said that those who do not believe in Him (impliedly as Christ, as one's Savior from one's sin) will be condemned. It's the same in Mark 16:16.
Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not -get baptized- believe will be condemned.
Paul taught this very same precept about faith in Christ, and he notably did not specify a requirement of baptism in any passage where he discusses the means by which we are saved. Look at Galatians for example:
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by -water baptism- hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain-if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by -baptism- hearing with faith-
Gal 3:6 just as Abraham -was baptized- “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Gal 3:7 Know then that it is those of -Catholic baptism- faith who are the sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by -baptism- faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
Gal 3:9 So then, those who are of -the Catholic baptism- faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by -baptism- faith.”
Gal 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-
Gal 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through -baptism- faith.
Can we be perfected in the flesh by dipping our flesh in water and having some words pronounced over us? Paul says no.
Can we receive the Spirit by the work of obeying the Catholic law, "you must be baptized to be saved"? Paul says no.
"Are you so foolish"? Apparently the Roman Catholics are so foolish.
No one is justified by obeying a Catholic law of required baptism, and if they rely on the works of obeying Catholic Sacramental laws for their salvation, they are under a curse.
Christ died and rose from the dead to redeem us from the curse of legalisms like the Catholic Sacramental system. We receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith, not through Catholic baptism; Gal. 3:14 directly contradicts RC doctrine. The RCC is an extra-Biblical religious system.
Excellent content!
Man. I wish I could get my friend to watch this. His wife has been trying to convert him to her version of non denominational Christianity. We’ve been friends forever and knows I’m a Bible nerd but catholic so he keeps wanting me to give him the “Christian interpretation” instead of the catholic one so he can argue with his wife without going catholic lol. Sorry I just thought you guys might be able to sympathize. I usually just tell him I only understand the catholic doctrine on that one buddy sorry! I mean I can tell you what another denomination might say, but the range is wide and the accuracy is low.
Send it to him!
I’m not sure why this coming from a Catholic would be a problem since it’s based on logic and facts.
@@frisco61 Americans tend to bias against Catholicism being "normal Christianity," especially the Low-Church Prots.
FYI Calvinism isn’t biblical either
But to a Calvinist, they would say they are 100% biblical, and that you are the one mis-interpreting the scriptures and therefore not a 100% biblical in your beliefs... just saying.
@@kevinmullee6578 I agree! They would say that.
@@kevinmullee6578Sure. They're wrong. 🤷🏼♂️
Great conversation gentlemen.
But I have heard an objection to Catholic Theology on the Magisterium that I feel is much stronger (I believe I heard from the channel Redeemed Zoomer): the Church Magisterium is not infallible, but it is authoritative. Basically it's a Supreme Court with Constitutional Interpretive Supremacy, but it can overrule its own precedent. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
I mean the magisterium would just claim that theyre not overriding scripture, they're just interpreting it. If you say an authoritative ruling isn't infallible then how is it authoritative?
@@haronsmith8974 Something can be authoritative without being infallible. Suchas a Catholic Bishop. He is authoritative (meaning he has authority over the matter) on matters of faith. But he isn't infallible. He can be shown to be wrong by later Bishops or even the Church Magisterium itself. He does not bind us for all of time unlike when the Church speaks "from the chair".
I dont understand the argument becausd it reads like a claim or allegation and not a persuasive statement.
@@michaelharrington6698 you asked "If you say an authoritative ruling isn't infallible then how is it authoritative?" and I tried to show that something that is Authoritative doesn't have to be Infallible. Thereby showing that Authority does not necessitate infallibly.
Yeah, you do if you ignore God sending the Holy Spirit. What does scripture say about the Holy Spirit. I'll leave it there. So tell the truth or continue in satan's lies.
If the Holy Spirit is in all Christians, why do they come to such wildly different interpretations. Take Luther, Clement, Augustine, Athanasius, Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, and you as a small sample. You all have wildly different beliefs, and as such, either the Holy Spirit is leading people to different beliefs, or you must deny these people had the Holy Spirit. Or you could take the logical and biblical conclusion, that scripture isn’t perspicuous (2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30-31)
@@aydentrevaskis8390 the simple answer is man. It always has been. There is nothing wrong with the Holy Spirit or scripture. The Holy Spirit can not lie or be wrong, the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth. What man dies with that truth is man's problem. Now scripture is infallible, it is God speaking. His word is our, perfect just as scripture says.
@@rbnmnt3341 so the problem is man? So you agree that man cannot interpret scripture accurately then. So maybe we should go back to how Scripture was interpreted in ancient Judaism, which was with tradition to go along with it and a magisterium. Read Numbers 11 to see evidence of this
If you want to do that though, you’d just end up being Catholic.
Also, is your interpretation of scripture correct?
@@aydentrevaskis8390 we're not talking about Judaism. I'm pointing out that your current church DOES NOT have authority to interpret scripture as it claims. Scripture does not support that claim. Scripture supports no such thing as the magisterium. Scripture is quite clear as to who was to teach us ALL things after Jesus left. Jesus mentioned no such thing as a magisterium. So you won't drag me off on some tangent. We are discussing authority to interpret scripture and your church's false claim. Besides, your church is nothing like the early church. It has no clue what course the modern church has taken. The rosary, the papacy, immaculate conception and so on . They are accretions and you know it. Your church has to lie to establish a foundation built on sand.
Cant wait for the Obscurity of the Magisterium, since we have no official interpretation of Rome for most of the bible, except Matthew 16 and some other passages. And also, we dont have an official list of supposed "apostolic traditions". Praying for you guys
Do you know about the Catechism? It covers A LOT
Rome sets interpretive boundaries via its dogmas, so there's no need for explicit or exhaustive infallible commentary of Scripture for the argument against Protestant perspicuity to go through. It's obvious RC teaching is more clear and united on a slew of doctrines than Protestant SS churches are.
@@cronmaker2They never actually respond to the claims we make, do they? They usually make up a straw man. Sad!
@@MeanBeanComedyThere’s this thing called “TH-cam” where you can find a huge variety of Catholic videos answering whatever claims Protestants make up. You should try it.
Great presentation!
Irony: Catholics arguing that Scripture isn’t clear enough to understand basic soteriology, but it’s definitely clear enough to show that the Catholic Church has magisterial teaching authority. And though this may seem flippant, I’m being quite serious. If Scripture isn’t perspicuous, we’re all just the blind leading the blind. And saying that you aren’t claiming God is a poor communicator, just that we need a unifying authority, doesn’t get you away from that problem. Because the “unifying authority” has NEVER unified all who claim to be Christian’s, as shown not only by major events like the schism of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but by all the debates in the earliest councils, which may have had majority resolution but never got everyone on board. So this argument is self-defeating in the end, and there’s no solution to the problem you think exists.
So then, which is more likely- that Christ did create a church heiarchy with authority which has survived according to his promise, or that your understanding of each Scriptural point is true?
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 I’m sorry, what did Jesus promise and how do you know?
RCism never claimed Scripture is hopelessly obscure or a wax nose where every proposed interpretation is equally plausible, it's not hyper skepticism. And Protestants agree Scriptures clarity lies along a spectrum, which is why Protestant perspicuity only applies to the "essentials". So saying Scripture can be unclear or obscure to some degree does not dishonor God by either Protestant or RC lights. RCism merely posits that the "essentials" themselves can be unclear and have multiple plausible interpretations absent a divinely authorized adjudicator.
@@cronmaker2 there are few topics that get more coverage in the NT than salvation, so if that part isn’t clear, it’s pretty hard to see how anything else could be.
@@joshuascott5814 then why are many Protestant SS churches today and throughout history divided on soteriological doctrines, historically accusing others of heresy or barring intercommunion? Erudite sincere Protestants disagree on countless soteriological issues. Loss of salvation, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, eucharist, role of works, nature of sanctification, nature of saving faith, monergism vs synergism, predestination, salvation of non-christians or those who never hear gospel, salvation of RCs and EOs, federal vision/new perspective on paul, law/gospel distinction and hermeneutic, what types of sin or acts are compatible with salvation and not, on and on.
The magisterium is hopelessly divided over Fiducia Supplicans
No it isn’t. Are you catholic? How many clarifications can the pope make? Nobody has a problem blessing sinners, nobody is trying to bless sin. If you’re confused at this point, I think you’re highly suspect.
@@timboslice980 bishop conferences of an entire continent and also of other countries have rejected it .
@@aajaifenn That was before the popes clarification. There is also a legal issue in Africa… you can be arrested for openly admitting to being gay. Who knows about aiding a gay person or couple in whatever ways. Imagine the church said it’s possible to bless active criminals now, anyone want to come forward? If you are currently committing a crime and want a blessing please come up here.” That’s like outing a person and the church should never do something like that so Africa is a special situation. Again I’m not sure what the problem is with this. Did you hear the popes clarification? Do you agree with it now? Hasn’t the church always blessed sinners and never the sin? Also what about countries that are dealing with remarried catholics, or others in non traditional relationships? You know in some countries they were denying the Eucharist to divorced people? Fiducia Supplicans corrects all that as well. Do you only have a problem with blessing gay people? Even if their sin is not what’s being blessed? Are you catholic?
@@timboslice980 Even after the popes clarification no African Episcopal conference has accepted FS. They were under no political pressure to reject it .Bishop conferences of Countries outside Africa have also rejected it like Poland ,Hungary ,Ukraine ( both Greek and Latin) . The Dutch bishops have totally rejected the word blessings in the document
Regardless of ones personal view of the document as laypersons it is very clear that the Magisterium is hopelessly divided over FS
Dear@@aajaifenn, the African response to "Fiducia Supplicans" was written with the assistance of the pope and the DDF. They are not in disagreement with the document or the papacy.
The earlier reports that the Dutch were in dissension have proven false. The Dutch bishops agree with "Fiducia Supplicans."
Check out the "Bishops of Helsinki on Fiducia Supplicans". It is a beautiful document that addresses the problems with interpretation of those who initially rejected the Declaration.
It’s curious how often Catholics criticize the authority of Gods holy words.
No one’s criticizing the Bible, only faulty interpretations of it on account of people’s failure to recognize any other valid authority.
@@johnchurch160 I recognize many other authorities in my Christian life. But the word of God is supreme. His word fully equips for all good works.
Dear@@CCiPencil, yes, but whose *interpretation?*
@@susand3668 do you not know how to read a sentence in its proper context, grammar and historical background? Here’s some advice, read scripture if you come to a difficult passage (they are there like Rom 9), then read the chapter before and afterwards. Maybe take notes of the flow of the narrative or epistle as you go. Pay attention to grammar (subject, object, verb, nouns etc) and take into context the historical setting. I’m always amazed how Catholics can read any other book and understand but God apparently left us His word so obscure that you have no idea what it says. Keep reading and if you get to something that stumps you, it’s ok, just keep reading cause often times that difficult passage will be made clear as you go along. If you believe that you need someone else to interpret it for you (like the RCC) then I am sorry for you cause your church has infallibly declared how many verses in 1500 years? Something like 20. At that rate it will be a couple of millions years before y’all have a perfect interpretation. God bless.
Dear@@CCiPencil, you are funny. But what you don't know is that I am an English major, and reading with comprehension is what I majored in. Also, reading my King James Bible nrought me into the Catholic Church.
Now I will ask you to read John 6 in the context of the early Church, and Acts 2 and ! Corinthians 22, and Hebrews 10, and tell me that the Catholic Church is not interpreting Scriptures on a daily basis? Does YOUR church have daily communion? Or priests ? Or an altar?