Proof for Sola Scriptura - is irrefutable

JAL said in post #43:

Ok so if you feel certain that the Bible is correct, should one go AGAINST that feeling of certainty?

Click to expand...

No, for it is from God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

*******

JAL said in post #44:

At any given moment, you're supposed to do whatever it is, at that moment, that you feel most certain is the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

Not if it goes against God's Word the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

*******

JAL said in post #49:

He sustains within you a feeling of certainty that the gospel is true.

Click to expand...

But He doesn't take away free will.

For Hebrews 6:4-8 shows that even Christians, who have repented and become partakers of God's Holy Spirit, can ultimately lose their salvation because of subsequently wrongly employing their free will to "fall away", to commit apostasy, to stop believing (like in Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3), just as other scriptures show the same thing (John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b, Mark 8:35-38, Hebrews 10:38-39, Matthew 24:9-13).

One way a Christian could be brought to the point where he commits apostasy would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he begins to listen to the lies of demons and latch onto them, to the point where he departs from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). In a wrong desire to continue in their lusts without repentance, Christians can reach the point where they're no longer able to endure the sound doctrine of the Bible, and instead seek out and latch onto other teachings which help to support them in their lusts (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Another way a Christian could be brought to the point where he commits apostasy would be if he has a terror of being tortured and killed during a persecution against Christians, so that during such a persecution he renounces his faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel to avoid being tortured and killed (Mark 8:35-38; 2 Timothy 2:12). Some Christians will fall away in this sense (2 Thessalonians 2:3) during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:9-13, cf. Matthew 13:21, Luke 8:13), when the Antichrist will take power over the earth, make war against Biblical Christians (not in hiding), and physically overcome them in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

There will be no way to repent from committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8) and worshipping the Antichrist and his image and willingly receiving his mark on the forehead or right hand, even if this is done just to keep from getting killed (Revelation 13:15-18). Whoever does these things, even if they had been Christians before, will end up suffering punishment in fire and brimstone forever (Revelation 14:9-12). So Christians must be willing to be killed, even by getting beheaded (Revelation 20:4-6), before they would ever do these things (Revelation 14:12-13).

This ties in with the fact a Christian can ultimately have his name blotted out of the Book of Life if he doesn't overcome to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26). An example of Christians ultimately "overcoming" (Greek: nikao, G3528) or "getting the victory" (nikao) (Revelation 15:2) is found later in the book of Revelation, in Revelation 15:2, which refers to those Christians who will be willing to be killed by the Antichrist instead of worshipping him to save their mortal lives during the future, worldwide persecution against Biblical Christians (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). Christians will be able to spiritually "overcome" the Antichrist and Satan by not loving their lives to the death (Revelation 12:11).

*******

JAL said in post #54:

The question is, what's the basis for their saving faith?

Click to expand...

God's Word the Bible (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15).

*******

JAL said in post #63:

. . . every verse in the NT that even ALLUDES to prophets, prophecy, or direct revelation is a serious challenge to your assumption that exegesis is the ONLY authority . . .

Click to expand...

God can speak outside the Bible, through Christian prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:29, Acts 13:1-2, Acts 11:27-28). So the purpose of the Bible isn't to limit what God can say. Instead, it's to limit what people can say and claim it's from God. That is, if they teach a doctrine contrary to God's Word the Bible (when it's taken as a whole), then that doctrine must be false. And if they teach a doctrine which doesn't contradict the Bible, but which also isn't found in the Bible, then that doctrine isn't necessarily true or false.

Similarly, there are incorrect traditions from fallible men (Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18), which contradict God's Word (Mark 7:13). And there are correct traditions from God's Word (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, John 8:31b). There are also man-made traditions which, even though they don't contradict God's Word, they go beyond it (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6b), and so they're not binding on Christians, who can choose for themselves whether or not they will follow such traditions (cf. Romans 14:5-6).

stuart lawrence said in post #65:

Sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4

Click to expand...

Taken in the context of the entire Bible, note that this cannot mean the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

For on Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the 2nd covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21) or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus Christ's New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there's no reason any Christian should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He'd set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought this promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), while the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (Leviticus 23:19), while the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself on the Cross (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including the letter of its 10 commandments, written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14 and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been completely and forever done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it's still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the Spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8-9b) which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b) and which permits Christians to remove the veil and behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5) or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any Christians are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus Christ will profit them nothing. They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

BobRyan said:

True -- and the LAW is written on the heart under the NEW covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-33

Instead of debating against scripture -- we can just read and accept what it says.

Nice.!

Click to expand...

Why didn't you give me a hearty Amen to ALL of the scripture I put in my post? I guess you are not really a sola scripture kind of guy after all.

As to what you did quote. Yep, the law God desires you to keep is written on your mind and placed on your heart. But you cannot align that with the scriptures I gave you can you.
Why not?

I sat in a Sabbath school once in an sda church(I went there to please a friend) As I sat there, I looked around at the circle of people. They seemed nice, friendly people. But one thought overwhelmed me:
Where is the Holy Spirit?

Bible2+ said:

Taken in the context of the entire Bible, note that this cannot mean the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

For on Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the 2nd covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21) or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus Christ's New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there's no reason any Christian should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He'd set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought this promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), while the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (Leviticus 23:19), while the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself on the Cross (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including the letter of its 10 commandments, written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14 and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been completely and forever done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it's still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the Spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8-9b) which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b) and which permits Christians to remove the veil and behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5) or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any Christians are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus Christ will profit them nothing. They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

Click to expand...

So God abolished the fact he wants you to love him with all your heart, body, soul mind and strength?
God abolished the fact he doesn't want you to, take his name in vain, steal, bear false witness, murder, covet, commit adultery? Well they didn't get abolished for me!
Does that mean I am a legalist, denying salvation by faith in Christ alone?
Nope!!!

Something did get abolished though:

Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness. for everyone who believeth
Rom 10:4



Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom3:31

You don't look to the law to be justified before God. You don't look to the law in order to obey God, it is not a law as we naturally understand law, for the law always comes with a penalty for transgression, but the Christians penalty has been paid in full by Christ. But though the penalty is paid for believers, the law itself God desires you to follow is written in your mind and placed on your heart. It has NOT been abolished.

Through the law we become conscious of sin rom3:20

If a Christian stole something, would they specifically be conscious they sinned by committing the act of stealing?

Through the law we become conscious of sin

If a Christian committed adultery, would they be specifically conscious they sinned because they committed the act of adultery?
Through the law we become conscious of sin

If a Christian coveted, would they specifically be conscious they sinned because they coveted?

Through the law we become conscious of sin
etc

I used to believe as you do now

BTW

Don't just quote scripture, reason and explain it. I tend to find those who just endlessly quote scripture don't understand the heart of the true message

Bible2+ said:

Not if it goes against God's Word the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Conscience is authoritative, for example when Abraham tried to slaughter his own son, or Saul was trying to kill off the Amelekites. Doesn't MATTER if it 'supposedly' contradicts God's written command of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

Picture this, "I'm 100% certain that God wants me to do Action X (i.e. that Action X is the morally right thing to do) but instead I'll do Action Z". You should do Action X regardless whether you think Action X contradicts Scripture. That's your responsibility. God must honor this certainty otherwise He is unjust. Again, if you had a kid, and told him to clean his room every day of the week (7 days), but he FELT CERTAIN you meant every week day (5 days), you can't punish him (unless you're unjust) because he's acting in good conscience (heeding felt certainty). I don't see anyway around this. Would you honestly give that kid a sound beating? Answer the question directly please (and don't play dodgeball). If you don't answer the question, or if you answer it dodgingly instead of directly, you've already betrayed the contradiction in your stance.

BobRyan said:

The "ignore scripture first" solution will never accept scripture as "proof" of any doctrinal point -- most of all "sola scriptura testing of doctrine" as we both know and admit when it comes to atheists. We all agree to that point.

Click to expand...

But we don't all agree to the BASIS/AUTHORITY for that belief, which is the point of the question. For example Catholics claim, "I accept the Bible on the authority of the church/magisterium". You've already admitted that your position is totally irrational, "The Bible is God's word because it says so" so there's not much point in this discussion anyway.

When you equivocate between 'Authority' of the Bible, "authority of the Holy Spirit" and the "Authority of the reader" -- you most certainly are conflating very different things into the simple mechanism of "how someone can read and understand simple text".


As if merely reading the text and accepting what it says is the same as having the "authority" of the Word of God or the "authority of the Holy Spirit" and we both know that is bogus.




Conflating "again"?? "What your basis is for reading the text of scripture and admitting that it makes sense" -- is not "authority". Why keep conflating those two different things??



Everyone passing through first and second grade had the ability to read and understand text -- this is incredibly obvious. Your argument that these children need to be "authorities" or even "expert" on math, science, history, is bogus. And we can all see that without any difficulty at all.

Click to expand...

I didn't equivocate. I was clear enough. You just don't like answering questions that expose the contradictions in your position.

I asked a simple question, What is the basis/authority for your acceptance of Scripture? Funny how every theologian in Reformed history finds that question perfectly clear, the whole Eastern Orthodox church finds it clear, and so does the Catholic church. But you're accusing me of 'equivocating'. How utterly ludicrous. The Reformed answer to the question is the same as mine - the Inward Witness is our basis/authority for accepting the Bible as God's written Word.

BobRyan said:

Exegesis is a method.. not an authority.

Click to expand...

It's both, if you regard its conclusions as BINDING on you. If you use exegesis as a METHOD of drawing conclusions (as opposed to, say, relying only on direct revelation to draw conclusions), and then regard those conclusions as OBLIGATORY for you to heed, you have thereby elevated that METHOD to the status of an AUTHORITY in your life.

BobRyan said:

You conflate the word "authority" with almost every point - not everything is "authority.

Click to expand...

Again, my use of the term 'authority' is a terminology perfectly clear to all Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians.

But if you are looking for Authority - try this
Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.

Click to expand...

Except the text doesn't mention the term "epistemological system" nor even the phrase Sola Scriptura. In the speech cited, Christ wasn't doing a theological lecture comparing Sola Scriptura against alternative epistemological frameworks such as prophetic revelation or conscience/certainty. You're trying to make the text declare what you WANT it to say.

If He WERE doing a comparison, the Counselor (prophetic revelation guiding men into all truth via feelings of certainty) would beat the pants off exegesis 24/7 and twice on Sunday.

The problem, sir, is that you've bought into an epistemological system without critically examining its logical underpinnings because to you it seemed, at the time, both 'the obvious choice' and the most desirable choice. Unfortunately it doesn't hold water. And that's why, when I present you with various scenarios to see how your assumptions hold up, you become very quiet. Again, I'm sorry people sold you a lie but you're not doing God any favors by clinging to it. Indeed it's a disservice.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Click to expand...

Your position is that any verse that mentions the Scriptures in a positive way is proof of Sola Scriptura (even if those verses are alluding to words originating in prophetic revelation!). If Sola Scriptura is so great, why not just drop a Bible on their heads on Pentecost? Was God incapable? Instead He gave them something much more potent - a prophetic anointing.

Sola Scriptura makes God look incompetent, since the printing press appeared only 500 years ago.

I don't plan on responding much longer.

Rather than man producing some complex theory of his own to 'prove' Sola Scriptura', it is far better to speak of Scripture being self-authenticating.

BobRyan said:

1. That is "either-or" again.
2. Exegesis works no matter if you are also a prophet with divine revelations or not -- see Acts 17;11
See Luke 24.

Click to expand...

You are either failing to comprehend what I write or responding to the wrong person. I can't figure out which - all I know is that I generally can't see much connection between my statements and your responses.

faroukfarouk said:

Rather than man producing some complex theory of his own to 'prove' Sola Scriptura', it is far better to speak of Scripture being self-authenticating.

Click to expand...

There's nothing particularly complex about the Inward Witness giving us a feeling of certainty that the Bible is inspired. Is that concept so outlandishly difficult to comprehend? Really?

Your claim seems far more complex, because it's completely ambiguous on HOW Scripture is supposedly self-authenticating.

JAL said:

There's nothing particularly complex about the Inward Witness giving us a feeling of certainty that the Bible is inspired. Is that concept so outlandishly difficult to comprehend? Really?

Your claim seems far more complex, because it's completely ambiguous on HOW Scripture is supposedly self-authenticating.

Click to expand...

Well, the self-authentication of Scripture seems to have been a strong view of the Protestant Reformers.

faroukfarouk said:

Well, the self-authentication of Scripture seems to have been a strong view of the Protestant Reformers.

Click to expand...

The final authority on the matter was the Inward Witness, in their view. That was the linchpin of the position. And certainly that's what Calvin emphasized, he specifically called it a feeling of certainty in his systematic theology (Institutes of the Christian Religion), and he was the person most responsible for the inclusion of this doctrine in the official Protestant confessions/creeds.

So Calvin was unambiguous on his basis/authority for biblical inspiration. If you want to use terms like 'self-authentication' (on this thread) you'll need to be clear on what that means, so that we can understand you.

JAL said:

The final authority on the matter was the Inward Witness, in their view. That was the linchpin of the position. And certainly that's what Calvin emphasized, he specifically called it a feeling of certainty in his systematic theology (Institutes of the Christian Religion), and he was the person most responsible for the inclusion of this doctrine in the official Protestant confessions/creeds.

So Calvin was unambiguous on his basis/authority for biblical inspiration. If you want to use terms like 'self-authentication' (on this thread) you'll need to be clear on what that means, so that we can understand you.

Click to expand...

Oh the Holy Spirit does and must illuminate the Word and give understanding. The Protestant Reformers all believed this also.