Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 7:21 ¶ "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 7:21 ¶ "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. |
Subject: Looking into the heart for assurance? |
Bible Note: Brian, The crux of my question is not “am I living and believing what Jesus was actually teaching”, but how does one know for certain that they are saved? Unfortunately, your response did not answer it. In any case, I would like to respond to some comments you have made in appreciation of the time and serious effort you took to respond. 1. The Holy Spirit may “lead each person to a true and accurate personal interpretation without any human assistance,” however: (a) If the interpretation were personal, does it necessarily apply to all? (b) That the Holy Spirit leads “true and accurate” necessarily mean that it will be interpreted “true and accurate.” For example, is one obligated to hold as “true and accurate” the teachings of MacArthur or Stanley? (c) Is one under obligation to believe how another has interpreted the Holy Spirit’s leading? Or, to even believe that the Holy Spirit has led them (e.g. MacArthur or Stanley) in the first place? (d) Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is not the only authority by which one is obligated to follow? (I use MacArthur and Stanley as examples because they have been suggested by others to be read in response to my question on assurance). 2. How about those who do not give the impression that they are quacks but just hold erroneous doctrines? How does one differentiate the “quacks” from the genuine? For example, how does one determine that Kenneth Copeland is a “quack” (rather than, maybe, an errant brother) and MacArthur is neither a quack nor errant (or, may he be erred)? 3. Is it necessarily wrong to see how another interprets Scripture? Or, is it wrong to assume that another’s interpretation is correct without carefully considering it in the light of how they believe the Holy Spirit is leading them as they read the Scriptures? 4. In all honesty, there may be “strength in numbers” (but, admittedly, not necessarily). In general, there might be safety in examining what the Church believes as a whole, at least, until one feels they are capable of discerning for themselves the teachings of scripture. In any case, no one should be obligated to go against their conscience with respect to what they see scripture is teaching them. Regarding separating truth from “human opinions”, upon the assumption that the Bible is truth, what constitutes human opinion? For example, when MacArthur says, “…once you have come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, is that eternal? The answer, of course, is yes,” is this truth or human opinion? Or, when Stanley says, “Eternal life is just that--eternal. There is nobody, not even yourself, who can take Christ's God-given gift of salvation away from you”, is this truth or human opinion? Regarding your “own personal belief [opinion?], you said that you “ listen to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches.” I was under the impression that you considered the Bible as true and, therefore, as the ultimate “Teaching Authority.” Do you consider the “Magisterium” as an authority ultimately binding on all professed believers? It seems to me that, outside of certain vital scriptural teachings, there is more “human opinion” in the Roman Catholic Church than right discernment of scripture. |