“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[ckempston]

“that’s just common sense” is exactly what any person with a strong interpretation of certain scripture will say when you ask them why they see it that way.

I do feel like there’s a double standard here.

 

[Bwsherman]

I do feel like there’s a double standard here.

There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. Scripture is the inerrant word of God while the Catechism helps clarify the teachings of the Church. The Church does not hold the Catechism and the Bible in the same light, why would you?

 

[myredeemerlives]

You said…
Church teachings are not simply letters on a page, but there is an authority to appeal to when attempting to discern an ambiguity, which is pretty much the same as how the Church handles interpretation of Scripture. There may be confusion about this or that statement in the Catechism, but the Magisterium is the mind behind it, and we can still appeal to that authority for clarity, granted it may take time for the answer to be declared.

They are still just men interpreting scripture! The bible is written so clearly today in plain english, we can all read and understand it and compare scriptures from the old testament and the new. We are told by scripture to test all the spirits…

1 John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” NIV

So how do we find false teachings and doctrines? We compare them to scripture! We hold up man’s teachings and traditions and see how they compare to the word of God. Tradition was never meant to have authority over the word of God. (matthew 15)

2 Peter 2:1-2: “But there will also be false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.” NIV

When you recieve God’s holy spirit, he comes to you and guides you in reading the scriptures.

John 16:13 “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” NIV

 

[ckempston]

I think there is a notable difference between the two scenarios.

When one reads Scriptures and takes a stab at personal interpretation, there is no ultimate authority besides your judgement enhanced by hermeneutic studies (or even worse, the mere “warm fuzzies”). It is a living Word but dead letters on a page; it is simply a text, and a text cannot “interpret itself” because it does not possess a mind.

As far as I can tell, Catholics have the same problem. Whether you hear it, read it, or get it through osmosis, you still have to personally intepret whether or not it is right. Just because you surrender your intellect does not mean you are somehow more certain that your beliefs are correct.

When in the arena of Church teaching, however, there is a mind present which does the interpreting. Church teachings are not simply letters on a page, but there is an authority to appeal to when attempting to discern an ambiguity, which is pretty much the same as how the Church handles interpretation of Scripture. There may be confusion about this or that statement in the Catechism, but the Magisterium is the mind behind it, and we can still appeal to that authority for clarity, granted it may take time for the answer to be declared.

I agree there is a mind present: yours.

Thus the question boils down to whether the Magisterium actually has this authority.

I’ll agree with you there.

One can approach it in different ways. One might look at the fruits that result when the Magisterium is tossed out the window. If there is sickly fruit that results, then that should tell us that the Magisterium serves some kind of good.

Here is the problem: everything you are saying can just as easily be applied to Protestantism.

---

It is true that one ultimately must make a fallible human decision which model to follow. However, that says nothing about which model was intended by God and says very little that is helpful about the human condition.

I can also fallibly choose not to pick up a gun and blow my brains out. Must the fact that the decision was fallible draw doubt on the validity of what I decided to do? Not really. This works both ways, of course. The fact that the decision to personally interpret the Bible was a fallible one says nothing about whether or not God intended it to be so.

Saying that humans are, in their natural state, fallible creatures doesn’t really move the discussion forward in the end.

But that’s all we can say, and the Catholics have a consistency problem in my view. Personal intperetation is bad, so they say, but they have to do personal interpreting of their own.

 

[ckempston]

There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. Scripture is the inerrant word of God while the Catechism helps clarify the teachings of the Church. The Church does not hold the Catechism and the Bible in the same light, why would you?

I’m not talking about just the Catechism, though I used that as an example of church teaching; I was talking about any church teaching in general whether from a document or a human. No matter where you get it from, you still have to personally intepret. Two people could be sitting in the same Mass by the Pope at the same time, and hear or understand several different things.

 

[Bwsherman]

I’m not talking about just the Catechism, though I used that as an example of church teaching; I was talking about any church teaching in general whether from a document or a human. No matter where you get it from, you still have to personally intepret. Two people could be sitting in the same Mass by the Pope at the same time, and hear or understand several different things.

You are absolutley correct. A person could get two different meanings from the Holy Father’s homily. That point would be perfectly fine for any Catholic. There are truths which can be subjective truths, but the sticky point comes in how does one establish the objective truth? Now unless the Holy Father is speaking ex cathedra during his homily then it does not really matter. However, you are comparing very different things again. Catholics have a three part process of determining the objective truth in scripture which does not rely on one person’s ability to be established as objective truth. You, my Protestant brethren only utilize one and hence all of the confusion in doctrine and teachings.

 

[ckempston]

You are absolutley correct. A person could get two different meanings from the Holy Father’s homily. That point would be perfectly fine for any Catholic. There are truths which can be subjective truths, but the sticky point comes in how does one establish the objective truth? Now unless the Holy Father is speaking ex cathedra during his homily then it does not really matter. However, you are comparing very different things again. Catholics have a three part process of determining the objective truth in scripture which does not rely on one person’s ability to be established as objective truth. You, my Protestant brethren only utilize one and hence all of the confusion in doctrine and teachings.

Please explain the 3-part process.

 

[Bwsherman]

Please explain the 3-part process.

First, the Church looks at the entire canon of scripture when interpreting even one verse.
Second, the Church looks at the tradition of Church which includes, but is not limited to Early Church Fathers, Concicular documents, and Doctors of the Church.
Third, the Church looks at Magisterial Teaching from the beginning of the Church up to the present.

This is a very concise explanation and I am certain that it could be explained in more elevated terms, but for brass tax purposes this explanation should suffice.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=myredeemerlives;3928527]
They are still just men interpreting scripture!

But they are men **inspired and guided **by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. That is why the Catholic Church has never changed it teachings. Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church after the resurrection.

John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

Only HIS Church has the authority and guidance from the Holy Spirit to interprete scripture. Protestants do not. That is why all of their denominations what is it now, 10, 20, 30 thousand?] disagree on everything from what is adultery to women pastors.

myredeemerlives;
The bible is written so clearly today in plain english, we can all read and understand it and compare scriptures from the old testament and the new. We are told by scripture to test all the spirits

…
If it is that easy why all of the different protestant beliefs? Private interpretation of scripture is dangerous.

 

[ckempston]

First, the Church looks at the entire canon of scripture when interpreting even one verse.
Second, the Church looks at the tradition of Church which includes, but is not limited to Early Church Fathers, Concicular documents, and Doctors of the Church.
Third, the Church looks at Magisterial Teaching from the beginning of the Church up to the present.

This is a very concise explanation and I am certain that it could be explained in more elevated terms, but for brass tax purposes this explanation should suffice.

Thanks for providing that info. It seems like, to get to the root of the issues, I should be looking at things like Apostolic Succession and Church Authority. Everything else is just details, I guess. For instance, I don’t agree with Transubstantiation, based on my understanding of the Bible, but if I were to accept the authority of the Catholic church, Transubstantiation would really become a non-issue much like accepting the Bible as the Word of God leads one to believe in the Virgin Birth (not sure if that’s a good analogy or not).

 

[Chris258]

As far as I can tell, Catholics have the same problem. Whether you hear it, read it, or get it through osmosis, you still have to personally intepret whether or not it is right. Just because you surrender your intellect does not mean you are somehow more certain that your beliefs are correct.

But that’s all we can say, and the Catholics have a consistency problem in my view. Personal intperetation is bad, so they say, but they have to do personal interpreting of their own.

You admit that Catholics must, in the end, decide fallibly based on the case for the Magisterium vs. the case for promulgating doctrine based on personal interpretation of Scripture, and at the same time you claim they are surrendering their intellect?

One can approach it in different ways. One might look at the fruits that result when the Magisterium is tossed out the window. If there is sickly fruit that results, then that should tell us that the Magisterium serves some kind of good.

Here is the problem: everything you are saying can just as easily be applied to Protestantism.

Would good or bad fruit result if the Protestant concept of “personal interpretation of Scripture” were to be abandoned?

 

[ckempston]

But they are men **inspired and guided **by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. That is why the Catholic Church has never changed it teachings. Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct the Church after the resurrection.

This is one of the claims I have a problem with. Clearly, a teaching that has changed is the Eucharist. Catholics currently only take bread. You cannot possibly claim that it was this way from the beginning of the church. It’s a clear change in teaching.

 

[ckempston]

You admit that Catholics must, in the end, decide fallibly based on the case for the Magisterium vs. the case for promulgating doctrine based on personal interpretation of Scripture, and at the same time you claim they are surrendering their intellect?

Aren’t they? You believe something because someone else tells you to, not because you believe it based on its own merits. That’s surrendering your intellect. I don’t mean any offense. Evangelicals do the same thing when they accept the Bible as inerrant. No matter how hard it is to believe that a man was swallowed by a fish for three days, they still believe it. I’m not saying relying on faith is a bad thing, Catholics and non-Catholics just approach it differently. Catholics surrender their intellect to the Magesterium. Non-Catholics surrender their intellect to a believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, for instance.

Would good or bad fruit result if the Protestant concept of “personal interpretation of Scripture” were to be abandoned?

Probably a good bit of both.

 

[Jerusha]

You are in error on that one. There is an option to take both the Host and the Wine.
We are taught that either one will suffice for the other.

 

[ckempston]

You are in error on that one. There is an option to take both the Host and the Wine.
We are taught that either one will suffice for the other.

How am I in error? Jesus said do both. Catholics have the “option” to not do so. How is that not a change in teaching?

 

[Bwsherman]

Thanks for providing that info. It seems like, to get to the root of the issues, I should be looking at things like Apostolic Succession and Church Authority. Everything else is just details, I guess. For instance, I don’t agree with Transubstantiation, based on my understanding of the Bible, but if I were to accept the authority of the Catholic church, Transubstantiation would really become a non-issue much like accepting the Bible as the Word of God leads one to believe in the Virgin Birth (not sure if that’s a good analogy or not).

It sounds like you are on the right path then. The analogy is a little part and parcel for Catholics, but I understand what you mean. I would suggest looking at some books dealing with the Early Church Fathers. I especially like Mike Aquilina’s The Fathers of the Church: An introduction to the First Christian Teachers. I would go with the expanded version though because it has some great additions that the first version did not contain. Also, if you would like to understand early Church liturgy, you should look into the Didache. I hope that helps and God bless your studies.

 

[Chris258]

Aren’t they? You believe something because someone else tells you to, not because you believe it based on its own merits. That’s surrendering your intellect. I don’t mean any offense. Evangelicals do the same thing when they accept the Bible as inerrant. No matter how hard it is to believe that a man was swallowed by a fish for three days, they still believe it. I’m not saying relying on faith is a bad thing, Catholics and non-Catholics just approach it differently. Catholics surrender their intellect to the Magesterium. Non-Catholics surrender their intellect to a believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, for instance.

Thus, one simply returns to the original question.

Did Christ intend to leave a teaching authority composed of fallible humans that would be protected from error? If so, we must surrender our intellect to that authority, trusting, rightly or wrongly, in Jesus’ promise that it would not err.

Or…

Did Christ intend to leave an inerrant set of documents we would have to fallibly interpret, rightly or wrongly, in order to arrive at its Truths? If so, we must surrender our intellects to this authoritative document and try our best to interpret, rightly or wrongly, what it really is saying.

 

[estesbob]

How am I in error? Jesus said do both. Catholics have the “option” to not do so. How is that not a change in teaching?

\

The church has taught from day one that Christ Body and blood are present in its entirety in both the bread and wine and that taking either or both is sufficient

 

[ckempston]

It sounds like you are on the right path then. The analogy is a little part and parcel for Catholics, but I understand what you mean. I would suggest looking at some books dealing with the Early Church Fathers. I especially like Mike Aquilina’s The Fathers of the Church: An introduction to the First Christian Teachers. I would go with the expanded version though because it has some great additions that the first version did not contain. Also, if you would like to understand early Church liturgy, you should look into the Didache. I hope that helps and God bless your studies.

I’ve read the Didache (not very long), and a lot of ECF writings, so I do see very early evidences of a more “Catholic” faith than what is practiced today among Protestants. I’ll see if I can get a hold of that book.

 

[ckempston]

\

The church has taught from day one that Christ Body and blood are present in its entirety in both the bread and wine and that taking either or both is sufficient

It did not teach this from “day one” because “day one” would have been Jesus and the Apostles celebrating his last Passover meal. In this instance, Jesus said of the bread, “this is my body” and of the wine, “this is my blood.” he did not say, these are both body and blood, take your pick.