C
christcnection1
Guest
How can Protestants be assured that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?
- Status
N
NMJenny
Guest
They can’t have that assurance. Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit guides them as they read the Scriptures, but they’ve never been able to explain how the same Holy Spirit can guide so many people into making such different interpretations of the same message in Scripture.
Only Catholics can have assurance, as they listen to the interpretations of the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit according to His promise…
Only Catholics can have assurance, as they listen to the interpretations of the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit according to His promise…
B
Bishopite
Guest
Their pastor?
In all candor, they really can’t even be sure they have the correct books in the canon without following the decision of the Catholic Magisterium…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
F
Faith5
Guest
The Catholic Church follows the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus said to His apostles in Luke 10:16,
“he who receives you receives me.” As we believe in Apostolic
succession, we have total confidence our doctrines are true and
will not change over time.
Catholics can be assured of receiving the correct Bible interpretations. I don’t know how Protestants can be
confident of their beliefs. Some will attend several
different non-Catholic churches over time–many with differing
interpretations of Scripture.
C
christcnection1
Guest
Do any Protestants have anything to say about this?
This is obviously a big issue for us, and if you want us to convert to the “truth,” most of us would need a reasonable answer to this question.
Authority… Unity… Clarity… tend to be very important for Catholic Christians.
God Bless,
JB
This is obviously a big issue for us, and if you want us to convert to the “truth,” most of us would need a reasonable answer to this question.
Authority… Unity… Clarity… tend to be very important for Catholic Christians.
God Bless,
JB
C
CThomas
Guest
From this Protestant’s perspective, the answers so far have been correct – Protestants cannot have infallible assurance that their interpretations of scripture are correct, because they are fallible interpreters of an infallible scripture. Of course I would go on to say that adding a second infallible layer in between the believer and the Bible doesn’t seem to solve this problem, because the individual – being fallible – might misunderstand any infallible explication of scripture by the Church just as a fallible individual can misunderstand scripture itself. As long as the individual believer is fallible (a condition which isn’t going away any time soon), the way I see it everybody, whether Catholic or Protestant, is stuck with the fact that at the end of the day they could be misunderstanding the source of infallible doctrine as a theoretical matter. (Of course, despite this theoretical issue, I believe, as I’m sure you believe, that my views are correct to a very high degree of certainty.)
CThomas
CThomas
C
christcnection1
Guest
R
robert_ambrose
Guest
they have no assurance that private interpretation gives them the true meaning of the bible, that is why there are over 35 thousand different christian denominations in the world today, and still growing.
C
christcnection1
Guest
but at least they agree on the “essentials.”they have no assurance that private interpretation gives them the true meaning of the bible, that is why there are over 35 thousand different christian denominations in the world today, and still growing.
B
Bishopite
Guest
There are a few things you perhaps may want to consider. High degrees of certainty are given much more weight through evidence. Catholicism can prove its historical inception from Christ and the Apostles and other evidenciary means like councils which authoritatively gave all Christians the canon, Trinity and the hypostatic union so that degree of certainty is far greater within Catholicism being it has much more proof of it being the church Jesus established and which has the authority to correctly divide the word of truth, 2 Tim 2:15.
Also, we know God can and does work infallibly through men/women as He did through all the scriptural writing, that it was written infallibly. But from your position (I’m assuming this is your position) that God only worked infallibly through the Apostles and those who wrote holy writ.
So that through your position we therefore must only conclude that we can only have a fallible collection of infallible scriptures, being the canon of scripture wasn’t first cited as it is today until 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection (382 AD council of Rome under Pope Damasus).
If we have fallibly chosen the infallible scriptures, rationally speaking we don’t know for sure that we have the infallible scriptures because they were chosen fallibly.
From the Catholic perspective, we have the infallible scriptures which were chosen infallibly because God sometimes works infallibly through men as He did with the Apostles and their successors as He did through the Catholic Magisterium by its recognition of the infallible scriptures and rejecting those which were fallible—those books within the early church which were disputed, rejected and accepted.
C
CThomas
Guest
Bishopite, thanks for the response. This is an interesting subject for me. One of the Catholic claims that has seemed unpersuasive to me (so far) is the idea that Catholicism allows us to have greater, even infallible, certainty as to the contents of the canon, the meaning of the Bible, etc. I just don’t see how that works. Even if it’s true that the Catholic Church is infallible in certain pronouncements, we can only know of this infallibility fallibly. Your acceptance that the Catholic Church is infallible is the product of your own fallible reasoning, and based on what I’ve seen of the arguments for Church infallibility, the reasoning leading up to that conclusion is almost certainly quite complex and sophisticated. So unless you are infallible, you could be wrong in accepting the authority of the Catholic Church, and therefore you are left in exactly the same position as Protestants.
I respect if a Catholic has looked at the evidence and the arguments and has concluded that Catholicism is correct. That’s what I’ve done with so-called Protestantism. Where I start to lose you is when Catholics try to leverage the infallibility they see in the Church and try to make it sound like that translates into their own certainty. That kind of bootstrapping doesn’t seem to work, for the reasons in my first paragraph. Catholicism may be true or false, but the one thing it isn’t, it seems to me, is something that can liberate you from the human possibility of being wrong about anything at all, whether it’s the books in the canon, the true doctrine, or anything else.
CThomas
I respect if a Catholic has looked at the evidence and the arguments and has concluded that Catholicism is correct. That’s what I’ve done with so-called Protestantism. Where I start to lose you is when Catholics try to leverage the infallibility they see in the Church and try to make it sound like that translates into their own certainty. That kind of bootstrapping doesn’t seem to work, for the reasons in my first paragraph. Catholicism may be true or false, but the one thing it isn’t, it seems to me, is something that can liberate you from the human possibility of being wrong about anything at all, whether it’s the books in the canon, the true doctrine, or anything else.
CThomas
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
I’m sorry but I would have to disagre. Sola Scripturia for one. We’re still debating on “what is authority” I think that IS essential. Sola Fide, not all protestants agree on this eather. I think how we are saved is essential too.but at least they agree on the “essentials.”
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
So where does the fallible start? or infallible end? A parallel could be drawn with Moses and leading the Jews out of Egypt. Moses been given the office to lead the jews to the promised land. But Moses is falliable. How can we be shure his laws really are Gods commandmants?
The Lord will not leave us abanded in confusion. He made us, he knows we’re likely to mutate and warp his word over time, due to our weeknesses. The Only way to assure the his church he estabalished won’t fall. Is to create an office whose job would be to protect and preserve the teachings his son compleated.
B
Bishopite
Guest
I suppose I could be wrong about following the Catholic faith, that is without the supernatural infallible certitude which God alone posses, however I’ve never said that I did, however if I am wrong then Protestantism is in even greater trouble since it has no uniformed theology and isn’t able to proclaim anything infallible with any authoritative certitude; I know I grew up Southern Baptist.
Here is what I said…
What you are assuming is that I said that I knew for sure with the infallible certitude of God that Catholicism is infallible; certainly you would agree that we can know through proper reason that something is infallible? That was my point.
When Catholicism is juxtaposed with Protestantism, the “degree of certainty” isn’t even close between the two if we include the reasonable items that show evidence for authority and infallibility, e.g., history, scriptural and the authority to recognize and interpret it.
I as a Catholic have a much higher “degree of certainty” than you do and with all due deference, you are in a much more dire position since I have the evidence of history, a church that has its inception in the authoritative church Jesus established, authoritative councils which gave us theological concepts accepted by all Christians and the authoritative recognition of the canon.
It is unreasonable for any Christian to say they believe in the infallibility of the Bible without believing in infallibility at all, nor anyone to be able to infallibly guided by God, because the Bible is all about God working infallibly through fallible men, protecting them from error, therefore I can through proper reason give historical and reasonable evidence for the infallibility of the Catholic church.
All the evidence? Historical evidence in the early church?
My certainty isn’t one of the infallible certitude of God but one of infallible certainty of divine faith but rooted from proper reason; The Bible is historically sound, inerrent and speaks of inerrancy, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Bible and established an (one) authortitative church that is the proper interpreter of scripture, authoritatively and infallibly recognized the canon and that church is the Catholic.
Reason in Christianity always has an element of faith but my reasons include all areas of evidence.
V
VociMike
Guest
The critical difference between these two scenarios is that one can question the Magisterium as often as necessary to reduce the misunderstanding below any arbitrary threshold. Thus, nobody questions what the Church teaches regarding e.g. baptismal regeneration, or the Eucharist, or the nature of the Trinity. But no Protestant can honestly say what the bible teaches on those subjects, since opposing groups both appeal to the bible to support their opposing views.
This is important enough to say it again. There is great clarity in what the Church teaches about “the essentials”, but there is no clarity about what the bible, read outside of the light of the Church, teaches about “the essentials”.
Another way that this has been put is that one can get the Church to rule on the truth or falsity of any doctrinal proposition, but one cannot get the bible to so rule.
C
christcnection1
Guest
sarcasm.
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
Sorry. I see it now! Du!
- Status