O
On_my_way
Guest
Do you believe in heaven? The reason I ask you this is because no one went to heaven and came back to tell us what it is like. Wouldn’t your pure speculation of the writer also refer to heaven.
- Status
T
TNT
Guest
Martha was put back into society after, as the Lord says, she “paid the last farthing”.
NOW, if all we are required to believe is that which was materially revealed, like souls, hell, grace, etc. who needs faith?
O
On_my_way
Guest
Knight4God this a qoute from you,
…in that we need some other authority to interpret it for us infallibly.
WTBS, Catholics have a authority to properly interpret the Bible and Scripture, it is the Church. We don’t believe in personal interpretation like most protestants do. That is why there are so many different protestant churches out there, because every minister has there own personal interpretation of Scripture.
What CM knows is what all Catholics know because we are own Church with the same teachings. The Chruch is infallible not the people in it. The Pope is only infallible when it comes to Church Teachings. We are all fallible because we are human. I’ve read alot of CM’s postings and he knows what he is talking about and I would advise you not to pick at his brain.
…in that we need some other authority to interpret it for us infallibly.
WTBS, Catholics have a authority to properly interpret the Bible and Scripture, it is the Church. We don’t believe in personal interpretation like most protestants do. That is why there are so many different protestant churches out there, because every minister has there own personal interpretation of Scripture.
What CM knows is what all Catholics know because we are own Church with the same teachings. The Chruch is infallible not the people in it. The Pope is only infallible when it comes to Church Teachings. We are all fallible because we are human. I’ve read alot of CM’s postings and he knows what he is talking about and I would advise you not to pick at his brain.
C
crk312
Guest
On my way:
As I read scripture, Paul was caught up and visited the 3rd heaven. He states he was not sure if he was in the body or out of the body. John on Patmos speaks of a similar experience. Jesus went into Hades and returned.
We have people with over active imaginations who write in an authorative position but have never experienced what they have written about. In our time the writers of the fictional “Left Behind Series” are looked at in some circles as modern day prophets telling them the future of events around the “rapture”. Many of these individuals feel they are the “True” believers.
A person like Paul who saw Jesus in his spiritual body and traveled in a spiritual dimension is more credible in describing his experiences in the Spiritual dimension.
Of course I believe in heaven and a life after physical death.
As I read scripture, Paul was caught up and visited the 3rd heaven. He states he was not sure if he was in the body or out of the body. John on Patmos speaks of a similar experience. Jesus went into Hades and returned.
We have people with over active imaginations who write in an authorative position but have never experienced what they have written about. In our time the writers of the fictional “Left Behind Series” are looked at in some circles as modern day prophets telling them the future of events around the “rapture”. Many of these individuals feel they are the “True” believers.
A person like Paul who saw Jesus in his spiritual body and traveled in a spiritual dimension is more credible in describing his experiences in the Spiritual dimension.
R
RyanL
Guest
Sure it is, if the sky is actually blue. Truth is truth, whether it is revealed or not. If I say 2+2=4, it is equally as true as if God said it. Both statements are infallible, as long as 2+2=4. There is no “change” in the truth because of the origin of the statement about it - it is objectively one thing and not the other.
K4G:
Wrong. Scripture is inerrant. It requires action to be fallible or infallible, and a book is incapable of that action. Words have meaning, and we must establish our terms.
K4G:
Saying something is so doesn’t make it so, even if it is sincerely believed.
K4G:
Think about what you’re saying here. To paraphrase, “Truth is determined by majority vote.” This is to say that there is no objective truth, but only what we think about it. As I don’t think your intention is to say there is no objective truth, as God is Truth and you believe in God and to say there is no objective Truth is to say there is no objective God, only what we as a group decide about Him, I would suggest you re-consider your words. Truth is objective, not subjective. It doesn’t matter how many people you have on your side, or how many debates you have about it. Objective truth remains constant.
K4G:
Are you sure? Have you read much philosophy? Saying that anyone can pick up Nietzsche and come to an objective conclusion about what he meant in certain instances without considering the author’s life circumstances *in addition to *the book is a fallacy. You have to know Nietzsche to really know his work. If you don’t know Nietzsche, you don’t really know his work. You may come close, but you won’t get it objectively right. You need this outside information to correctly understand some of the things he said. In a like fashion (and as Scripture tells us), some of the writings of Paul are hard to understand and the unlearned twist them to their own destruction. Do those who twist Scripture know that they are unlearned (in Greek: un-discipled 2 Pet 3:15-16)? Nope. They think they know just fine and they think they can do it without ever being discipled. How do you get discipled? In the Church. Your claim is that you don’t need to be learned. You don’t need to be discipled to understand what you’re reading. The Scriptures disagree. Who do you trust? You or the Scriptures?
K4G:
Agreed.
K4G:
Correct, but the question remains: do you think heaven will be afforded to us if we believe in the wrong Jesus? A non-divine Jesus (like the JW’s believe, in line with the Arian Heresy)? A Jesus that is a mere man and nothing more? Can that Jesus save you? What about a pure-spirit Jesus, like the Albigensian Heresy? The Manichean Heresy? The Gnostic Heresy? The Nicolaitan Heresy? Is being right about interpretation important? As for the last, you may want to see what Jesus thinks about the importance of doctrine and correct interpretation (Rev 2:6).
K4G:
Again, saying something is so does not make it so, even if it is sincerely believed. The Ethiopian needed someone to explain it to him (Acts 8), even though he could read and thereby was presumably educated. How are you different than the Ethiopian? Why does this not now apply to you?
K4G:
The need is to make sure you don’t fall prey to believing in a Jesus that never existed. The need is to make sure you know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free. A non-Truth cannot set you free, and has no power to save.
God Bless,
RyanL
G
Gene_C
Guest
Hi kaycee,
If you have time would you mind, please, exegeting Colossians 1:24?
Here it is:
“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Grace and peace,
Gene
If you have time would you mind, please, exegeting Colossians 1:24?
Here it is:
“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Grace and peace,
Gene
P
Pax
Guest
Words are, indeed, important and they have meanings that must be properly understood. This importance is beginning to emerge clearly in this thread. Catholics look at the church as the infallible interpreter of scripture, but they do not mean it in the way that non-catholics might imagine. The church has not defined and declared the meaning of every passage of scripture. In fact, the bulk of scripture has not been given definitive interpretation binding on all Catholics. There are some areas of scripture that the church has not defined because they are not completely clear and there is no compelling reason for the Church to argue them in a particular direction. The church has only clearly defined those areas of scripture as they pertain to important areas of faith, doctrine, and morals. This is particularly true in the areas of faith and doctrine when heresies would arise.
The church has always been extremely conservative and fought off all heretical innovations. This was only possible because the church could infallibly declare what was, in fact, true about the faith in those instances. Similarly the doctrine of purgatory, if it had been some kind of heretical innovation, would have had an enormous amount of debate and controversy surrounding it during the early history of the church. This is obvious when one considers the huge battles fought over the heresies listed by Ryan above. The doctrine of purgatory never had controversy associated with it until the Reformation. The doctrine is supported by scripture and is grounded in the faith from from the earliest historical periods for which we have any written testimonies.
The church has always been extremely conservative and fought off all heretical innovations. This was only possible because the church could infallibly declare what was, in fact, true about the faith in those instances. Similarly the doctrine of purgatory, if it had been some kind of heretical innovation, would have had an enormous amount of debate and controversy surrounding it during the early history of the church. This is obvious when one considers the huge battles fought over the heresies listed by Ryan above. The doctrine of purgatory never had controversy associated with it until the Reformation. The doctrine is supported by scripture and is grounded in the faith from from the earliest historical periods for which we have any written testimonies.
K
Knight4God
Guest
Apparently I mis-implied something, Let me try to re-phrase in response:
I do not believe that we to not need teachers or to be taught the scriptures, but that it is not necessary to have an infallible teaching body to do so. We can debate over what some Philosopher spoke, but that does not mean we cannot come to a correct interpretation without an infallible guide. I was thinking more along the line of taking a physics class, the professor is not infallible, (and in this case neither is the book) as in it is possible the truth in it is incomplete or wrong. But the object of study is true in and of itself (the laws of physics) and I need trustworthy teachers, but not infallible teachers to explain it too me. And I would have the option, under good reasons, to disagree. If the object of study is the scriptures, then I do not see why it is necessary to have infallible teachers, anymore then with anything else. The idea, then, is that any one person can be trained and taught how to discover the truths in scripture to where they do understand even the hard to understand parts, without the need of an infallible interpreter. I do not believe truth is “majority rule” but that with no infallible interpreter, the interpretation of what is true comes down to examining all the authorities and teachings and determining which one is more correct.
So if I do not see then need, then it would have to be proven to me that one exists. As of now, the only inerrant (I have not heard of this distinction your making between infallible and inerrant, I’m tentatively go with it) authority I accept is scripture, but do not deny truthful and trustworthy authorities outside. This is what I mean by the implication of something being “more true” in that direct revelation is trustworthier then even a statement about nature, as a statement about nature may be spoken in error, even if it seems true. But revelation is by definition true.
Even if I were to choose Rome as the infallible authority for interpretation, I would be making a private judgment based on whatever facts convinced me, that Rome was correct in it’s claims to infallible teaching. So in the end, I fail to see how I’m not still using private interpretation and why Rome’s claims would be any more valid then the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism when it comes to Tradition. I would still have to take all the facts and process them to come to a conclusion based on personal judgment about the truthfulness of Rome. How would it not be contradictory to claim my private judgment led me to give up my private judgment? What if Rome makes a claim outright contradictory to the scriptures? Is it just faith that this is not possible? Traditionalist Catholics seem to disagree to some extent when those who do, reject Vatican II and the authority of the present Pope.
I’m not saying Rome has a infallible interpretation on every verse, but even if Purgatory was true, I would argue those above verses do not prove it, ie just because the truth is found in the Bible, doesn’t mean every verse can be used to teach it. A verse has only the objective meaning that the author intended. And I see no reason to say those mentioned verses either do or have to refer to purgatory. Even if they allowed “wiggle room”, that would be different from “proof”. The question is, would someone educated in the language and culture and all other tools needed from studying scripture, and trained in how to study literature in general, including scripture, come to the conclusion that those verses or any others teach purgatory. If the answer is “yes” then we should be able to examine those verses to decide, and if the answer is “no” then what reason do I have for trusting someone else or some organization that Purgatory is true?
So if you can objectively prove Rome is an infallible authority then I would accept, but 1)I do not see the need to being with. 2) I don’t see the conclusive evidence for claims of any infallible interpreter 3) I then don’t see who this would have to be applied to Rome and not some other Church and 4) Therefore, why I stated my interpretation on scripture counts, because if I am wrong in my interpretation because the scriptures are difficult to understand, I should be able to be shown in the text why am wrong and not merely told Rome has said differently.
I do not believe that we to not need teachers or to be taught the scriptures, but that it is not necessary to have an infallible teaching body to do so. We can debate over what some Philosopher spoke, but that does not mean we cannot come to a correct interpretation without an infallible guide. I was thinking more along the line of taking a physics class, the professor is not infallible, (and in this case neither is the book) as in it is possible the truth in it is incomplete or wrong. But the object of study is true in and of itself (the laws of physics) and I need trustworthy teachers, but not infallible teachers to explain it too me. And I would have the option, under good reasons, to disagree. If the object of study is the scriptures, then I do not see why it is necessary to have infallible teachers, anymore then with anything else. The idea, then, is that any one person can be trained and taught how to discover the truths in scripture to where they do understand even the hard to understand parts, without the need of an infallible interpreter. I do not believe truth is “majority rule” but that with no infallible interpreter, the interpretation of what is true comes down to examining all the authorities and teachings and determining which one is more correct.
So if I do not see then need, then it would have to be proven to me that one exists. As of now, the only inerrant (I have not heard of this distinction your making between infallible and inerrant, I’m tentatively go with it) authority I accept is scripture, but do not deny truthful and trustworthy authorities outside. This is what I mean by the implication of something being “more true” in that direct revelation is trustworthier then even a statement about nature, as a statement about nature may be spoken in error, even if it seems true. But revelation is by definition true.
Even if I were to choose Rome as the infallible authority for interpretation, I would be making a private judgment based on whatever facts convinced me, that Rome was correct in it’s claims to infallible teaching. So in the end, I fail to see how I’m not still using private interpretation and why Rome’s claims would be any more valid then the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism when it comes to Tradition. I would still have to take all the facts and process them to come to a conclusion based on personal judgment about the truthfulness of Rome. How would it not be contradictory to claim my private judgment led me to give up my private judgment? What if Rome makes a claim outright contradictory to the scriptures? Is it just faith that this is not possible? Traditionalist Catholics seem to disagree to some extent when those who do, reject Vatican II and the authority of the present Pope.
I’m not saying Rome has a infallible interpretation on every verse, but even if Purgatory was true, I would argue those above verses do not prove it, ie just because the truth is found in the Bible, doesn’t mean every verse can be used to teach it. A verse has only the objective meaning that the author intended. And I see no reason to say those mentioned verses either do or have to refer to purgatory. Even if they allowed “wiggle room”, that would be different from “proof”. The question is, would someone educated in the language and culture and all other tools needed from studying scripture, and trained in how to study literature in general, including scripture, come to the conclusion that those verses or any others teach purgatory. If the answer is “yes” then we should be able to examine those verses to decide, and if the answer is “no” then what reason do I have for trusting someone else or some organization that Purgatory is true?
So if you can objectively prove Rome is an infallible authority then I would accept, but 1)I do not see the need to being with. 2) I don’t see the conclusive evidence for claims of any infallible interpreter 3) I then don’t see who this would have to be applied to Rome and not some other Church and 4) Therefore, why I stated my interpretation on scripture counts, because if I am wrong in my interpretation because the scriptures are difficult to understand, I should be able to be shown in the text why am wrong and not merely told Rome has said differently.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
I just have to repeat this:
HOW DO WE SQUEEZE INFALLABLE BIBLE JUICE OUT OF A FALLABLE CATHOLIC ORANGE?
Anyone who trusts the bible (knowingly or unknowingly) must surrender the issue that it was the Catholic Church that wrote it and put it together. This is apparent from history. There should be no argument about this.
Only the Catholic church predate the bible, naturally because it came out of her. And someone 1200 years after the fact has the audacity to claim that he has the true interpretation. And this has been the sad pattern to date.
in XT.
HOW DO WE SQUEEZE INFALLABLE BIBLE JUICE OUT OF A FALLABLE CATHOLIC ORANGE?
Anyone who trusts the bible (knowingly or unknowingly) must surrender the issue that it was the Catholic Church that wrote it and put it together. This is apparent from history. There should be no argument about this.
Only the Catholic church predate the bible, naturally because it came out of her. And someone 1200 years after the fact has the audacity to claim that he has the true interpretation. And this has been the sad pattern to date.
in XT.
P
Pax
Guest
Our salvation depends on the truth and you do need an infallible teacher. The following sample of passages make the necessity obvious:
1 Tim 4:1-2
NOW THE Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,
Eph 4:13-14
until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
2 Peter 1:20-21
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Peter 2:1-2
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
2 Peter 3:15-16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
Please notice that these references do not speak of scripture and teaching in any loose interpretive or individual way. Paul tells Timothy at one point to stay in Ephesus and to instruct some people there not to teach any different doctrine. Obviously, there were problems with people deviating from the truth that is found in the body of Christ which is his church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”[1 Tim 3:15]
Accepting the Catholic Church as the infallible authority is not a matter of private judgment or mere speculation. Jesus, himself, established his church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Jesus also says, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.”[Matt 5:14] and he prays for unity equal to that shared by He and the Father[John 17]. He gives the apostles and their successors the power to bind and loose which is a carry over from rabbinical powers from the OT. Those things that are necessary for salvation and knowledge of the truth are protected by the Church which is established and vouched for in promises and granted authority from Jesus himself.
R
RyanL
Guest
K4G (I trust you don’t my my shorthand…),
I like that you have enumerated your questions. That always makes thing so much easier!
Knight4God:
Martin Luther:
God Bless,
RyanL
I like that you have enumerated your questions. That always makes thing so much easier!
Ok. Let’s start with the beginning, i.e., Christ’s mission on earth. He came for what purpose? To save us from our sins. Great, that’s one reason. Why else? To make sure we can know about it. If we don’t know about it, it can’t help us. If God wanted to save us from our sins without us knowing, He could have just willed it rather than suffer on earth. Ok, so we have to know about it. But how? By writing a book? Did Jesus write a book? Nope. As far as we know, Christ never set pen to paper. He did, however, start a Church. Matt 16:17-19. Furthermore, He commissioned this Church to make disciples of all nations. This Church (with the help of the Holy Spirit) recorded some of its stories on paper. These stories were collected nearly 400 years later into what the Catholic Church officially pronounced as the cannon of Scripture. Were these the only stories on paper from this time period? Nope. There were tons. Like the Didache, for starters (if you have never read it, please do - it’s not long). Some thought Hebrews shouldn’t be in the cannon, some thought the Shepherd of Hermas should be. So how did they know which ones should be in and which ones shouldn’t? At this point you have to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church decided, and all of Christianity has believed this list ever since. Luther said:
Martin Luther:
So you have to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church in order to believe that the Scriptures are authoritative - if you would deny this authority of the Church, you must also reject the canon of scripture. After all, what guarantee is there that the Church was right?
How conclusive do you need? If you need God to explain it to you personally, you probably won’t get there. If you’re willing to accept the preponderance of the evidence of history and Scripture, that’s easy enough…
Only a few Churches can make the claim of being the Church founded by Christ through the Apostles. Basically, it comes down to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Both can trace Apostolic Succession back to Christ. Any others are simply “churches” started by men, and for them your question definitely stands.
Ask, and the Church will answer. Pick a doctrine, any doctrine, and start a thread on the topic. We will explain anything you want to know, but understand that history (which is a science) must be used to support some of the arguments; like the argument as to why we should believe the Bible. It’s not enough that the Bible claims inspiration - so do the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Qur’an, the Hindu Vedas…I could write something and claim it’s inspired, but that’s no proof. So how do you prove inspiration? Try this.
God Bless,
RyanL
L
Luciano_Miceli
Guest
I have a pet peave because over the years I’ve watched many,
who are critical of catholicism, open the bible and read
without praying first. I for myself find it imperative to ask the
help and light of the Holy Spirit because in the words of a
great saint “I hope for all good things from God and fear of
all evil from myself”. One of the first readings that confirmed
my faith in the catholic church was the story of the servant
who owed his master a great sum of money and after being
forgiven the whole amount could not fogive a lesser servant
the little owed to him and had him thrown in a debter prison and when the master found out reproached him and handed
him to the torturers until he payed the whole amount. The
clincher is our Lord’s assurance that the Heavenly Father
will do the same to us unless we forgive our brothers from the heart. First it is obvious that the after life is implied. Second it
confirms the statement that to whom much is given much is
required from. Third I’m glad that there is a place we call
purgatory bacause as is stated in the book of revelation that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, thank God for this last mercy
for the majority of us. So please be deliberate in asking for the light of the Holy Spirit before reading any spiritual material especially the bible.
May God bless you in J > M w J!
who are critical of catholicism, open the bible and read
without praying first. I for myself find it imperative to ask the
help and light of the Holy Spirit because in the words of a
great saint “I hope for all good things from God and fear of
all evil from myself”. One of the first readings that confirmed
my faith in the catholic church was the story of the servant
who owed his master a great sum of money and after being
forgiven the whole amount could not fogive a lesser servant
the little owed to him and had him thrown in a debter prison and when the master found out reproached him and handed
him to the torturers until he payed the whole amount. The
clincher is our Lord’s assurance that the Heavenly Father
will do the same to us unless we forgive our brothers from the heart. First it is obvious that the after life is implied. Second it
confirms the statement that to whom much is given much is
required from. Third I’m glad that there is a place we call
purgatory bacause as is stated in the book of revelation that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, thank God for this last mercy
for the majority of us. So please be deliberate in asking for the light of the Holy Spirit before reading any spiritual material especially the bible.
May God bless you in J > M w J!
- Status