Can anyone here who believes in the Protestant Christian doctrine which allows for "Personal Interpretation of the Bible" explain this?

[Jolly_Joe]

Well yes, it is similar to Catholic Theology. The simply claimed themselves to be the instrument of revelation rather than claiming it to be the Pope.

In any case their problems were not biblically based, it was claimed revelation.

You see a lot of it today. In addition to the relatively rare claim by Catholics, the Mormons claim it all the time, and then there is the whole Charismatic Movment. Especially the Third Wave with all their claimed revelations and claims of being Prophets and Apostles.

Historically the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation were hugely into this and it’s the apparent source of many if not all their heresies. More than a few claimed to not even need the Bible anymore but that they could simply sit and have the Holy Spirit reveal everything.

There are lots of cases, it’s a repeating patter where people claim to have revelation direct from God and it always seems to trump the Bible in their minds. They seem to either just ignore what in the Bible conflicts with their revelation or they come up with interpretation to get around it.

It seems that the revelation will usually in practice become a centerpiece of their practices. I don’t know if it’s the natural strengthening of distinctives that seems to be such a human trait or what. If one group wears black and the other white that tends to become the most important things in people’s minds. In effect, whether they state it or not it occupies the position of dogma.

So you see the TV enthusiasts spending their time talking about their claimed revelations and the supposed imminent end of the world. You’d think, listening to them, there is no more important thing that the book of Revelation in the Bible, and no more important thing today than buying the next book with the new revelations.

 

[Chancellare]

Protestants view the Vatican as never being able to definitively say what will always be the doctrine, because some future Magisterium might decide differently.

The view is wrong.
First one should understand that there no such thing as ‘future magisterium’ deciding differently.
Catholic Doctrines follow a process which a former Protestant, Cardinal Neuman calls “the development of Doctrine”. By this process, one will realize that the teachings stay coherent accross the centuries without contradiction either accross or in between doctrines. Sounds impossible to those who were born to rely on individual interpretations.

The Scriptures, from the Protestant perspective, keep saying the same thing century after century. Might be boring, but at least it’s consistent.

That’s not the case in reality because Scriptures cannot speak. The more than 3,500 ‘personal interpretations’ do. Sounds sad but true.

 

[kathykiritta]

Don’t accuse us of changing basic dogmas. While the Vatican may change practices such as Mass, or clear something up, our basic beliefs about faith and morals have remained the same since the beggining. I can also assure that doctrines declared infallible by the Pope will never change.

Protestants will never be able to definitively say what will always be the doctrine because some future generation of Protestants may decide differently. A good example of this is birth control. Before 1930 all Protestants Churches had figured out through the use of personal interpretation that birth control was wrong, but afterwards they changed their mind and now through the use of personal interpretation some Protestants figured out that there is actually nothing wrong with using it.

I totaly agree. Protestants keep cahnging thier mind and can never have a permanent doctrine as it is very evident to recent changes of doctrines against the will of God in scripture. E.g, abortions, contraceptives, women priests,divorces,homosexual Bishoptry just to name a few.
We Catholics stick to the “will of God” and respect His plan for us no matter how hard it is.Catholic sticks to tradition while we are called " old fashion" so be it.We admit failures, but believe that Christ will calm the storms and He is pruning and burning the bad branches within the church as we speak.Thank God for that.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I totaly agree. Protestants keep cahnging thier mind and can never have a permanent doctrine as it is very evident to recent changes of doctrines against the will of God in scripture. E.g, abortions, contraceptives, women priests,divorces,homosexual Bishoptry just to name a few.
We Catholics stick to the “will of God” and respect His plan for us no matter how hard it is.Catholic sticks to tradition while we are called " old fashion" so be it.We admit failures, but believe that Christ will calm the storms and He is pruning and burning the bad branches within the church as we speak.Thank God for that.

Hello kathykiritta,

Exactly, where is the true Christian unity in all of this? Where is the unity in having one belief, accepting one God and one Truth?

Yet, many Protestants don’t seem to have a problem with these inconsistencies’ and the lake of Christian unity.

Thank you for your post.

 

[SIA]

Hello kathykiritta,

Exactly, where is the true Christian unity in all of this? Where is the unity in having one belief, accepting one God and one Truth?

Yet, many Protestants don’t seem to have a problem with these inconsistencies’ and the lake of Christian unity.

Thank you for your post.

Where’s the perfect unity in the Roman church Jimmy? Many Catholics differ in their beliefs. The church would have folks believe that the faithful are united in their beliefs and practices, but anyone with a brain knows that this is all just tongue and cheek. I know Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence, use birth control regularly, have had abortions and the list goes on and on. Are these folks unified in their beliefs?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Where’s the perfect unity in the Roman church Jimmy? Many Catholics differ in their beliefs. The church would have folks believe that the faithful are united in their beliefs and practices, but anyone with a brain knows that this is all just tongue and cheek. I know Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence, use birth control regularly, have had abortions and the list goes on and on. Are these folks unified in their beliefs?

Hello SIA,

You are absolutely right, I know Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews etc… like you describe but you are talking about members and I was referring to the actual doctrinal and rule-set difference, which exist with, so many different Christian denominations.

I don’t usually post anything here were I specifically address the individual beliefs, of the members of any particular denomination, everybody is different, so that would be impossible.

I post my concerns with the leader, or founder of different denominations and with their "infallible’ doctrine, or that denominations “infallible” doctrine and set of beliefs.

The Roman Catholic Church is united under one leader, the Pope and one Magisterium. Moreover, if you go to a Catholic Mass this Sunday, where you live…the readings, prayers and songs are going to be the same in every Roman Catholic Church, worldwide…That’s one united belief, one body in Christ.

I know that some of the older Christian denominations, have a consistent liturgy but it is only consistent within there own denomination and often times limited by region and the further one gets from Catholicism and from the early Protestant denominations the more inconsistencies in Christian beliefs one finds.

Does this make any sense?

Thanks,

Peace

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

The view is wrong.
First one should understand that there no such thing as ‘future magisterium’ deciding differently.
Catholic Doctrines follow a process which a former Protestant, Cardinal Neuman calls “the development of Doctrine”. By this process, one will realize that the teachings stay coherent accross the centuries without contradiction either accross or in between doctrines. Sounds impossible to those who were born to rely on individual interpretations.

Oh, okay, it doesn’t “become different,” it “develops.” We see many of those developments as contradictions, not merely adding specificity to what was once vague. Even without that, we still see the Vatican as unable to make lasting statements, because you just never know how the doctrine will “develop.”

I’m not really trying to convince you. The OP asked for explanations. You don’t have to agree, but that is in general the Protestant view.

That’s not the case in reality because Scriptures cannot speak.

It’s not Scriptures speaking that bothers me. It’s when they roar and knock me flat on my back. I’d prefer something much more comforting, much more self-affirming, much less sharp and serious about my sin.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Does this make any sense?

From the Protestant perspective, it doesn’t make sense, because we approach the idea of “church” with a different set of assumptions.

The Roman Catholic Church is united under one leader, the Pope and one Magisterium.

From our perspective, church leadership hierarchies don’t give any indication of the unity of faith, practice, or community within that group of believers. The unity acheived, insofar as it has anything to do with the leadership, comes from their clarity of vision for unity and willingness to boot out those who won’t get with the program.

Moreover, if you go to a Catholic Mass this Sunday, where you live…the readings, prayers and songs are going to be the same in every Roman Catholic Church, worldwide…That’s one united belief, one body in Christ.

This wasn’t always the case. In addition, from the Protestant perspective, this is a unity of experience only. Unity of belief requires community-wide, heartfelt assent to specific teachings. Body-unity is even more of a miracle, and we confess we don’t often see it. Our concept of it in general is that being “one body in Christ” ought to look much like a very close family interacting, but with the miraculous addition of the Holy Spirit making us all sensitive to each other in ways we couldn’t ordinarily acheive.

I know that some of the older Christian denominations, have a consistent liturgy but it is only consistent within there own denomination and often times limited by region

From the Protestant perspective in general (and there certainly are a few exceptions), a particular order of ceremonies has almost nothing to do with spiritual unity. Most of us view it as a purely psychological aid to people seeing themselves as unified. Personally I think it’s more than that. However, in general Protestants aren’t bothered in the slightest when we go to a different church and they do things differently. In fact, it never occurs to most of us to question whether that creates any sort of barrier to unity. “Are they doing this service right?” just isn’t a question that comes up.

We see common faith in Christ and the sharing of one Holy Spirit as the reason for the unity we have. Specific ceremonial rubrics, to us, are a product of the Holy Spirit using local culture to speak symbolically within the context of the local language. I’m saying that in a really clumsy way, trying to encompass all of the different orders of service I’ve experienced. We see it as something like this: the Holy Spirit tells us we have work to do in the community. Part of it involves worshipping together and part of it involves making our community open to receive new believers (and part of it has almost nothing to do with what happens in church buildings). He uses the gifts he’s given that community to develop ceremonies and orders of worship that have meaning within the context of that local community. You might think that older Protestant denominations have robes for their ministers like Catholic priests have vestments. In many cases, that was just the business suit of the era when that denomination organized. It showed the preacher took his task seriously - he put on his best suit for it. If a jungle culture sees wearing a groin gourd and nothing else as giving the same message of the seriousness of proclaiming the gospel, we don’t have a problem with it. The jungle preacher might look like some kind of freak to his own people if he wore a Baptist preacher’s business suit. So to us many of the rubrics of ceremony are for a place and time, not a symbol of greater unity.

the further one gets from Catholicism and from the early Protestant denominations the more inconsistencies in Christian beliefs one finds.

Much of what you find inconsistent bothers us less simply because there are issues about which Scripture doesn’t seem to speak strongly. Over the generations of comparing our ancestors’ beliefs to Scripture, we’ve put a lot of stuff into the “disputable matters” category. Over five hundred years we’ve come closer and closer together in our beliefs, at least those of us that believe Scripture is the standard to compare ourselves to. Others have decided their own culture is the standard, and have begun to wither. We get lots of transfers from those denominations.

As an example of coming together you can look at Baptists and Free Church denominations. The Free Churches were Lutherans, and Luther certainly hated and killed his share of Baptists. When the Free Churches saw that the State-sponsored Lutheran churches were becoming corrupt, they left and formed their own (illegal) fellowships. The Baptists at the same time continued to compare their beliefs to Scripture and abandon the nuttier ones. Now the two are hard to tell apart. Scripture has pared away so much of the disputable nonsense that divided them in the beginning that they are nearly completely united in belief.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh, okay, it doesn’t “become different,” it “develops.” …

Hello Crazy Diamond,

The Catholic Church doesn’t create Christian truths, all truth comes from God. The Catholic Church defines Christian truths and is infallible when is comes to the issues of faith and morals.

The Church is alive and is on fire for Christ, so as a result she comments on those critical issues of our times.

For example, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning did not occur in previous centuries, so when people did engage in this type of behavior, the Church spoke out.

This isn’t Change. This is a Church that is alive and a Church that transcends, different times, different cultures and different peoples and a Church the defines Christianity for all people for the last 2000 years.

Christ said that He would never leave us and He didn’t. He is present in His Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church was created by Christ and that’s why it is a model that works worldwide. Many Protestant denominations are uniquely American or “western” and do not transcend well with the rest of the world.

Do you understand now?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Many Protestant denominations are uniquely American or “western” and do not transcend well with the rest of the world.

Sure, Protestant denominations usually stay in the country where they start. Converts in other countries start their own associations for mutual support. Those become indigenous denominations. The biggest Protestant church in the world is in South Korea. I believe the second biggest is in Colombia. Fortunately for us, they’re sending missionaries here.

Do you understand now?

Oh, I understand the Catholic perspective, insofar as I’ve studied it. Our disagreements in interpreting history come from fundamentally different assumptions about what it is that makes up the church. For you, the hierarchy was there from the beginning and is the Holy Spirit’s tool for unifying all Christians. We believe hierarchies were invented as solutions to specific problems at the time, but that the Holy Spirit unifies Christians through his own indwelling, an indwelling that occurs through faith rather than church membership.

It’s still the same Holy Spirit. He isn’t intimidated by our childish squabbles over exactly how he works. I think the Charismatic movement is one of his great jokes on church leaders who thought they knew exactly how he did things. That movement has changed us all, even the Orthodox, although they won’t admit it nearly as much.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Sure, Protestant denominations usually stay in the country where they start. Converts in other countries start their own associations for mutual support. Those become indigenous denominations. The biggest Protestant church in the world is in South Korea. I believe the second biggest is in Colombia. Fortunately for us, they’re sending missionaries here.

Oh, I understand the Catholic perspective, insofar as I’ve studied it. Our disagreements in interpreting history come from fundamentally different assumptions about what it is that makes up the church. For you, the hierarchy was there from the beginning and is the Holy Spirit’s tool for unifying all Christians. We believe hierarchies were invented as solutions to specific problems at the time, but that the Holy Spirit unifies Christians through his own indwelling, an indwelling that occurs through faith rather than church membership.

It’s still the same Holy Spirit. He isn’t intimidated by our childish squabbles over exactly how he works. I think the Charismatic movement is one of his great jokes on church leaders who thought they knew exactly how he did things. That movement has changed us all, even the Orthodox, although they won’t admit it nearly as much.

Hello again Crazy Diamond,

I’m still trying to figure out the meaning of your name.

Structure is a good thing, we could all use a little structure in our lives…it keeps us out of trouble.

I think that you would make a great Catholic!

Why don’t you swim over to our side…what’s stopping you?

BTW, we are both up way too late……don’t ya think?

Peace

 

[mercygate]

Oh, okay, it doesn’t “become different,” it “develops.” We see many of those developments as contradictions, not merely adding specificity to what was once vague. Even without that, we still see the Vatican as unable to make lasting statements, because you just never know how the doctrine will “develop.”

I’m not really trying to convince you. The OP asked for explanations. You don’t have to agree, but that is in general the Protestant view.

It’s not Scriptures speaking that bothers me. It’s when they roar and knock me flat on my back. I’d prefer something much more comforting, much more self-affirming, much less sharp and serious about my sin.

You might enjoy John Henry Newman’s key work, *Essay and the Development of Christian Doctrine. *He wasn’t Catholic when he wrote it, by the way.

 

[Chancellare]

Even without that, we still see the Vatican as unable to make lasting statements, because you just never know how the doctrine will “develop.”

Evidently you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[WindGirl]

Can anyone here, who believes-in, the Protestant, non-Catholic Christian doctrine, which allows for - “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”… explain this?

David Koresh and the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, Branch Davidians

http://www.beyond.com.au/images/catalogue/mugshots - david koresh.jpg

Marshall Applewhite and the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, Heaven’s Gate

http://interactivesermon.typepad.com/interactive_sermon/images/2007/12/14/image_2.jpg

Jim Jonesand the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, the Peoples Temple

http://www.deathreference.com/images/medd_01_img0078.jpg

****Weren’t these tragic situations, created by bad…horrible… ****personal interpretations of the Bible?

My concern here is with the flawed doctrine of “personal interpretation”.

I know that the extreme cases above, do not represent the beliefs of most Protestant denominations; however, they do illustrate a point and that is that “personal interpretation” is a flawed doctrine, that can lead to disastrous results

Your Thoughts?

What makes you think these folks were real Christians to start wtih? This is a problem I find in that it seems that Catholics want to lump all non Catholic groups in the same boat. As far as interpretation goes, I see nothing in the Bible telling me I shouldn’t read the Bible mysef to see what the truth is. That’s what the Bereans did.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 John 2
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

And, in anticipation of the usual question:

gotquestions.org/interpretations-Christian.html

 

[Snow]

Your Thoughts?

Give us a break - are we idiots?

You think posting the pictures of a bunch of evil nutjobs proves anything?

Get real por favor.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Give us a break - are we idiots?

You think posting the pictures of a bunch of evil nutjobs proves anything?

Get real por favor.

Hello Snow,

You are right, these people are “evil nut-jobs” and even worse, they are homicidal maniacs.

The persons that I have listed here, were not merely, members of a particular non-Catholic Christian denomination, they are the actual founders and leaders of “Bible based” non-Catholic Christian denominations.

They were “religious leaders”, were they not?

The Branch Dravidians’ still exit today.

The point that I am attempting to illustrate here is, the inherent danger associated with the errant belief, which allows for personal interpretation of the Bible

There is not a “non-Catholic Christian - Checks and Balance System” in place, where specific individuals are required to pass a background check or a psychological exam before they “interpret” the Bible, or before they start, there own “Christian”, “Bible based” denomination.

Anyone, with a Bible and charismatic personality can start a “Christian” Church based on this flawed belief.

You do not see a problem with this.

Sure, we know now, that these people were crazy but they did not die alone. They took many of their, innocent followers with them, followers, who were confident in their leader’s ability to, "personality interpret the Bible”.

Personal interpretation of the Bible, unchecked, is a flawed belief and an inherently dangerous belief that has resulted in some pretty horrific and tragic events…

Would it make any sense to allow, anyone who wants to, to pick up a Penal Code and “personally interpret the Law”? Of course not but for some reason this logic is not apply to the flawed doctrine, of personal interpretation of the Bible.

Do you disagree with these comments?

Yours thoughts?

 

[BrianH]

Jimmy
Is it not true that you believe the only reasonable way to check this is Catholicism?
If so, you will also admit that Catholicism does not/has not prevented horrible things from happening either?
I am speaking specifically about your decision to start your premise with these three people.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy
Is it not true that you believe the only reasonable way to check this is Catholicism?

Good point and you right…structure can be found in some of the older and more traditional, Protestant denominations and that’s a good thing.

It just seems to me that, with every break and every new sub-denomination of non-Catholic Christianity, there exists a greater risk of these types of mass suicides and murders occurring.

There are many now, who belong to the “religion of one” – based on their own personal interpretation, based on their own ego and their own intellect; no need for a church or anyone else…“just me, God and my Bible”.

The crazy thing is that Christianity is all about community and also about unity and not about, individuals and division.

I would like to know what people think about personal interpretation of the bible and also, what people here think about the term, “I have a personal relationship with Jesus”. What does that even mean?

Thank you for your post.

Peace

 

[adelore]

Jimmy
Is it not true that you believe the only reasonable way to check this is Catholicism?
If so, you will also admit that Catholicism does not/has not prevented horrible things from happening either?
I am speaking specifically about your decision to start your premise with these three people.

BrianH,

You are very right there have been people in the Catholic Church that have done some horrible things. (Just like we can find in all churchs.)

Yet, The Teachings of the Church has not swayed or brought People to do things wrong or to lead others into distructive ways.

This is why the Solid Teachings of the Catholic Church have stood the test of time. The Teachings are not “Up for Grabes and Aren’t Changed to Please People or Tickle their Ears” They are the Solid Teachings, not subject to personal interapation.

Yes there will always be people in Every Church Religion that end up doing horrible things.

Yet if these same people were true to their faith and if Satan didn’t have a hand in this, of course none of this would happen. I mean after all if we look at Judas, He was among Jesus chosen followers and look at what he did.

We should never judge a Church by the people, pastor, or priest in it. We should sit back and say to ourselves, What does the Church believe and Why? What is their Proof, what is the background of this Church, and what is this Chruchs “Roots” back to Jesus.

 

[Jimmy_B]

BrianH,

You are very right there have been people in the Catholic Church that have done some horrible things. (Just like we can find in all churchs.)

Yet, The Teachings of the Church has not swayed or brought People to do things wrong or to lead others into distructive ways.

This is why the Solid Teachings of the Catholic Church have stood the test of time. The Teachings are not “Up for Grabes and Aren’t Changed to Please People or Tickle their Ears” They are the Solid Teachings, not subject to personal interapation.

Yes there will always be people in Every Church Religion that end up doing horrible things.

Yet if these same people were true to their faith and if Satan didn’t have a hand in this, of course none of this would happen. I mean after all if we look at Judas, He was among Jesus chosen followers and look at what he did.

We should never judge a Church by the people, pastor, or priest in it. We should sit back and say to ourselves, What does the Church believe and Why? What is their Proof, what is the background of this Church, and what is this Chruchs “Roots” back to Jesus.

You raise some valid questions for non-Catholic Christians -

1. What does the Church believe?
2. Why do they believe it?
3. What is their Proof?
4. What is the background of this Church?
5. What is this Church’s “Roots” back to Jesus?