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

[Chancellare]

I’ve never studied the Nestorians in particular. I usually use them as a counterexample to the argument that the currently largest branch of Christianity must be the right one, followed by the counterexample that the Orthodox were the most numerous once the Nestorians had been pruned back.

Be careful when picking something you have not studied. It might go against your own arguments…

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Be careful when picking something you have not studied. It might go against your own arguments…

True enough, but even examples you have studied can turn on you. One additional fact or a slight change of perspective can unravel a whole way of looking at a particular example. It’s best not to tie up your ego in your arguments. Humility: it’s not just a good idea…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Ah! Well, in that case, no such “doctrine of personal interpretation” exists. All Protestant denominations that I know of teach that an interpretation of Scripture must hold true to the basic rules of interpreting any written communication. That’s why the difference between a “Bible-derived” doctrine (I dislike the term “Bible-based.” It doesn’t mean anything to modern people and therefore lacks any ability to aid communication these days) and one blown with smoke and mirrors out a rear exit is not merely “in the eye of the beholder.” An interpretation either matches the rules or it doesn’t. Now, it’s certainly true that we have no official way to silence someone who just keeps insisting on a passionately held belief despite all evidence to the contrary.

You actually have a similar problem within the Vatican-led church. Anyone can read an official Vatican statement on a subject, or a series of statements that kind of surround an issue. Yet in order to apply it to a certain situation, you have to interpret it to that situation. Check out the Liturgy forum and you’ll see quite a lot of personal interpretation - simply because there are no official, direct answers to that exact question. (I find this thread particularly fascinating. They must have dissected Cardinal Arinze’s every facial tic trying to figure out exactly what he meant and how official it all was. The citations flew fast and furious. Great fun for those of us who love that kind of debate. I didn’t participate, though I engage in the angrily condemned practice nearly every mass.) We Protestants lack a mechanism to make such specific official statements - your church lacks the manpower.

Every tradition requires some level of personal application to the authoritative statements that apply. That application requires personal interpretation. That personal interpretation - in the case of EVERY tradition - has to fit the logical rules of interpreting any communication. Arguing that Catholic parishioners don’t need to engage in personal interpretation is like arguing they don’t need logic. It’s inherent in communication. You really can’t get rid of it.

And your point is? I started this thread, using the examples of leaders, of particular non-Catholic Christian denominations…not the members.

 

[Chancellare]

True enough, but even examples you have studied can turn on you. One additional fact or a slight change of perspective can unravel a whole way of looking at a particular example. It’s best not to tie up your ego in your arguments. Humility: it’s not just a good idea…

I give the credit to you then, really! - anyway it was your example which you did not study!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I give the credit to you then, really! - anyway it was your example which you did not study!

Did you think I was making a point regarding the Nestorians? I recall saying I’d find it interesting how Newman dealt with them. I didn’t have any particular point to pursue, or hypothesis as to how he might deal with them. It’ll be academically interesting, regardless.

Usually I do use the Nestorians to destroy a particular argumentum ad numerum. However, if I was arguing with a modern Nestorian I would use a different example. I’m sure I could find examples where I’m again ignorant of their teachings *per se *but the demographics is all I need.

My apologies if you thought I was saying you needed to show humility. That wasn’t my point. I figured we could both agree on the general need to show humility in using particular historical examples to prove a point.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

And your point is? I started this thread, using the examples of leaders, of particular non-Catholic Christian denominations…not the members.

Okay, ditch the members business. So your hypothesis is that of course it’s necessary for followers to use personal interpretation of Scriptures and other official teachings

but

it’s dangerous when leaders do so.

Have I got that more or less right?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Okay, ditch the members business. So your hypothesis is that of course it’s necessary for followers to use personal interpretation of Scriptures and other official teachings

but

it’s dangerous when leaders do so.

Have I got that more or less right?

Hello Crazy Diamond,

Thank you for your post.

Let me see if this helps.

Obviously, there can be only one version of the truth, right?

Therefore, from a Catholic perspective….any conclusion, which goes against Catholic teaching, cannot be the truth.

In order for “Personal Interpretation of the Bible” to work….All, would need to… independently… come to the same conclusion, or the same - one truth and they do not.

Can you understand my point now?

Peace

 

[Chancellare]

Usually I do use the Nestorians to destroy a particular argumentum ad numerum . However, if I was arguing with a modern Nestorian I would use a different example. I’m sure I could find examples where I’m again ignorant of their teachings *per se *but the demographics is all I need.

Again:
You used Nestorian heresy as an example to debunk development of doctrines but it is in fact an example showing how the process actually works.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Again:
You used Nestorian heresy as an example to debunk development of doctrines but it is in fact an example showing how the process actually works.

Whoops! I must have really miscommunicated somehow.

I really will read it; and I’m sure I’ll find it

interesting to see what limits he placed on developmental doctrine.

That will be the interesting part. Will he give any usable method to determine when someone has falsely claimed a development of doctrine, or will it end up as a circular appeal to authority?

I admit skepticism; in my experience, apologists generally start from the conclusion they want to reach and try to work backwards to principles they think their audience ought to agree with, whether they actually do or not. History is highly complex; if you can’t find some evidence against your theory in there somewhere, you’re probably not looking very hard. Historical arguments in my experience best show whether the investigator was serious about testing their theory with history or serious about proving their point from history.

Newman is considered particularly brilliant by many people. I’ve never read anything by him but brief quotes, usually epigrammatic in form. I really wasn’t trying to debunk his theory, just giving a few examples where I think

It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with them

I admit skepticism, but I’ve been convinced before when I started out skeptical.

 

[tassitus]

But you are incorrect Jimmy. Just you merely saying that thaey are untied doesn’t make it so. The Roman church saying that all of its faithful are united doesn’t make it so. If a Catholic willfully does not and will not believe in the Real Presence and still goes to mass, he or she is still counted and considered Catholic. I have known many Catholics over the years that are anything but united in their beliefs. Same goes for all churches. Your’s is not excluded.

Sorry to jump in so late here, but I think you are equating “unity” with “uniformity”. Big difference.

Otherwise, you might find yourself having to say that, according to your understanding of things, the United States are not (is not?), in fact, “united”.

I would like to say I am really enjoying the display of Christian brotherhood on this thread. My impression is that CrazyDiamond has done a lot to set the “tone” and I greatly respect him for it.

Peace all.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Hello Crazy Diamond,

Thank you for your post.

Let me see if this helps.

Obviously, there can be only one version of the truth, right?

You do love stepping into deep waters, Jimmy B!

Last May the Balzan Foundation sponsored a conference in Switzerland to discuss what people mean, religious and nonreligous alike, by “the truth.” You might find John Allen’s report on the conference, and his interview with an “atheist ally” of B16, interesting.

Therefore, from a Catholic perspective….any conclusion, which goes against Catholic teaching, cannot be the truth.

Some folks would pick on you for using the word “teaching” instead of “official promulgation of doctrine” or some phrase like that, but, in essence, I believe you have the right of it.

In order for “Personal Interpretation of the Bible” to work….All, would need to… independently… come to the same conclusion, or the same - one truth and they do not.

Not necessarily. To reach that conclusion you also have to assume perfect application of interpretational rules, zero mistakes due to sinfulness or immaturity, and perfect translational understanding of the original text. It would also require that Scripture answer all possible questions that can be asked.

If your scenario were correct, I would have destroyed Protestantism myself when I was four. My mother asked me to recite my weekly bible memory phrase, “He careth for me.” Hoping for understanding, she asked “Who careth for you?” I replied “God made carrots for me!”

I interpreted (and translated) the passage incorrectly. If we all have to reach exactly the same conclusions, then I destroyed the notion myself at a rather tender age. Fortunately for my tradition, personal interpretation assumes that the bullseye for “correct” interpretation is quite large. Not infinite, but you can hit the meaning you’re meant to hit without quite hitting exactly the same spot in the bullseye that another tradition hits.

Can you understand my point now?

Peace

I understand where you’re trying to go with it, but I think you’ve chosen some very rough backcountry roads. I think both of them deadend, but you might find a way to surprise me and take them all the way to the Vatican. One of your roads is examples of disasters brought on by nonCatholic religious leaders. That one is easily given counterexamples by any popes that supported crusades, which were far greater disasters than any of the cults you mentioned. The other road is “personal interpretation,” which you’re not going to be able to get away from as a Catholic either. Linking them together doesn’t strengthen those arguments, I think.

In my opinion, you’re better off going after other weaknesses of trying to use Scripture as a guide. For example, the original text doesn’t come with a Greek-English or Hebrew-English translation table, so how can you be sure what you’re working with is even close? It doesn’t come with an authoritative guide to understanding the cultures of the day, so aren’t Protestants raising pagan Greek writings to some sort of authoritative status by using them to help in interpretation?

You might find this interview with Cardinal Francis George interesting. He talks about the relationship of exegesis to Catholic tradition. I thought this was the best line:

“That [exegesis of passages without reference to any particular tradition’s teachings] means that the churches are all, in some sense, not scriptural.”

Indeed. When Scripture is the standard, we all come up short. When your tradition (or political party or nation or culture or ethnic group) is the standard, Scripture has to be… massaged a bit.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I would like to say I am really enjoying the display of Christian brotherhood on this thread. My impression is that CrazyDiamond has done a lot to set the “tone” and I greatly respect him for it.

Ouch! I wish I could say I was responsible. In fact, I got pretty hot under the collar:

I think you should give it five moons. All you’ve done so far is moon the other posters.

C’mon, I’m waiting for a coherent response, not tissues to wipe your nose for you.

It was sambos671 who sounded the first brotherly note:

Took a quick look at your blog. So I have a better idea about you. …]. Now that I know a little bit about you I can deal. You have a nice family BTW. And thanks for your service to your city and country.

That made me wonder if there was more to Jimmy B than straw man arguments. But when he wrote this to me, on another thread, I had to take a step back:

You don’t actually believe that I resemble your remarks…do you?

I had to ask what evidence I had that he was really trying to be offensive, as opposed to a kind of pushiness that certain personalities often display? I realized a lot of his remarks could be taken differently, if I assumed the best. (Some of them are still incomprehensible. What was that picture of a tissue box about, anyway?) Looked at that way, Jimmy B doesn’t seem so obnoxious.

So much for my vaunted Protestant ability to read text and hold alternate interpretations in mind before making a judgment…

 

[Jimmy_B]

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



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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

****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?

 

[sambos671]

Jimmy you’re last post can only be responed to by this. In as much as personal interpretation of the bible has lead to the views and actions of these horrendous men so the protection of the Church magesterium has failed to protect the church from the horrible views and actions of these men.

Stephen VII(Pope from 896 - 897)
Stephen’s sworn enemy was his predecessor to the Fisherman’s Ring, Formosus. Whatever Formosus had done to so enrage his successor isn’t completely clear, but dear Pope Stephen had his dead body dug up and put on trial for “coveting the papal throne.” Being found guilty (of course), the deceased was stripped, had its 3 fingers, used for bestowing blessings, cut off, and the body dumped in the Tiber River. Stephen got his, though. He was later imprisoned and strangled to death.

**Urban II(Pope from 1088 - 1099)**At the time of his papacy, many Catholic priests were married (even though they weren’t supposed to be). Urban was so outraged that he made a decree that all priests who were married or found to not be celibate be imprisoned forever (for the good of their eternal souls). That wasn’t enough to satisfy Urban though. After imprisoning the defrocked clergymen he had their wives and children sold in to slavery! I guess he needed to find a way to finance all of those prisons holding the lustful priests to save their poor, sinful, souls. Fortunately he wasn’t too busy with horny priests to ignore politics, though. Pope Urban II also took the time to start the First Crusade in 1095.
**Sixtus IV(Pope from 1471 - 1484)**Sixtus didn’t waste any time taking advantage of his new position. I’ll bet the word “nepotism” was invented just for him. Before the white smoke even had time to clear he made two of his nephews Cardinals and spent the rest of his reign throwing money and titles at pretty much everyone else he happened to be related to. To finance his whale status he brilliantly sold licenses for brothels in Rome, instituted a tax on priests who kept mistresses, and came up with the best scam ever in history - selling indulgences for the dead to their grieving loved ones
Alexander VI(Pope from 1492 - 1503)
The infamous Mr. Borgia was possibly the most wicked and corrupt pope in history. Or maybe he was just misunderstood. He was trained in the ways of the family business from a young age. His uncle Alfonso (Pope Calixtus III) bestowed powerful church positions upon him while he was still in his teens and then a cardinal at 25. Building upon his cardinalship he worked his way up to the office of vice chancellor of the Roman Church and amassing a great personal fortune in the process. He bribed his way to St. Peter’s - appointing anyone he could get in his pocket to cardinal to vote for him. Continuing on the family tradition, he also appointed his son and the teenage brother of his mistress as cardinals (strength in numbers you know). While enjoying the office of pope he also enjoyed an active sex life, was suspected of arranging murders of his rivals and indulging in orgies (hey, when in Rome…) and managed to father seven children. Being a model father of the times, his poor daughter, Lucrezia, got married off three times to help build alliances and when one of those marriage alliances went sour (to a guy she really liked), the pope/daddy/evil father-in-law had him stabbed to death.
**Pious XII (Pope from 1939 - 1958) **

Favorite drinking buddy of fascist leaders everywhere, Eugenio Pacelli was nicknamed “Hitler’s Pope.” In his quest to insure papal absolutism in Italy he buddied up to Hitler and Mussolini. Pious was a noted anti-Semite and racist, which is sad because he was one of the few people with enough political power at the time to have possibly changed the course of history.

 

[aksmoot]

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?

The problem I see with your criticism is this: RCC priests have molested children, Pope Benedict IX was rumored to have held bi-sexual orgies, other past popes have taken widow’s money in the form of abusing indulgences to line their own pockets, etc. It isn’t isolated to Protestants.

 

[ChristianKnight]

The problem I see with your criticism is this: RCC priests have molested children, Pope Benedict IX was rumored to have held bi-sexual orgies, other past popes have taken widow’s money in the form of abusing indulgences to line their own pockets, etc. It isn’t isolated to Protestants.

I predict this:

1. Jimmy will have a stroke.
2. You will be banned.

I don’t like #2, but thats what might happen.

 

[aksmoot]

I predict this:

1. Jimmy will have a stroke.
2. You will be banned.

I don’t like #2, but thats what might happen.

So in this forum you are allowed to equate all Protestant with those evil people you listed, and we are to ignore the other evil-doers of the past if it upsets you in return. I do not understand that logic. I hope I am not banned. I have been having intelligent discussion on here. Your posting was bigotted.

 

[aksmoot]

Yes, but avoid sounding like Catholics, they will use the term Godhead.

 

[ChristianKnight]

So in this forum you are allowed to equate all Protestant with those evil people you listed, and we are to ignore the other evil-doers of the past if it upsets you in return. I do not understand that logic. I hope I am not banned. I have been having intelligent discussion on here. Your posting was bigotted.

I am trying to help you… Here, it is not fair, it is never going to be fair when you have a forum dedicated to one side, and it will never be fair cause you can’t always have the Mods half protestant half catholic cause then it would turn into a fight.

Hitler was Catholic, but that doesn’t mean anything, just cause them people might have been protestants it doesn’t mean anything. Jimmy is trying to blame protestants for it, and I am trying to tell you, that answering it with equal blame is not going to help the situation or even prove a point.

btw, if you haven’t noticed, I am not Catholic, I am me (no one can really get that, people have to classify you into a group, which is why they call me a ‘protestant’.

 

[Ruthie]

Sigh. I wish people would quit saying Hitler was Catholic. He was born and baptized Catholic, yes.

So what?

So were much better men, like Martin Luther, who fell away. So were and are billions who didn’t fall away, like St. Francis, Blessed Mother Teresa, and John Paul the Great.

Hitler was a fallen-away Catholic - and a fallen-away Christian, for that matter. So quit with the “Hitler was Catholic” stuff. :banghead: