Catholic vs Protestant Biblical Interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shewmake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikemck said:
But both the Trinity and the scriptures are taught in principle in the Bible. The idea of an “infallible” pope is not.
Click to expand...
Please define what you THINK the Church teaches on the subject of infallibility as it relates to the subject being discussed.
 
Tietjen said:
See thats the entire problem with Bible Only folks. If it’s not in the Bible, it just didn’t happen. For instance automobiles. They are mentioned, yet I bet you don’t play hop scotch on the interstates. And Christ lived on the Earth 33 years and never ate anything more than honey, fish, and bread right? No, the word Pope doesn’t exist in the Bible. That is a far cry from saying that there was no head of the Church after the death of Christ though. But you keep insisting that if it isn’t in the Bible then it didn’t happen. Ignore ALL the other texts that do exist and were written soon after the ascention if you wish. Ya know, the thing that is really ironic, is that all these sola scriptora people out there forget where the Bible itself came from (who compiled it). Yet, while they ignore the fact that it was the Catholic Church that did this, at the same time they are blind to everything else that doesn’t appear within it’s pages. Well, what can ya do but simply throw up your arms and say, “peace brother, may God some day open your eyes to the WHOLE truth.” God bless.
Click to expand...
In other words, “You’re right. The idea of an infallible man in office over all of the church, speaking on God’s behalf, isn’t Biblical”.
 
mikemck said:
In other words, “You’re right. The idea of an infallible man in office over all of the church, speaking on God’s behalf, isn’t Biblical”.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18 -And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.)
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=18&f=s#x
 
mikemck said:
In other words, “You’re right. The idea of an infallible man in office over all of the church, speaking on God’s behalf, isn’t Biblical”.
Click to expand...
Mike, if you’re truly here to win an argument, I’m afraid that you’re in the wrong place. 2000 years of Christ’s truth FAR outweighs what you have to say on this subject. The fact that you are purposefully misrepresenting what I said, proves that you are a liar. I did not say that “you’re right,” I did not even suggest that and everyone can easy scroll back up and see what I wrote. Certainly protestants have a more worthy champion than a liar. Lying simply isn’t of God, so who do you REALLY belong to?
 
mikemck said:
That’s swell. Now where does the Bible say anything about a pope?
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible say anything about any man deriving authority in any other way than from the Apostles and their successors thorugh Christ?

“Elders” in the Bible aren’t elected. They’re appointed.

Jeremy
 
Karin said:
Matthew 16:18 -And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.)
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=18&f=s#x
Click to expand...
OK. So we have a verse in which Jesus tells Peter that He’s going to build His church on Peter’s confession. It says nothing at all about a pope of any kind.
 
Tietjen said:
Mike, if you’re truly here to win an argument, I’m afraid that you’re in the wrong place. 2000 years of Christ’s truth FAR outweighs what you have to say on this subject.
Click to expand...
And God’s word FAR outweighs your church’s teachings.
The fact that you are purposefully misrepresenting what I said, proves that you are a liar. I did not say that “you’re right,” I did not even suggest that and everyone can easy scroll back up and see what I wrote.
Click to expand...
You wrote nothing. That’s why all I could do was to try to interpret it.

You have purposely and consistently avoided what should be very simple questions.
Certainly protestants have a more worthy champion than a liar.
Click to expand...
Funny, I think the same thing about Roman Catholics everytime I hear the pope (former Hitler Youth) open his mouth.
Lying simply isn’t of God, so who do you REALLY belong to?
Click to expand...
I belong to Christ.
 
jemfinch said:
Where does the Bible say anything about any man deriving authority in any other way than from the Apostles and their successors thorugh Christ?
Click to expand...
Where does it say that they are?

Why do Paul’s letters talk about choosing pastors and other ministers in the church?
“Elders” in the Bible aren’t elected. They’re appointed.
Click to expand...
You’re right. That’s why we appoint them and don’t elect them.
 
Damascus said:
Mary is honored by all Catholics. Thank you for bringing her up. I feel inspired to say a Hail Mary right now.
Click to expand...
Really? Mary is honored by name calling? Obviously, I’ve greatly overestimated the Roman Catholic version of Mary.
 
Damascus said:
Mary is not honored by name calling. Are you indicting yourself here?
Click to expand...
No. I haven’t called anyone anything.

I’m referring to those Roman Catholics here who have called me “imbecille”, “illiterate”, “redneck”, and now, “Mikey”.

I wouldn’t have thought that Mary would go in for this sort of thing, but then, just look at her children.
 
mikemck said:
No. I haven’t called anyone anything.

I’m referring to those Roman Catholics here who have called me “imbecille”, “illiterate”, “redneck”, and now, “Mikey”.

I wouldn’t have thought that Mary would go in for this sort of thing, but then, just look at her children.
Click to expand...
“look at her children”

So, you are not in this group then?
 
mikemck said:
Where does it say that they are?
Click to expand...
Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus.
Why do Paul’s letters talk about choosing pastors and other ministers in the church?
Click to expand...
Because Timothy and Titus, bishops and possessors of apostolic authority, were to appoint subsequent successors in the cities they visited.
You’re right. That’s why we appoint them and don’t elect them.
Click to expand...
Whence came your authority to appoint? Timothy’s came from the elders who laid hands on them. Where does yours come from?

Jeremy
 
I think the biggest question here is Truth. What is it? Where does it lie? One of the first times I began to question the FULLNESS of my faith was when I asked this question: “Why do we Lutherans believe our faith and our theology is right? Because the Lutheran church only began in the 16th century. Was all of Christianity before that just plain wrong, but one German monk 1500 years after Christ lived happened to get it right?” And Luther was a Catholic! For me, it is a question of faith. Do I put my faith in the Catholic Church that has been around for 2000 years or a non-denominational Christian faith? More aptly put, do I trust the interpretation of the Bible that the Catholic Church has professed and upheld for centuries? Or the way the minister of a non-denominational Christian Church in my community decides to interpret scripture? Because there is no binding continuity of Biblical interpretation between non-denominational churches. That is why I have a hard time saying “All I need is a Bible and my brain, and I can interpret scripture myself.” I am still on the fence, but I think it is clear which way I am leaning, considering all of this… and more…
 
jemfinch said:
Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Next time, try to be a little more vague.
Because Timothy and Titus, bishops and possessors of apostolic authority, were to appoint subsequent successors in the cities they visited.
Click to expand...
But the letters weren’t written to Timothy and Titus.
Whence came your authority to appoint? Timothy’s came from the elders who laid hands on them. Where does yours come from?
Click to expand...
From the Bible.
 
mikemck said:
No. Mary is not my mother.
Click to expand...
Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

CCC# [494](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/494.htm’)😉 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140
As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143 ***CCC#**511 The Virgin Mary “cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation” (LG 56). She uttered her yes “in the name of all human nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *STh *III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top