Disgruntled Ex Catholics

[EvangAlived]

Good point. In this context, it was “anti-Catholicism”.

But it can lead to being anti-Catholic when you have people call us non Christians, attack our faith and say we are going to hell for various reasons. I know that first hand.

I can agree with most of what you stated.

Amongst the catholic faith there are true christians, and also those who are false. Yet, this is not unique (at present) to the catholic faith. The same could be said for others. Yet it may not necessarily be attributed to the doctrine believed or the practices in general (which may be in error). For instance, take a general (not all) Baptist (which I am not) position, that there are true christians among said faith/practice even though the OSAS teaching is error. The same could be said all around, generally so.

 

[modestobruce]

The first question on this site is “What’s the difference between Catholics and Christians”? That’s enough for me to blow it off.

 

[EvangAlived]

The first question on this site is “What’s the difference between Catholics and Christians”? That’s enough for me to blow it off.

That is indeed a poorly asked question.

 

[Godfollower]

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Genesis 40:8; Psalms 19:7; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 8:20, 28:10,13, John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and so on.

I take it you got that list from a Bible-only website? The only one of those citations that deals with private interpretation of Scripture is 2 Peter 1:20, which states:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

And the Bible expressly tells us that private interpretation is impossible:

And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Acts 8:30-31.

Indeed, St. Peter warned us what would happen if we tried to rely on our own interpretation of the letters that became the New Testament:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16 (discussing St. Paul’s letters).

The Bible is important. But Jesus left behind a Church (“the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,” 1Timothy 3:15 ) to help us understand what He wanted. When we try to rely only on our own interpretation of the Bible, we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

 

[EvangAlived]

When we try to rely only on our own interpretation of the Bible, we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

That’s why I just showed you that God interprets His own words, Genesis 40:8, as Peter knew, 2 Peter 1:20, and for those teaching scripture as Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch, they are not separating from what is in scripture itself, as per Acts 8:32,33,35, Isaiah 8:20. Philip’s answer was to be tested by the scripture, to the Law and Testimony. Private interpretation would have been Philip making up something on the spot about Isaiah’s prophecy.

I get my answers from scripture, and I cited those verses to all.

Paul, speaking to Timothy, was clear in 2 Timothy 3:14,15. Scripture. Again notice Isaiah 8:20, to the Law first, then to the Testimony second.

For instance, Daniel was a prophet, yes? He spake words that were not at first in scripture yes? Yet did not what Daniel share have to be in perfect agreement with all that Moses had written, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, etc?

For instance, John the Baptist (as far as we know, wrote nothing of scripture), but spake in the wilderness, and was much more than a prophet of God. Yet, his words (even cited from scripture) had to be tested by that which was already written.

For instance, Paul (or any NT writer), their foundation was always back to the word written, which foundation was the word of God, even the Ten Commandments (Law).

 

[Godfollower]

But you’re getting them wrong. That’s my point. The Scripture passages you’re citing say nothing about your ability to interpret Scripture. Yes, the prophets understood Scripture; they were called by God to be prophets. So of course He helped them to understand what He wanted. But we aren’t prophets; we’re just disciples of God. Nothing in Scripture promises that we can understand Scripture inerrantly; in fact, the Scripture expressly say that we can’t interpret Scripture on our own. That’s where you’re going astray.

 

[EvangAlived]

But you’re getting them wrong. That’s my point. The Scripture passages you’re citing say nothing about your ability to interpret Scripture

You misunderstood my response. I never claimed to be the interpreter of scripture. I said God was and cited Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20, as scripture states.

God is the giver of the word. It is God who defines His own word.

 

[EvangAlived]

Nothing in Scripture promises that we can understand Scripture inerrantly

Incorrect:

Psalms 25:5; John 10:35, 15:26, 16:7, 17:17; Acts 5:32.

God cannot err. The Holy Ghost is Deity. He takes the things of Jesus and explains them to us, as little children, John 6:45, 16:13,15.

 

[CelticWarlord]

I couldn’t disagree with you more

Aye, laddie, I’ve been where you are and cited all those verses at one time myself. It came down to “whose interpretation am I, then, to rely on? Fred Phelps’? Benny Hinn’s? Jimmy Swaggert’s?” The fact remains, despite the verses, that there is an enormous diversity of opinion within the Christian world as to what the bible says, means, and meant at the time it was written. I must stand by my original statement, though I also appreciate the intent behind your own.

When we consider that the early church had no New Testament until the fourth century, that it would be another thousand years before mechanical type made the printing of it quicker and affordable, and several hundred years more before the average person could get an education and be able to read it, that tells me the bible is secondary and, shocking yes, unnecessary to the life of faith. Since I view the Christian life primarily as one of transformation, then the dogma and doctrine derived from the manuscripts can be more of a hindrance than anything.

However, I enjoy the discourse tremendously and invite you to knock me about on this one too.

 

[Nelka]

True. What is the other one?

 

[lilypadrees]

The other website is CARM which was founded in 1995 and continues to be run by its founder, Matt Slick.

 

[Nelka]

Thanks.

Xx

 

[lilypadrees]

You’re very welcome.

 

[EvangAlived]

It came down to “whose interpretation am I, then, to rely on?

God’s. Genesis 40:8. God speaks, He defines, for He knows what He said. For instance:

Daniel 7:5, speaks of a bear, with “teeth” devouring.

According to God what are these “teeth” of the vision of the Bear?

See Psalms 57:4; Proverbs 30:14. It is always to be in the mouth of two or three witnesses (per God’s own rule in scripture).

Also natural things explain spiritual things - 1 Corinthians 15:46.

 

[CelticWarlord]

But that’s the whole problem, my friend. Everyone of diverse opinion claim to be representing God’s interpretation of things. We are no further ahead.

 

[EvangAlived]

But that’s the whole problem… Everyone of diverse opinion claim to be representing God’s interpretation of things. We are no further ahead.

Talk about a worthless ‘god’ who cannot even properly get His message across, and an even more worthless ‘religion’, which cannot possibly know what God said or meant, you just shot yourself in the foot.

Go back, read the text and the example given.

 

[CelticWarlord]

Talk about a worthless ‘god’ who cannot even properly get His message across,

I quite agree. But since God is not the author of confusion, I doubt He had much to do with those who wrote the manuscripts.

Your examples are fine but your explanation is too simplistic. Suppose I had a question about what a certain passage means in scripture, like the Ethiopian fellow in Acts. You are saying that God will tell me. But that is not helpful to the average person. Not being Catholic myself I have few issues with those who wish to offer an alternative to their tradition. But if I were to want to understand the bible most fully I would trust to the branch of Christianity which goes back the furthest. My old Baptist church is only a few centuries old at most. Lutherans and Anglicans, 500 years or so. Am I to believe that no one understood the bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity? I don’t think so. But neither do I believe Christianity is required or necessary.

 

[EvangAlived]

You are saying that God will tell me.

No. You just laid the responsibility upon me (“You are saying …”, No. I cited what God said He would do). God will tell you, as it is His responsibility.

 

[EvangAlived]

Am I to believe that no one understood the bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Who ever said such a thing? Not I.

 

[EvangAlived]

I quite agree.

But that would only be agreeing with your false representation. I never said that God could not get His message across, or that the religion of God was worthless. I believe and know for fact, it is quite the opposite. God indeed gets His message across (Isaiah 55:11). His religion is truth (John 14:6, 17:17).