Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[pablope]

The sad reality of living in English-speaking, Anglican-influenced, too-afraid-to-appear-Catholic America. :sad_yes:

But we’re returning to our German roots.

Why 14? What are the others?

The Apocrypha — 14 books of writings produced in the 400 years between the Old and New Testaments — is now available for the first time in English with Lutheran notes.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12374321]

I know, Jon. But let me ask, and not to put you in a spot…was this the view you also had before? Or did you have a change in view?

And I wish all of those in the LCMS would take your view.

My views have evolved, not from a position of opposition, but from a position of indifference.

Well, as the link stated… at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). This of course included the Carthaginian Biblical canon, which is thus TECHNICALLY binding on the modern Eastern Orthodox Church

The article explains it:

However, while Alexandria apparently (as it always did) followed the lead of Rome and accepted the Carthaginian canon, there was a major problem in the other Eastern patriarchate of Antioch (which represented the other half of the Eastern Church at the time), given that Antioch, at the time, was torn by internal schism, with two (and sometimes three) Catholic bishops all claiming to be the rightful Patriarch of Antioch! So, because of this, the canon of Carthage was never initially implemented or effectively accepted throughout the Patriarchate of Antioch; and since Constantinople (the Eastern imperial capital) was the Liturgical dependant of Antioch (the Byzantine Rite being a modified form of the Antiochian Rite), Constantinople never initally implemented the canon of Carthage either. And, because of this, well into the 8th Century, you have Byzantine and Antiochian fathers, such as St. John Damascene, recognizing books like 1 Clement to the Corinthians or the Book of Enoch as canonical works!

Yet, in terms of practice, the Antiochian (and thus Byzantine) parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to use pre-Carthaginian books in their local canons …and for the simple reason that these books (e.g. 3 & 4 Maccabees or the apocryphal Esdras, etc.) were always read in the church of Antioch. The fact that the council of Carthage excluded these books (because they contain some problematic material) was ignored. And it’s because of this neglect of the Carthaginian canon (as authorized by both Trullo and Nicaea II) that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (coming out of the Antiochian Liturgical tradition) often include such books in their published canons today. Yet, technically, they SHOULD consider themselves bound by Trullo’s and Nicaea II’s authorization of Carthage.

Interesting info. Thanks.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

You missed some in there. How about: what He has taught, for example?

He taught such things as
Lu 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

If you don’t follow those teachings, then you don’t follow Christ.

That doesn’t speak to my point, we are talking about if there is any other name by which man has to be saved.

Of course that is your opinion.
However, Jesus did NOT say:
“He who hears Kliska hears me, …”

Of course not. I make it clear when I teach anything that people better go check it out for themselves in scripture with much prayer and study, and they need to be convinced and convicted in what they believe.

It kinda sounds to me that you do not need a pastor or a church and all you need it the Bible to tell you what you think you need to know. At least that is how I am understanding it.

No, without the Holy Spirit, the word can’t be properly understood. I do, however, believe that if a person has a Bible (and God is guiding him) and can read it and comprehend whatever language it was written in, he has the information he needs to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.

Well…actually…you are already a denomination…only the name of your denom is “non” denom.

No, I literally don’t belong to any denomination. My name is on no church congregational membership.

And so, you are your own pastor/priest/bishop/pope? Do you determine yourself what to believe and what not to believe?

I follow the Holy Spirit, which includes being able to read and comprehend the scriptures. We indeed are a priesthood, as per scripture.

No…it is not Scripture that is the final measuring stick

I do indeed hold to the five sola’s, so Scripture is indeed the final measuring stick in my POV. A teaching that is held forth as truth cannot contradict scripture, the RCC also agrees with that.

Would you agree to this quote below:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Not and be comfortable with his conclusions, no. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and check the scripture to see if what we are being told or taught is accurate. There is interpretation, and then there is truth.

But you yourself believe in yourself, in what you says Scripture says…

By no means, I don’t trust myself, I do trust God absolutely, however.

Violation of Scripture according to whom? Are you the authority to actually say what Scripture says?

This isn’t a game I’m trying to play, I’m simply pointing out an issue that has developed from one who has always been outside of the RCC, looking in and studying the issue and the dogmas of the RCC. I can assure you, any denomination that claims to be the one true church, I do take their claims seriously and look into it.

God is the final authority, but He did indeed give us the word and the Spirit and leads us into understanding it. If He says there is no other name by which I must be saved, I believe Him. If someone says there’s another name by which I must be saved, I don’t believe them.

If you have really studied them, you will see that Marian Dogmas actually point to Christ, not the other way around.

Never-the-less it introduces things about another human being that I must confess if I’m to become a part of the RCC. It isn’t even a question of if someone believes those things or not, it is now a question of what must be affirmed before salvation. The RCC has now added a name and facts connected to that name that I must confess if I’m to become a member of the RCC itself. If I believed all other dogmas, and what they represent, but those, I still could not join.

All you have to do is to study the works of converts to the CC who grappled with the Marian dogmas, one of the most difficult things they had to overcome.

I have heard and studied many on TV, radio, and through books and websites. It is indeed a large sticking point for many, and if interviewed, I’m sure it turned many away from the RCC while studying it, and hence never joined.

 

[spina1953]

That doesn’t speak to my point, we are talking about if there is any other name by which man has to be saved.

Of course not. I make it clear when I teach anything that people better go check it out for themselves in scripture with much prayer and study, and they need to be convinced and convicted in what they believe.

No, without the Holy Spirit, the word can’t be properly understood. I do, however, believe that if a person has a Bible (and God is guiding him) and can read it and comprehend whatever language it was written in, he has the information he needs to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.

No, I literally don’t belong to any denomination. My name is on no church congregational membership.

I follow the Holy Spirit, which includes being able to read and comprehend the scriptures. We indeed are a priesthood, as per scripture.

I do indeed hold to the five sola’s, so Scripture is indeed the final measuring stick in my POV. A teaching that is held forth as truth cannot contradict scripture, the RCC also agrees with that.

Not and be comfortable with his conclusions, no. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and check the scripture to see if what we are being told or taught is accurate. There is interpretation, and then there is truth.

By no means, I don’t trust myself, I do trust God absolutely, however.

This isn’t a game I’m trying to play, I’m simply pointing out an issue that has developed from one who has always been outside of the RCC, looking in and studying the issue and the dogmas of the RCC. I can assure you, any denomination that claims to be the one true church, I do take their claims seriously and look into it.

God is the final authority, but He did indeed give us the word and the Spirit and leads us into understanding it. If He says there is no other name by which I must be saved, I believe Him. If someone says there’s another name by which I must be saved, I don’t believe them.

Never-the-less it introduces things about another human being that I must confess if I’m to become a part of the RCC. It isn’t even a question of if someone believes those things or not, it is now a question of what must be affirmed before salvation. The RCC has now added a name and facts connected to that name that I must confess if I’m to become a member of the RCC itself. If I believed all other dogmas, and what they represent, but those, I still could not join.

I have heard and studied many on TV, radio, and through books and websites. It is indeed a large sticking point for many, and if interviewed, I’m sure it turned many away from the RCC while studying it, and hence never joined.

I suppose but how does one really know that the Holy Spirit is really guiding one to the correct interpretation of Scripture?

 

[steido01]

But this is speculation also…right?

Of course. Just showing how it can go the other way. But please note that I quoted Luther and historic fact in my opinion. Michuta ignored the original texts and actions, and instead applied a “motive” to “protestants.” Come, now. Is that a fair way to read the past?

I will just add a difference here-those catholic theologians, though had varying opinions, always said to defer to the Church, sought the guidance of the Church, in contrast to Luther who said for the individual to determine himself.

On an open topic, yes, Luther did not constrain the individual’s conscience. Had the Church spoken definitively on the canon prior to Trent, who knows what Luther’s opinion might’ve been?

Both East and West have accepted the Canon settled at Carthage…There is more to Carthage being a regional than you would like to think.

Of course. I didn’t mean to downplay the importance of those regional/local councils, only to note that they weren’t binding on all of Christendom. I agree with Jon that these councils ought to carry tremendous weight when contemplating how we build the canon.

 

[steido01]

Notice, though, that this is a separate book, and it is called Apocrypha.

Tomato, tomatoe.

Used in the liturgy, used in the hymnody. Occasionally spoken during readings in some Lutheran churches. What more does it need? So Lutherans don’t afford those books the same level as the four Gospels, or other holy books. Catholics don’t either, really.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Kliska: If say five or six people all read the same passage of Scripture and each has a different interpretation of it and they each claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and so therefore each one says that they are correct in their interpretation of the passage each had read, how does one know which one is correct? When each claims the same Holy Spirit has guided them to the correct interpretation and understanding of the passage each had read? The Holy Spirit can’t be present if each says that their interpretation is the correct one? or do you think that the Holy Spirit guides each to have a different interpretation of the exact same passage and each is correct?

 

[Kliska]

I suppose but how does one really know that the Holy Spirit is really guiding one to the correct interpretation of Scripture?

It is along the lines of the Spirit testifying to our spirit. It’s a bit like asking which way a sheep knows to go, and what it is doing is following the voice of the Shepherd. The comforter and guide we were promised by Jesus, I believe scripture plainly teaches to be the Spirit… and by hook or by crook He will indeed guide, sometimes by a two-by-four upside the head. Have you ever changed a position that is religiously based? If so how did you know it was right? Did you ever have “a-ha” moments reading scripture?

Scripture that helps me try to explain it;

*Isaiah 30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

1 John 2:27 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. *

But all of this is a bit off-topic. As this is a thread questioning Protestants about protesting, I’m trying to offer a little glimpse into why some of us are still protestant… though again, I’m not “protesting” anything but the label still sticks. One thing about labels is that they don’t age very well. “Reformers” and “Protestors” were originally trying to change something from inside of the structure, now us “protestants” are, in the main, outside of the organization, and have never been in it, I’m not sure the old labels still fit, which is why we are now “separated brethren” in the eyes of the RCC I believe?

 

[Kliska]

Hi Kliska: If say five or six people all read the same passage of Scripture and each has a different interpretation of it and they each claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and so therefore each one says that they are correct in their interpretation of the passage each had read, how does one know which one is correct? When each claims the same Holy Spirit has guided them to the correct interpretation and understanding of the passage each had read? The Holy Spirit can’t be present if each says that their interpretation is the correct one? or do you think that the Holy Spirit guides each to have a different interpretation of the exact same passage and each is correct?

We must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. In short, I trust God 100% to get the job done of leading and guiding. The RCC says it is the magisterium and pope that leads and guides, I believe it is the Holy Spirit directly indwelling and interacting with each believer. There’s just a one step difference in our beliefs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I suppose but how does one really know that the Holy Spirit is really guiding one to the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Having interacted with Kliska, I can say that she is one of the most sober and rational persons I have exchanged theological opinions with.

Your question, however, is one we must ask ourselves as Catholics too.

We trust in the Church for when we are stuck or we are not sure if our interpretation is on par with Church teaching. But still, the fact is that the Church has not interpreted all of Scriptures and that most of them are still “open” to interpretation within the boundaries of the Faith.

Take for example “Molinism” and “Thomism”, both are accepted by the Church and both use arguments from Scripture.

So, on a personal level - we as Catholics use a lot of private interpretation and life application as well. We just don’t make it a doctrine on our own and/or pit it against the Church.

But for example, there are passages of Scripture that I interpret for myself as an individual for my daily life as a source of strength and inspiration and walk in my imitation of Christ.

The difference for Kilska is - where are her boundaries? To where does she go to test what she is interpreting? I have relied and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me, but there are passages where I am not going to make myself an independent authority. So I go to the Church as my safety net. Because the Church is also led by the Spirit. If I am at odds in my interpretation against the Church, I yield because I recognize the role of the Church in my life as a Christian. (1 Timothy 3:15). Just as Scriptures have a role (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Just as the Teaching Office (Magisterium) has a role (Matthew 28:16-20).

So instead of asking “how do you know the correct interpretation of scriptures?” - since most of them are “open”.

I would ask: “How and with whom do you test what has been revealed to you?” After all, Paul came to the Church to be confirmed and accepted after having a direct encounter with Christ (Galatians 2:1-10).

He did not go alone

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;[a] 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That doesn’t speak to my point, we are talking about if there is any other name by which man has to be saved.

No, that’s not all we were talking about.
YOU were talking about an implied INTERPRETATION of what that means.

Of course not. I make it clear when I teach anything that people better go check it out for themselves in scripture with much prayer and study, and they need to be convinced and convicted in what they believe.

Of, I’ve done that, and continue to do it frequently. And I find I am in strong disagreement with you. What do we do now to determine the Truth? If only Jesus had left us with some kind of teaching authority …

No, without the Holy Spirit, the word can’t be properly understood. I do, however, believe that if a person has a Bible (and God is guiding him) and can read it and comprehend whatever language it was written in, he has the information he needs to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.

Of course. Just like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Oh, wait …

You see, your interpretation is unbiblical.

No, I literally don’t belong to any denomination. My name is on no church congregational membership.

So, who do you worship with? Or do you violate Hebrews 10:23-25?

I do indeed hold to the five sola’s, so Scripture is indeed the final measuring stick in my POV.

I see. So, you have beliefs that violate scripture.

A teaching that is held forth as truth cannot contradict scripture, the RCC also agrees with that.

Yes, we do.

Not and be comfortable with his conclusions, no.

I can understand that. His conclusions are logical, however uncomfortable that may be.

We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and check the scripture to see if what we are being told or taught is accurate. There is interpretation, and then there is truth.

I agree.

By no means, I don’t trust myself, I do trust God absolutely, however.

Me, too. And, unless you claim that God talks directly to you, personally (are you a prophet?), then you should listen to the organization He commissioned to teach His Truth.

Otherwise, no matter how much you deny it, you are simply trusting yourself over Jesus’ word.

This isn’t a game I’m trying to play, I’m simply pointing out an issue that has developed from one who has always been outside of the RCC, looking in and studying the issue and the dogmas of the RCC. I can assure you, any denomination that claims to be the one true church, I do take their claims seriously and look into it.

Is believing in Marian dogmas violating that, or is that just your opinion?

Never-the-less it introduces things about another human being that I must confess if I’m to become a part of the RCC.

As was just said, ALL the Marian dogmas point to Christ. Denying any of them denies an essential truth about Him.

Would it be ok to not believe in the Virgin Birth (one of the Marian dogmas)?

It isn’t even a question of if someone believes those things or not, it is now a question of what must be affirmed before salvation. The RCC has now added a name and facts connected to that name that I must confess if I’m to become a member of the RCC itself. If I believed all other dogmas, and what they represent, but those, I still could not join.

How about things about St. Peter? When Jesus says Mt 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Should you need to believe in the things that St. Peter binds and looses?

Jesus says so. You seem to want to “interpret” what Jesus says. Interestingly, your “interpreting” it away is actually a tradition of men, which nullifies the Word of God.

I have heard and studied many on TV, radio, and through books and websites. It is indeed a large sticking point for many, and if interviewed, I’m sure it turned many away from the RCC while studying it, and hence never joined.

Perhaps. Yet it is still true.
Jesus went through the exact same thing regarding His Body & Blood in John 6. Many of His disciples left Him that day. He still didn’t compromise on the Truth.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Tomato, tomatoe.

Baloney.

Used in the liturgy, used in the hymnody. Occasionally spoken during readings in some Lutheran churches. What more does it need?

Proclaimed to be “the word of God.”

 

[Kliska]

No, that’s not all we were talking about.
YOU were talking about an implied INTERPRETATION of what that means.

Then what do you believe is the proper interpretation? What name is it that we must be saved by? I’m not even talking interpretation, but rather reading a sentence that we all agree on; it is by the name of Jesus the Christ we must be saved, you, I, that baptist down the street. We actually agree on quite a bit of the big questions.

Of, I’ve done that, and continue to do it frequently. And I find I am in strong disagreement with you. What do we do now to determine the Truth? If only Jesus had left us with some kind of teaching authority …

You’re indwelt if you are a born again believer. I don’t have to worry about convincing you of anything; that’s betwixt you and the Lord. I weigh in where I think my perspective was asked, like this thread. I also value the Catholic perspective on things I am truly researching; I’ve had a ton of advice and help on studying things like the eucharist, and prayer.

Of course. Just like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Oh, wait …

You see, your interpretation is unbiblical.

We’ll see, there’s coming a time when none of us will have to debate. Maranatha!

So, who do you worship with? Or do you violate Hebrews 10:23-25?

I can tell by your tone you are upset with me or something I have said, and nothing I explain will change that, I fear. To ease your mind on Paul, I have the distinct blessing of being from an extremely strong family of believers (blood relation and otherwise), including one rather opinionated baptist preacher uncle (ha!), we continually gather together and encourage one another, worship, sing, study, etc… especially in these dark times. I’m growing to love my fellow believers more and more and am heartbroken over the divisions that are still there in the organizational churches. Paul underscores the faithfulness of God in those verses as well, it is in Him that I place all my faith. If I am wrong, I trust Him to correct me, He’s done it in spectacular fashion before, praise Him!

With that, I’ll wish you a good day. Pray for me and I shall pray for you

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Then what do you believe is the proper interpretation? What name is it that we must be saved by? I’m not even talking interpretation, but rather reading a sentence that we all agree on; it is by the name of Jesus the Christ we must be saved, you, I, that baptist down the street. We actually agree on quite a bit of the big questions.

You seem to be interpreting this to mean that belief in the Marian dogmas violates this. That is your (mis)interpretation.

You’re indwelt if you are a born again believer.

Yes, I have been baptized and I certainly trust in Jesus.

I don’t have to worry about convincing you of anything; that’s betwixt you and the Lord. I weigh in where I think my perspective was asked, like this thread. I also value the Catholic perspective on things I am truly researching; I’ve had a ton of advice and help on studying things like the eucharist, and prayer.

So, we can’t find the truth on important matters such as Soteriology? Hmmm … that IS problematic.

We’ll see, there’s coming a time when none of us will have to debate. Maranatha!

Amen to that!
But, in the meantime, shouldn’t we be obeying Christ?

I can tell by your tone you are upset with me or something I have said, and nothing I explain will change that, I fear.

I’m a logical thinker, not prone to be swayed by emotion. I’m an engineer.

To ease your mind on Paul, I have the distinct blessing of being from an extremely strong family of believers (blood relation and otherwise), including one rather opinionated baptist preacher uncle (ha!), we continually gather together and encourage one another, worship, sing, study, etc… especially in these dark times. I’m growing to love my fellow believers more and more and am heartbroken over the divisions that are still there in the organizational churches. Paul underscores the faithfulness of God in those verses as well, it is in Him that I place all my faith. If I am wrong, I trust Him to correct me, He’s done it in spectacular fashion before, praise Him!

He has authorized the Church to correct each of us. In refusing to listen to the Church, you might just find yourself refusing to listen to Him. [Luke 10:16, Matt 18:17]

With that, I’ll wish you a good day. Pray for me and I shall pray for you

That I will do!

 

[spina1953]

Having interacted with Kliska, I can say that she is one of the most sober and rational persons I have exchanged theological opinions with.

Your question, however, is one we must ask ourselves as Catholics too.

We trust in the Church for when we are stuck or we are not sure if our interpretation is on par with Church teaching. But still, the fact is that the Church has not interpreted all of Scriptures and that most of them are still “open” to interpretation within the boundaries of the Faith.

Take for example “Molinism” and “Thomism”, both are accepted by the Church and both use arguments from Scripture.

So, on a personal level - we as Catholics use a lot of private interpretation and life application as well. We just don’t make it a doctrine on our own and/or pit it against the Church.

But for example, there are passages of Scripture that I interpret for myself as an individual for my daily life as a source of strength and inspiration and walk in my imitation of Christ.

The difference for Kilska is - where are her boundaries? To where does she go to test what she is interpreting? I have relied and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me, but there are passages where I am not going to make myself an independent authority. So I go to the Church as my safety net. Because the Church is also led by the Spirit. If I am at odds in my interpretation against the Church, I yield because I recognize the role of the Church in my life as a Christian. (1 Timothy 3:15). Just as Scriptures have a role (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Just as the Teaching Office (Magisterium) has a role (Matthew 28:16-20).

So instead of asking “how do you know the correct interpretation of scriptures?” - since most of them are “open”.

I would ask: “How and with whom do you test what has been revealed to you?” After all, Paul came to the Church to be confirmed and accepted after having a direct encounter with Christ (Galatians 2:1-10).

He did not go alone

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;[a] 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

OK You might be correct about we all in some manor interpret Scripture. However if one does not have a church or a pastor to help discern whether or not it really is the Holy Spirit guiding then any one can just interpret Scripture and make the claim that the Holy Spirit guided them to whatever the interpretation they think is correct. and say that what it means when in fact it may not mean what someone think it means.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m a logical thinker, not prone to be swayed by emotion. I’m an engineer.

Haha, I bet all logic goes south when a project goes south really bad, lol.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

OK You might be correct about we all in some manor interpret Scripture. However if one does not have a church or a pastor to help discern whether or not it really is the Holy Spirit guiding then any one can just interpret Scripture and make the claim that the Holy Spirit guided them to whatever the interpretation they think is correct. and say that what it means when in fact it may not mean what someone think it means.

Yup, that why I asked:

*“How and with whom do you test what has been revealed to you?” After all, Paul came to the Church to be confirmed and accepted after having a direct encounter with Christ (Galatians 2:1-10). *

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Haha, I bet all logic goes south when a project goes south really bad, lol.

Maybe theoretically. I don’t know. My designs work.

 

[spina1953]

Yup, that why I asked:

*“How and with whom do you test what has been revealed to you?” After all, Paul came to the Church to be confirmed and accepted after having a direct encounter with Christ (Galatians 2:1-10). *

Hi Isaiah45: Thought that was what you asked. I can very well understand that we interpret Scripture on a personal level, but I do not just trust my interpretation unless it in conformity with what the CC teaches. I say this because I could be wrong in my interpretation and so need the authority of the CC to help me in understanding Scripture so that I can live the Gospels better than I may have been doing. Does that make any sense?

 

[Kliska]

Having interacted with Kliska, I can say that she is one of the most sober and rational persons I have exchanged theological opinions with.

Your question, however, is one we must ask ourselves as Catholics too.

We trust in the Church for when we are stuck or we are not sure if our interpretation is on par with Church teaching. But still, the fact is that the Church has not interpreted all of Scriptures and that most of them are still “open” to interpretation within the boundaries of the Faith.

Take for example “Molinism” and “Thomism”, both are accepted by the Church and both use arguments from Scripture.

So, on a personal level - we as Catholics use a lot of private interpretation and life application as well. We just don’t make it a doctrine on our own and/or pit it against the Church.

But for example, there are passages of Scripture that I interpret for myself as an individual for my daily life as a source of strength and inspiration and walk in my imitation of Christ.

The difference for Kilska is - where are her boundaries? To where does she go to test what she is interpreting? I have relied and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me, but there are passages where I am not going to make myself an independent authority. So I go to the Church as my safety net. Because the Church is also led by the Spirit. If I am at odds in my interpretation against the Church, I yield because I recognize the role of the Church in my life as a Christian. (1 Timothy 3:15). Just as Scriptures have a role (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Just as the Teaching Office (Magisterium) has a role (Matthew 28:16-20).

So instead of asking “how do you know the correct interpretation of scriptures?” - since most of them are “open”.

I would ask: “How and with whom do you test what has been revealed to you?” After all, Paul came to the Church to be confirmed and accepted after having a direct encounter with Christ (Galatians 2:1-10).

He did not go alone

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;[a] 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

I thank you; you’ve done a better job than me explaining it.

Some from a more liturgical background with a formal guiding body within their organization think that it must be fantastic to feel as though you and God are “on your own” with scripture as far as interpretation. Not so! The RCC holds certain strong appeal for a protestant like me (other protestants who hold similar views as far as hierarchy similar to the RCC may not have that particular pull) for that very reason. If I want to know truth about an extremely serious issue, there is no one right in front me telling me what to believe, I have to suss it out with much prayer and studying (and even fasting on the hardest issues). I don’t claim to be as Paul; with the Holy Spirit and the Lord directly and literally telling him what to do, but his interaction is a model to look to. Do I feel I’ve ever been lead directly to truth via scripture by God? Sure. Do I ever felt lead in life to do something, or help someone? Sure.