Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible?

[ufamtobie]

Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit was aware of this Happening says in (2 Peter 1: 20-21) First you MUST UNDERSTAND this: there is no prophesy contained in scripture which is a personal interpretation. Pophecy has never been put foward by MAN’S WILLING IT. It is rather that men IMPELLED by the HOLY SPIRIT have spoken under God’s influence.

And in** (2 Peter 2: 1) In time past there were false prophets among God’s people, and among you also there will be false teachers who will smuggle in pernicious heresies ** They will go SO FAR as to deny the Master who acquired them for his own, thereby bringing on themselves SWIFT DISASTER. Their lustful ways will lure many away. THROUGH THEM, the TRUE WAY will be made subject to contempt.

THROUGH THEM, the “True Way” The Catholic Church will be made subject to contempt. Sound like all the Catholic Bashings that go on here.

Martin Luther, did he took out 7 gospel from the Bible to fit his interpretation this is fact, can’t argue with the Facts. So many of the Protestant Churches do so today interpret the Gospels to fit their needs.

The Catholic Church has the True Teachings The True Way to interpet the bible and it don’t sway for NO ONE, if you believe you believe if you don’t you don’t It will not devide for you or me The Church remains TRUE to the Holy Spirit for it is the Holy Spirit who guides her and not man.

The Apostles Laid their Hands on their succesors of the Church and on down to the present Pope it says so in:** (1 Timothy 4: 14) Do not neglect the gift you received when, as a result of the prophecy, The PRESBYTERS Laid Their Hands On YOU.**

The laying on of hands the by the Presbyters above in (1 timothy 4: 14) The SUCCESSION continues to this very day in the Catholic Church.

As for the Protestant Church there is no succession only Division.

Ufamtobie

 

[Tietjen]

I rather believe that our separated brothers and sisters simply misinterpret areas of Scripture rather than “twisting it to fit their interpretation.” This happens because each Protestant is left to interpret Scripture individually. There is no ONE “pillar of truth” to turn to in their Churches.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think most people, even the mistaken ones, approach the Bible seriously and believe their interpretation is correct. I recall a book I read for school called the Four Views of Hell; literal, metaphorical, purgatorial, and conditional. All offered reasoned defenses and I doubt any of them thought they were twisting anything.
Some people no doubt knowlingly twist scriptures but that would take a level of self awareness that is unusual, not to mention a level of duplicity that is scary.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It’s always best to assume that people are acting from good motives. I agree with RightlyDivide and Tietjen. Since the bible originally came from the Catholic Church, I trust the Church’s interpretation of it. But Protestants weren’t brought up with this point of view. They have the bible but only know to interpret it by what their pastor tells them or their denomination or themselves. But I know Protestants who religiously read the bible and ask the Holy Spirit to guide them and it’s obvious from their lives that He does guide them. More often we disagree over points of doctrine, not so often on how to live as Christians.

 

[ralphinal]

I would avoid the word “twist” as well. A more common problem is either not using the verses before or after (the dreded “context”) or ignoring other verses that show the one used in a different light. Anyone can do this.

Another issue is one of translation. What it seems to say in English may not be what it said in Greek. Read the thread where people use the Bible to support homosexual activites, because it says “love.”

 

[PerryJ]

As a former protestant I can attest that one doesn’t attempt to incorrectly interpret the Bible; however, it is very easy to do. One miss-step in understanding grows exponentially as one reads the Bible. For example as protestant I did not believe in the Eucharist. Seems to be straight forward, yet we one reads the Bible so many stories and versus lead back to the Eucharist. The wedding of Cana or the final hours of Christ are just two examples. Each time one reads one of these stories one gets a partial understanding; but, not the full understanding. Now when one misunderstands the stories it impacts other stories. I have read the Bible many times; but, never understood it because I started with false premises. Premises based upon man’s beliefs and not God’s teachings. It really had a domino effect on my understanding of Scripture and my life.

 

[sandusky]

ufamtobie:

Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit was aware of this Happening says in (2 Peter 1: 20-21) First you MUST UNDERSTAND this: there is no prophesy contained in scripture which is a personal interpretation. Pophecy has never been put foward by MAN’S WILLING IT. It is rather that men IMPELLED by the HOLY SPIRIT have spoken under God’s influence.

You say that your interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20-21 is the correct interpretation, without any explanation as to why your interpretation is correct.

Will you explain how that verse prohibits anyone from interpreting scripture, please? I don’t see that it does.

 

[MrJim]

I attend a baptist church though I believe I’m very much on the way to Rome ; last night at bible study we’re studying through Jude in prep for a series on False Religions (Mormon/JW etc) and the deacon says about scripture that it is clear for anyone to understand and that “I don’t need to know what Ignatius had to say”. I held my tongue on that one, yet the OP made me think of it in that, yeah, I may not consider it actually a “twist” in a malicious way, it is very much a self interpretation of “understanding what it means for me now” and what it has ever meant any other time in history really doesn’t matter.

I was just sitting there :duh: trying to digest~he said aloud and clear what I’ve known to be understood; just to hear it put that way though was surprising. Now is all that matters, and what I think it means is what matters, and it is that mentality that keeps pushing me to Rome.

What will be interesting is that in this False Religion study the criteria presented will become a “pot/kettle/black” thing…I’m so not a good baptist…

 

[brkn1]

Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit was aware of this Happening says in (2 Peter 1: 20-21) First you MUST UNDERSTAND this: there is no prophesy contained in scripture which is a personal interpretation. Pophecy has never been put foward by MAN’S WILLING IT. It is rather that men IMPELLED by the HOLY SPIRIT have spoken under God’s influence.

Ufamtobie

These verses confirm that the Bible is the supreme and only true rule of what God’s Word is.
A Pope or council are personal interpretators, especially if they add to or change what God said or claim to have the only understanding of what God said.
Anything we understand from a verse or set of verses must always be supported by the rest of Scripture, or it is not correct interpretation. If Jesus said not to call any man “father” in a spiritual sense, then a personal group of persons, who say that it is now OK to do so, is not interpreting scripture properly, since it clearly violates what Jesus said in scripture. That would be a good example of wrong interpretation of scripture, since it violates what scripture said.

 

[PerryJ]

One of the methods used by my Protestant denomination was to take a verse out here and a verse out there to support beliefs. Amazing it always fit the belief of that pastor. When we got a new pastor new verses were emphasized to promote his beliefs. Can one understand the Constitution by pulling out a line here or there? No, you can not. One must understand the full text of the Bible.

I want to pursue the thought that Catholics add to or subtract from the Bible. I ask any protestant to tell me where in scripture the definition of the trinity exists? So why do protestants follow this belief. It is not defined in your Bible. They have added to scripture their own interpretation.

Reflect on adding and subtracting from and to Scripture. I have read individuals state that the Catholic faith did this to meet the requirements of their faith. This is simply ignoring facts. Read the writings of Luther and Calvin. They state very clearly that they have added and subtracted from the Bible. So if God’s “Bible is the supreme and only true rule of what God’s Word is” why did you let a man after 1,100 years add and subtract from it. Why do you follow the teachings of man? Do you believe Luther was inspired? A man that was anti-Semitic. A man that ordered his own followers murdered to gain favor with monarchies. Again read their writings. Do not be dependant upon Catholic’s. Search the truth and it will be there.

Note Luther added the word “Alone” to Romans to fit his beliefs. He subtracted several books in order to fit his beliefs. Actually he wanted to subtract more books that are still in the Bible; but, was persuaded by others to not delete them, one such book was James. Do you believe the book of James is inspired? If so how do you deal with the contradiction of following Luther’s changing of the Bible; yet, do not follow his full beliefs and take James out of your Bible now.

I apologize for digressing from the original point; however, the statements that Catholics do not follow the Bible are inaccurate and I felt needed to be addressed. Even as a protestant I understood we changed the Bible and the Faith as it is incontrovertible. Facts based upon both secular and protestant writings and historians.

 

[Cat]

I was evangelical Protestant for most of my life before converting to Catholicism.

I trusted those who were my pastors, teachers, missionaries, and authors. I think many evangelicals can say the same, or at least, we used to be able to say this. Lately it seems like so many of the evangelical leaders are being caught in sexual sins that it is becoming more difficult to trust them.

But as a child, a teenager, and young woman, I trusted them. They were my heroes.

When I was evangelical Protestant and I read the Bible, if I came across a passage that seemed to contradict what my beloved pastors and teachers taught me, I would find a way to make that passage “fit” what they said.

I HAD to do this. What my pastors and teachers were teaching me was my lifeline to friendship with God and eternity in heaven. If I were to discover that my pastors and teachers were teaching me false teachings, then I would have no assurance of heaven, no assurance that I REALLY knew God and was a Christian.

So yes, I believe that Protestants “twist” Scriptures, but not to fit their interpretation of the Bible. They twist them to bring them into line with what they have been taught, in order to keep their assurance that they know God and will spend eternity with him.

When my husband and I were kicked out of our evangelical church, the pastors used the Bible to justify their action. That’s when it all came crashing down. I realized that I could no longer trust pastors, teachers, missionaries, and authors. I could only trust Jesus.

Then I learned that Jesus had passed His authority to St. Peter and his successors in the Catholic Church. It’s right there in the Bible, a passage that I had been conveniently ignoring because it would have meant that my evangelical pastors and teachers had no authority. I faced this passage and accepted it.

 

[Tietjen]

I attend a baptist church though I believe I’m very much on the way to Rome ; last night at bible study we’re studying through Jude in prep for a series on False Religions (Mormon/JW etc) and the deacon says about scripture that it is clear for anyone to understand and that “I don’t need to know what Ignatius had to say”. I held my tongue on that one, yet the OP made me think of it in that, yeah, I may not consider it actually a “twist” in a malicious way, it is very much a self interpretation of “understanding what it means for me now” and what it has ever meant any other time in history really doesn’t matter.

I was just sitting there :duh: trying to digest~he said aloud and clear what I’ve known to be understood; just to hear it put that way though was surprising. Now is all that matters, and what I think it means is what matters, and it is that mentality that keeps pushing me to Rome.

What will be interesting is that in this False Religion study the criteria presented will become a “pot/kettle/black” thing…I’m so not a good baptist…

I don’t envy you. I am a cradle Catholic, yet when I was a child, my parents sent me to a Baptist private school because they couldn’t afford the Catholic school in the area. Long story short… in Bible class there at the Baptist school, Catholics were often included in those “False Religion” discussions . Several years of this contributed to my leaving the Church as a young adult. I guess that the point I’m trying to make is to be careful not to completely “buy in” to the discussion. If you know the truth, speak it and defend it. God bless.

 

[Syele]

I think most people, even the mistaken ones, approach the Bible seriously and believe their interpretation is correct. I recall a book I read for school called the Four Views of Hell; literal, metaphorical, purgatorial, and conditional. All offered reasoned defenses and I doubt any of them thought they were twisting anything.
Some people no doubt knowlingly twist scriptures but that would take a level of self awareness that is unusual, not to mention a level of duplicity that is scary.

Bold mine…

Excellent point. That is why people get so up in arms about these kind of threads, they often appear to be accusing all Protestants of that sort of duplicity. When in fact, most are seriously trying to seek God in whatever way they know how.

 

[ScottishColleen]

There are actually Protestants that do not hold to the “me and my bible lone ranger” theology

 

[Tietjen]

These verses confirm that the Bible is the supreme and only true rule of what God’s Word is.
A Pope or council are personal interpretators, especially if they add to or change what God said or claim to have the only understanding of what God said.
Anything we understand from a verse or set of verses must always be supported by the rest of Scripture, or it is not correct interpretation. If Jesus said not to call any man “father” in a spiritual sense, then a personal group of persons, who say that it is now OK to do so, is not interpreting scripture properly, since it clearly violates what Jesus said in scripture. That would be a good example of wrong interpretation of scripture, since it violates what scripture said.

So, I am very glad to hear that you completely understand and accept that the bread and WINE (not grape juice) are actually changed into the REAL body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ (as it absolutely says in the Bible) and are not simply symbolic. And what a great moment it is indeed that you also accept that Christ built His Church on Peter (the rock) as it most assuredly says in the gospels. And isn’t it a magnificent image of Our Lady being depicted in the book of Revelation? The Queen of Heaven with the crown and moon under her feet. Welcome home brother!

Oh and as a side note, do ya think that St. Paul was in trouble when he got to Heaven because he VERY often called himself “Father” in a spiritual sense and allowed himself to be called Father. He likewise called Abraham Father, and others in the faith. Things that make ya go hmmm… :ehh:

Sorry, perhaps we can discuss this more fully in a new thread.

 

[brkn1]

I want to pursue the thought that Catholics add to or subtract from the Bible. I ask any protestant to tell me where in scripture the definition of the trinity exists? So why do protestants follow this belief. It is not defined in your Bible. They have added to scripture their own interpretation.

I’m sorry to see that you do not agree that the Trinity exists.
It actually is defined in the Bible in more than one place.
The best one might be found in (1 John 5:7):

“For there are THREE (that would be a trinity) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (that would be Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE are one.”

You may consider that “my interpretation”, but I find it a very clear and definite biblical statement of the Trinity.

 

[brkn1]

So, I am very glad to hear that you completely understand and accept that the bread and WINE (not grape juice) are actually changed into the REAL body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ (as it absolutely says in the Bible) and are not simply symbolic. And what a great moment it is indeed that you also accept that Christ built His Church on Peter (the rock) as it most assuredly says in the gospels. And isn’t it a magnificent image of Our Lady being depicted in the book of Revelation? The Queen of Heaven with the crown and moon under her feet. Welcome home brother!

Oh and as a side note, do ya think that St. Paul was in trouble when he got to Heaven because he VERY often called himself “Father” in a spiritual sense and allowed himself to be called Father. He likewise called Abraham Father, and others in the faith. Things that make ya go hmmm… :ehh:

Sorry, perhaps we can discuss this more fully in a new thread.

I know there is a God of Heaven, but perhaps you could point out where the Bible uses “King of Heaven”.
The “Queen of Heaven” that you use to define Mary does not exist in Scripture either. There is a “queen of heaven” mentioned, but it is not what you want to title Mary by.
King and queen are terms used to describe rulers on earth. Jesus is the “King of kings”, but that is in relation to His being King over all the kings and people of earth, not “King of Heaven”.
If you are going to use such terms as being biblical terms, please point out where you found them in the Bible. Thanks.

 

[ufamtobie]

I know there is a God of Heaven, but perhaps you could point out where the Bible uses “King of Heaven”.
The “Queen of Heaven” that you use to define Mary does not exist in Scripture either. There is a “queen of heaven” mentioned, but it is not what you want to title Mary by.
King and queen are terms used to describe rulers on earth. Jesus is the “King of kings”, but that is in relation to His being King over all the kings and people of earth, not “King of Heaven”.
If you are going to use such terms as being biblical terms, please point out where you found them in the Bible. Thanks.

brkn1,

Obviously you have not read (Rev 19: 16) A name was written on the part of the cloak that covered his thigh: "KING of kings and LORD of lords."

Brkn1 again, you are wrong it does say that Jesus is a king in heaven When Jesus Christ returns again he will be wearing this cloak, “King of kings and Lord of lords”

Where is this cloak made when he returns was it made on earth or in heaven? Obviously it was made in heaven for Jesus Comes back to earth wearing it!

Protestant through and through you are regards to the title “Queen of Heaven” and many other bible verses you twist it to fit your interpretation.

Ufamtobie

 

[brkn1]

brkn1,

Obviously you have not read (Rev 19: 16) A name was written on the part of the cloak that covered his thigh: "KING of kings and LORD of lords."

Brkn1 again, you are wrong it does say that Jesus is a king in heaven When Jesus Christ returns again he will be wearing this cloak, “King of kings and Lord of lords”

Where is this cloak made when he returns was it made on earth or in heaven? Obviously it was made in heaven for Jesus Comes back to earth wearing it!

Protestant through and through you are regards to the title “Queen of Heaven” and many other bible verses you twist it to fit your interpretation.

Ufamtobie

Please show me where I twisted the bible verses about the title “queen of heaven”. Thanks.

 

[Hisalone]

I’m sorry to see that you do not agree that the Trinity exists.
It actually is defined in the Bible in more than one place.
The best one might be found in (1 John 5:7):

“For there are THREE (that would be a trinity) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (that would be Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE are one.”

You may consider that “my interpretation”, but I find it a very clear and definite biblical statement of the Trinity.

LOL
You do realize that overzealous scribes corrupted these verses that muslims have a field day with them using it as evidence that the whold of the bible has been corrupted by Christians to prove their beliefs.