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

[ralphinal]

That’s a difficult question for me to answer in a manner that would be satisfactory for you.

However, if you ask yourself the same question, and jot down the reasons why you believe that what you believe is true, I’d bet that they’ll be strikingly similar to my reasons, though they bring us to different conclusions.

Actually, I would be satisfied more with the answer and I worry less about how I take it. I am trying to grasp your position. It is one reason I asked your scriptura position and denomination. I would not doubt that the reasons would be similar. The more I do this, the more that seems to be the case.

Another difficult question.

Paul says this to the Corinthians church concerning their problems with unity:1 Corinthians 11:19

For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.The Greek word translated “factions,” is haeeresis.

Heresies are necessary; the issues heresies raise, drive the Church to God’s revelation for resolution. That’s the wisdom of God who knows the propensity of His people to wander.

That makes sense to me. In a lot of ways, it can be no other way. Why was the Trinity defined? Heresy forced the Church to define it. Same with many things hinted at in the Bible. Heresies force the Church to clear up misunderstandings. The question is, to me, when should people start sorting out the Truth?

Obvious heresies are one thing. What about the differences between denominations? How can these be resolved?

 

[PerryJ]

Exactly, the excerpt you have attached states " The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at in much the same way as scientific theory. A scientific theory, for the most part, is a reasoned explanation of observed (or unobserved, in some cases0 phenomena in the natural world."

I read post after post that state Catholic’s add to the Bible. That indulgences, purgatory etc are frabirications and not in the Bible. Yet purgatory and indulgences are contained in the Bible just as the Trinity is in the Bible. Your article makes my point that Protestants add to the Bible. This article talks of “implied” and “inference”. Yet Catholcis that defined the Bible are not allowed to do this? It is stated we are adding to the Bible.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Actually, I would be satisfied more with the answer and I worry less about how I take it. I am trying to grasp your position. It is one reason I asked your scriptura position and denomination. I would not doubt that the reasons would be similar. The more I do this, the more that seems to be the case.

Broadly, by a prayerful examination of the data, and a leading of the Spirit.

ralphinal:

Obvious heresies are one thing. What about the differences between denominations? How can these be resolved?

I don’t think they’ll ever be resolved.

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

I read post after post that state Catholic’s add to the Bible. That indulgences, purgatory etc are frabirications and not in the Bible. Yet purgatory and indulgences are contained in the Bible just as the Trinity is in the Bible. Your article makes my point that Protestants add to the Bible. This article talks of “implied” and “inference”. Yet Catholcis that defined the Bible are not allowed to do this? It is stated we are adding to the Bible.

IMO, the evidences for the Trinity, implied or otherwise, are, hands down, much more numerous than they are for indulgences, purgatory, Marian dogmas etc.

You and I won’t argue on the implication of the Trinity in the Scripture because we both consider it settled; however, we will argue on the implications of the other issues you raise—we both consider those settled as well, but to different conclusions.

I’ve heard people reject implied Catholic doctrines, but I’ve never heard anyone say that Catholics “are not allowed to do this.”

As far as Catholics having defined the Bible, I’ll leave you with the assessment of that claim with A.A. Hodge:Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church’s testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

 

[estesbob]

IMO, the evidences for the Trinity, implied or otherwise, are, hands down, much more numerous than they are for indulgences, purgatory, Marian dogmas etc.

You and I won’t argue on the implication of the Trinity in the Scripture because we both consider it settled; however, we will argue on the implications of the other issues you raise—we both consider those settled as well, but to different conclusions.

I’ve heard people reject implied Catholic doctrines, but I’ve never heard anyone say that Catholics “are not allowed to do this.”

As far as Catholics having defined the Bible, I’ll leave you with the assessment of that claim with A.A. Hodge:Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church’s testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

Where did you acqyire your right to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?

 

[sandusky]

Where did you acqyire your right to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?

That’s a strawman.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think you are right, for the most part, but I have to say, I have seen some amazing twists since I came here. One I had never heard before is that baptism has nothing to do with water. It boggles the mind, sometimes.

I also note that most protestants don’t use the Gospels much at all, but mostly Pauline epistles. I have had more than one Reformed bible christian tell me that the gospels don’t have much to say about salvation, because Jesus had not yet been crucified. :bigyikes:

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Everyone twists Scripture to fit what they wish it said, it’s just part of being sinful.

My approach to Scripture changed enormously when I realized that it wasn’t meant to be a tool for me to challenge other people (as if I had the right interpretation of every jot and tittle) but is a direct, blatant, shout-out-loud challenge (with love of course! ) to me and my faith community. It’s a lot less interesting to challenge others on their own misinterpretations when you keep getting deflated by the Scriptures’ challenge to you.

 

[Hisalone]

What method(s) have you employed to arrive at your conclusion?

He as been told that it has been unchanged for 2000 years and he believes it.

 

[guanophore]

At first I was a bit put off by the title of this thread. But being intellectually honest - probably to some extent, but in most cases on a subconscious level. I think this is human nature. I know that I struggle to find a coherent and common theme throughout the Old and New Testatment and, this, coupled with standard Bible study technique that says that God’s Word can’t contravene itself, forces us to try to harmonize difficult verses. I suppose that, just like doing a crossword puzzle, once you are committed to some key words (solutions), you will naturally try to interpret other verses (fill in other parts of the puzzle) in ways which harmonize (fit) with the rest.

On some level, I’m attracted to the idea of a authoritative interpretation of scripture - on the other, hand, I’m fearful of relinquishing my ability to try to gleam God’s Word with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and I’ve witnessed enough corruption in the Church (all Churches of every denomination) to make me nervous.

Blessings,

Brian

Authority in no way prevents anyone from gleaning to the best of one’s ability by the power of the HS. On the contrary, such gleaning is commanded. What is different is that Catholics always glean with the Apostolic Teaching in mind, so that we do not be led astray by every wind of doctrine that is inconsistent with the faith that his handed down to us.

The Church is not corrupted. On the contrary, Jesus is purified and is holy because of Christ giving up HIs life for her. However, there are people who are corrupted, some of them connected to the Church. IT is important not to confuse the corruption of fallible men with the incorruptible Bride of Christ.

 

[Hisalone]

Oh no! You caught us. Oh the shame of it! The Church didn’t rule against the evil Comma Johanneum, which supported the Trinity, sooner! Shall we then toss the dogma of the Trinity and be done with it?!

Now, let us be serious for a moment. The Catholic Church is the Church that assembled and approved the Canon. If we had really wished to add or twist anything, we probably would have done it long before 1522. And if the Comma is the best example that you have against the Church, then I am afraid that you have come to the race without fuel for the car; you’ve showed up at the duel but forgot your sword, you mailed the letter but forgot the stamp. Shall we even touch upon all the changes the Protestants from the reformation have done to the Scriptures: add a little here; take away 7 books there; change a word here, etc. Then you want to attempt to discredit the Church for not denouncing a comma quick enough. LOL Whatever. God bless.

How corrupt this insttitution must be to demand the best Greek scholar of his day change the words of sacred scripture so as to deliberately cause confusion. How many muslims would have converted to Christianity except teir scolars pointed out how Catholics deliberatly corrupted the scriptures?How many other times did the Catholic Church deliberately fabricated or destryoed evidence to advance her claims?

 

[guanophore]

I noticed that “training wheels” has brought us a “Co-redemptrix” in Mary, which I do not find in the Bible.
Mary was never called a “queen” either, much less the “Queen of Heaven”.
Trusting also in a man that instead of our God-man Jesus for salvation is not biblical either.
You call your Pope “Holy Father”, which was only used by Jesus to address God the Father once in scripture.

There are many theological concepts that are not found in the bible, yet are accepted without question by most protestants, such as the hypostatic union, and observing the Sabbath on Sunday.

If you study the role of the mother of the King in ancient Israel, I think it may be more clear why the mother of the Son of David has a special role. Consider how Solomon treated Bathsheba when she came to the court.

Catholics trust in no one but God for salvation. However, we recognize that God uses many people in order to help us toward salvation, His mother being one.

Yes, we call our Pope “holy father”. One who is “holy” (GK. hagios) is one set apart for service to God, one who has been purified and sanctified for particular sacred work. We call him father as a sign of respect and affection. Just as Paul wrote he had become the father of those he brought into the faith, Catholics recognize the Pope as our father in the faith. this does not subtract from the Fatherhood of God, but makes God’s fatherhood present on earth.

 

[guanophore]

ufamtobie,

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.

I must agree with sandusky on this point. Peter does not forbid private interpretation. What he does is indicate that the correct interpretation comes from God, just as the message did in the first place. He also makes it clear that the source of the message is authoritative, since it comes from God, through the prophet. It is the Prophet who is the most qualified to interpret the message given by God. In this case, Jesus gave the Teaching Authority (the seat of Moses) to His Apostles, and directed them to “teach all that I have I have commanded”. This is why interpretation of the Holy Writings must be done in accordance with the Authority that Jesus put in place. Such authority does not “prohibit” private interpretation, it only ensures that what is done privately is also consistent with the public revelation of God through our Lord Jesus.

 

[Abbadon]

Cardinal (whoever he was) wasn’t defining Catholic Doctrine.

Who does whenever anyone can say whatever they want? Does the church? witch burnings and sex crime cover up scandal, taking money and land for forgiveness of sin?

Does the individgual person determine what the doctrine is? How do we decipher exactly what the authors meant by the garden of eden and noah story? If this is analogy what is and what is not? Oh it is sooooooo subjective… math is the only thing that is truly not subjective, science touches on it but even that is only 95% there… Relegion is so objective you can fly a 747 through it…

The Bible is not subjective, it contains objective Truth.

Most definitely not, we redefine our holy books not the other way around. Slavery and post war procedures attest to this…

How is world policy base on the teaching of Christ scary? Which of Christ’s teachings do you find scary?

I would be a slave, my grandmother (or was it great?) would have been raped and killed the last time britan took over our country, as commanded by moses in deuteronemy.

Specifically America

If you think jesus will come again in the next 50 years (as i think something like 70% of you do) that makes huge changes to how you vote to spend your budget, how you consider the environment, which countries you choose to or not to wage war with.

Not targeting catholism i would take the koran, the muslim holy as another example leads people to make horrible decisions based on the metaphysical principle of matardom…

Would like to be more indepth but i have to run to work now…

 

[guanophore]

I believe everything in the Bible, but that does not mean that I have to accept the interpretation of any man or group of men to understand the Bible. There are many false interpretations out there, so I am careful about testing and checking such interpretations against all of God’s word. If it does not line up, I know there is something wrong and I search for the truth. I do not accept additions to scripture either, as the Bible said that such additions are not allowed.
The Bible says that the Holy Spirit will guide a true believer into all truth.

I am glad that you are constantly searching. It is interesting to see that your standard is yourself. When you say “If it does not line up”, you are speaking of your personal understanding of what the scripture really means.

Scripture doesn NOT say that other resources are “not allowed”.

Training wheels are for beginning kids and the lazy. Mama’s boys are afraid to try riding without the training wheels. Some mamas like to keep their little boys that way, so they never grow up.

I am not so sure what you are meaning here by training wheels, possibly the catechism, or the Magesterium?

What I hear in this is a rebellious and independent attitude that is peculiar to America. America is founded by persons who were protesting authority, and wanted to act independently without any constraints of that authority. These values, so central to our culture, are not necessarily the values of Jesus Kingdom, over which He set up authority.

Such attitudes are not so much a problem when one is submitted to God (as much as one is able) or a culture reflects the values of God, as did the orignial colonies to a large extent. Although our nation is founded on the principles of religious freedom, it has grown in to a very rebellious nation. The seeds of this rebellion can be seen in the Reformation, and the independent use of oneself as a standard are in the roots of the Constitution. The fruit of such seeds is more division, more rebellion, and the lack of respect for God’s appointed authority.

 

[ralphinal]

I would like to point out, and I am more than a little surprised that no other Catholic has, that the Church has only a handfull of verses that we are required to read and interpret a certain way. The vast majority of scripture is open, so long as we do not go against Church teaching.

Let me give you an example.

The Woman in Revelation. We can see that as the Blessed Mother, Isreal, or the Church. Or all three. It is not required to see it in a certain way

 

[Jimdandy]

Am I the only person here offended by the title to this thread?

No, do not answer that-I am not trying to derail the thread, just trying to stimulate some thought processes that will lead to titles be given less potential for being inflammatory and or insulting.

Charity before all else.

 

[t68ware]

As a Protestant who is slowly making his way to Rome, I always find this topic interesting. I remember sitting in my RCIA class and the deacon was discussing the passage where John the Baptist was in prison and he sent two disciples to ask Jesus “Are you the One who is to come or should we expect someone else?” I have always held to the interpretation, and still do today, that John, in a moment of weakness due to his terrible circumstances, doubted…and he wanted clairification. The deacon who led the class said my interpretation was wrong and that was it, there is no way it can be intrepreted that way. Interesting way to win a non-Catholic over. We Protestants do believe in private interpretation but, we also believe that not every interpretation is correct. As a Wesleyan, when we look at the Bible, we look at it through the eyes of church history. How was it practised in the early church and how did the church fathers practise it? As one with a degree from a Christian college in Theology, I was taught not to blindly accept any one interpretation but to consider how it was interpreted throughout Church history. I do envy the Catholic Church because of the consistency of teaching, and I wish the Protestant church had the same.

 

[estesbob]

Am I the only person here offended by the title to this thread?

e.

Yes

 

[t68ware]

There are many theological concepts that are not found in the bible, yet are accepted without question by most protestants, such as the hypostatic union, and observing the Sabbath on Sunday.

If you study the role of the mother of the King in ancient Israel, I think it may be more clear why the mother of the Son of David has a special role. Consider how Solomon treated Bathsheba when she came to the court.

Catholics trust in no one but God for salvation. However, we recognize that God uses many people in order to help us toward salvation, His mother being one.

Yes, we call our Pope “holy father”. One who is “holy” (GK. hagios) is one set apart for service to God, one who has been purified and sanctified for particular sacred work. We call him father as a sign of respect and affection. Just as Paul wrote he had become the father of those he brought into the faith, Catholics recognize the Pope as our father in the faith. this does not subtract from the Fatherhood of God, but makes God’s fatherhood present on earth.

excellent explanation!