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

[t68ware]

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

Do Supreme Court Judges twist what the Constitution says to promote their neo-liberal ideologies (i.e. abortion)

Same prnciple, ppl see what they were condtioned to see. I as a Catholic look at Protestantism and see confusion.

I don’t mind debating the meaning of scripture as long as t is done in an adult manner.

Catholic: John 6 supports the Eucharst.

Protestant: Nu-uh

Catholic: yeah-huh

(repeat 50 times)

The only way out of the cycle is to turn to something outside of scriptures. Catholics turn to the Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch would be a prime example to use to support the Eucharist. Unfortunately his teaching authority is rejected despite him being a 40 yr. disciple to John. So were back to

Protestant: Nu-uh

Catholic: yeah-huh

(endless bickering)

What a great testament to the unbelieving world

I can understand your point. As a Protestant, I can look at the Catholic chuch and see man-made doctrine. Using the Supreme Court as a comparison is a little unfair, as we all know they interpret the Constitution to promote their liberal ideas, and they know full well what they are doing. Protestants don’t interpret Scripture to force our ideas on anybody. We interpret Scripture the way we do because we think we are right, just like Catholics think they are right. Being a Protestant for 25 years and having begun my slow trek to Rome, I can see both sides of the argument. Believe me when I say, no one will “win” this debate using arguments from any source. If a die-hard Protestant thinks the Catholic church is wrong, then changing their mind will be very very difficult. To convince a Catholic that the Protestant way of looking at the Bible is ok, will never happen! We have to love eachother, for that is what Jesus commanded. We are all Christians, and the more we in-fight, the more the world will see how divided we are. Jesus said they will know you are my disciples if you love one another. Discussions are good and a good mental and schloarly exercise, but let us not forget we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can understand your point. As a Protestant, I can look at the Catholic chuch and see man-made doctrine. Using the Supreme Court as a comparison is a little unfair, as we all know they interpret the Constitution to promote their liberal ideas, and they know full well what they are doing. Protestants don’t interpret Scripture to force our ideas on anybody. We interpret Scripture the way we do because we think we are right, just like Catholics think they are right. Being a Protestant for 25 years and having begun my slow trek to Rome, I can see both sides of the argument. Believe me when I say, no one will “win” this debate using arguments from any source. If a die-hard Protestant thinks the Catholic church is wrong, then changing their mind will be very very difficult. To convince a Catholic that the Protestant way of looking at the Bible is ok, will never happen! We have to love eachother, for that is what Jesus commanded. We are all Christians, and the more we in-fight, the more the world will see how divided we are. Jesus said they will know you are my disciples if you love one another. Discussions are good and a good mental and schloarly exercise, but let us not forget we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Love one another. that is very good. does that make the other right?
let’s say we also love the muslins, hindus, budhists, and so forth. does this make all one?

:byzsoc: :knight1: :knight2:

 

[t68ware]

Love one another. that is very good. does that make the other right?
let’s say we also love the muslins, hindus, budhists, and so forth. does this make all one?

:byzsoc: :knight1: :knight2:

We are to love muslims, hindus, etc. That will not make us all one. My point was the in-fighting between Christians will make the world see us as not unified but divided. While Catholics and Protestants will struggle to seal the rift between them, we cannot let the world see us as divided. Loving eachother will make them see there is one thing we have in common…we love as Jesus taught us to love.

 

[wisdomseeker]

We are to love muslims, hindus, etc. That will not make us all one. My point was the in-fighting between Christians will make the world see us as not unified but divided. While Catholics and Protestants will struggle to seal the rift between them, we cannot let the world see us as divided. Loving eachother will make them see there is one thing we have in common…we love as Jesus taught us to love.

dont you think the world knows already? what is going among christians. what do you think ML did when he rebelled against the only christian Church the CC? and goes on until this day when protestants rejects and continuously bashes the CC.
that is why is so important that we must believe on the same thing which Jesus taught us. Catholic Church always taught the same for 2000 years when ML and his gangs comes along and contradicts the CC in everything. what effect do you think this had among the people who always believe in the Word of God through His Church?

:byzsoc: :angel1:

 

[t68ware]

dont you think the world knows already? what is going among christians. what do you think ML did when he rebelled against the only christian Church the CC? and goes on until this day when protestants rejects and continuously bashes the CC.
that is why is so important that we must believe on the same thing which Jesus taught us. Catholic Church always taught the same for 2000 years when ML and his gangs comes along and contradicts the CC in everything. what effect do you think this had among the people who always believe in the Word of God?

:byzsoc: :angel1:

The issue with ML I think is the same as Wesley. Luther, from what I learned, wanted to address some issues with the RCC. He had issues with what he saw as corruption. He wanted to discuss the issues but that never happened. Wesley had the same problem…he wanted to change the way the Anglican church but they would not listen. In both cases, ML and Wesley NEVER meant to start a new movement but other people took their ideas and ran with it. ( i know this is very simplistic but you get the point). Unfortunately, we are now a divided body. While the RCC has basically stood fast for 2,000 years, the non-Catholic churches have become vast in number, and it seems there are as many doctrines as their are churches.

 

[ralphinal]

Why? Has the church misplaced them?

No, but the earliest oral teachings of the Church, by and large, ended up in scripture.

I’m neither disputing nor questioning anything stated in the scripture.

Then, according to scripture, the method for founding a church was like this. First, Apostles went into an area and taught. IF there was a Jewish population, they used the Old Testement texts to suport the claims. Next, they would baptise and confirm all the beleivers, leaving some in charge of the Fellowship. Third, letter would follow to help clear up or correct any matter, as well as to give words of encouragement. Apostles would visit or stay to oversee from time to time. This is clear from Acts as well as in the Letters to the various Churches/

See, for some time, there were no Gospels or Epistles. It was oral teachings. That is why Paul called the Church the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. That is why Jesus said to go to the Church with issues. That is why we are taught to hold fast to that which has been taught to us either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter.

Please feel free to correct my history or conclusion.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

The Teaching of Jesus Christ is not reduced to a “list”. Frankly, I am baffled why modern evangelicals seem to want to make such reductions.

Without making a list tell me what the CC teaches one must do to be saved.

guanophore:

Another example is the least amount a person has to know and do in order to be saved.

Tell me in a word.

guanophore:

That would be our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, the vicar of Christ. He happens to come from the Roman Rite, but this is not required of a Pope.

Now it’s Roman; before it was Latin.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

No, but the earliest oral teachings of the Church, by and large, ended up in scripture.

I would say all of it did.

 

[SIA]

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

Hmm, you know that, but what about all these folks who think they know everything about everybody and claim that Protestants are all igorant of the Catholic faith?

 

[sandusky]

The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other.

The Gospel is referred to as a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,” and not without good reason.

Christ also said that He would divide, right down to blood family.

Better the Gospel not get buried, then love and humility, at times, not be set aside.

“You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.

It could; however, what’s more important than right doctrine? Read the epistles.

There is a time for every event under heaven…a time to tear down and a time to tear up…
a time to tear apart and a time to sew together… a time to be silent and a time to speak…
a time to love and a time to hate.

 

[ralphinal]

I would say all of it did.

Did you agree or disagree with my Biblical blueprint for how churches were founded in the first century?

 

[estesbob]

I would say all of it did.

We disagree on that. How do we resolve this?

 

[packermann]

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.

Not sure I agree. I have argued with many Protestants about masturbation.Many Protestants think it is not a sin. And most Protestants would disargee that birth control is a sin. And some sincere Protestants would look at any devotion to Mary or veneration of the saints as idolatry. These are not just points of doctrine, but how we live and pray. And seeing all sin as venial has to effect your attitude toward sin. And not having the Eucharist in their lives must effect their spiritual walk.

I agree that most Protestants are sincere and many love God. But all matters of doctrine has a practical impact on the way we live. There are many godly Protestants because they still agree with us in most doctrine - the Trinity, sin, the inerrant scripture, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, etc. But to the degree that they part with the Catholic truth it does effect their lives.

I am not saying that we Catholics are better than Protestants. I am sure that there are many Protestants more spiritual than I am. But just as I am a better Christian now as a Catholic than I was as a Protestant, so will any Protestant will be a better Christian if he becomes a Catholic. So even when a Protestant is a better Christian than I am, he will be a much better Christian than I am once he becomes Catholic.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I would say all of it did.

We disagree on that. How do we resolve this?

It depends a lot on what mechanism Sandusky believes resulted in “all of it” getting recorded. Does that imply that every phrase of every exchange between the apostles and other believers is recorded precisely in Scripture, so that we have an unchallengeably full and accurate accounting of the fullness of their teachings? Obviously not, or it’d be a bit longer. Or is it a condensed version of their teachings, that can be unpacked to its fullness by the extension of some algorithm of logical textual analysis? Obviously not that it either, or it wouldn’t be so repetitive. Or where does it fall in between?

From my own reading, it seems to me that all of the NT (and indeed all of the OT, with maybe the exception of the Psalms and Proverbs) are written in ordinary, everyday language to be understood by ordinary, everyday people. Many doctrinal disputes come from attempting to take this isolated phrase and that isolated phrase and “unpack” them, as if the Scriptures were meant to be encoded truth only fully appreciable by a specially trained class of theologians.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

No, but the earliest oral teachings of the Church, by and large, ended up in scripture.

Then, according to scripture, the method for founding a church was like this. First, Apostles went into an area and taught. IF there was a Jewish population, they used the Old Testement texts to suport the claims. Next, they would baptise and confirm all the beleivers, leaving some in charge of the Fellowship. Third, letter would follow to help clear up or correct any matter, as well as to give words of encouragement. Apostles would visit or stay to oversee from time to time. This is clear from Acts as well as in the Letters to the various Churches/

See, for some time, there were no Gospels or Epistles. It was oral teachings. That is why Paul called the Church the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. That is why Jesus said to go to the Church with issues. That is why we are taught to hold fast to that which has been taught to us either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter.

Please feel free to correct my history or conclusion.

Only a small correction, and that is that when Paul said to take disagreements to the church, he was speaking about disagreements that resulted in lawsuits. He was also speaking about going to the local church and, if necessary, choosing the local idiot to decide the case. He wasn’t talking about consulting the apostles on doctrinal issues.

As the apostles graduated and became unavailable for comment, people naturally started disputing about what they had taught, and naturally enough they went to the source everybody accepted as having come from them, their writings. Over time, a body of those writings came to be seen as generally accepted and undisputed. When the bishops got together and formally announced the canon of Scripture, they were just formally recognizing what was accepted anyway. The Catholic view and Protestant view split from there, as Catholics view the Scripture canon to be one part of authoritative teaching, and Protestants generally view it as the standard of teaching, that is, you can teach other things but you can only insist on it if it comes from Scripture.

 

[ralphinal]

Only a small correction, and that is that when Paul said to take disagreements to the church, he was speaking about disagreements that resulted in lawsuits. He was also speaking about going to the local church and, if necessary, choosing the local idiot to decide the case. He wasn’t talking about consulting the apostles on doctrinal issues.

As the apostles graduated and became unavailable for comment, people naturally started disputing about what they had taught, and naturally enough they went to the source everybody accepted as having come from them, their writings. Over time, a body of those writings came to be seen as generally accepted and undisputed. When the bishops got together and formally announced the canon of Scripture, they were just formally recognizing what was accepted anyway. The Catholic view and Protestant view split from there, as Catholics view the Scripture canon to be one part of authoritative teaching, and Protestants generally view it as the standard of teaching, that is, you can teach other things but you can only insist on it if it comes from Scripture.

It seems almost like a Chicken and egg argument, though. Which came first and therefore should be considered authoritative? History shows that the Church predates the New Testement.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

The Gospel is referred to as a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,” and not without good reason.

Christ also said that He would divide, right down to blood family.

Better the Gospel not get buried, then love and humility, at times, not be set aside.

Let’s just make sure it’s the good news doing the dividing, and not arrogance on our part. Proclaiming the gospel is more than just repeating doctrinally correct phrases. If you don’t take your own propensity to sin seriously, you can’t really believe the Bad News that made the Good News necessary. That’s where humility comes in. If you have been forgiven much and therefore love much, that will come through too and show that you believe what you preach. That’s one of many areas where love comes in to the preaching of the gospel.

It could; however, what’s more important than right doctrine? Read the epistles.

Just the other day I was reading one of them that said, and correct me if my memory is off:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels and even Protestant and Roman Catholic apologists, but have not love, well, at least I’ve got Doctrinal Purity and I’m One Darned Good Apologist!”

Then there was something Jesus said that went like,

“They will know you are my disciples if you are 100% Doctrinally Correct, right down to the size, shape, and makeup of communion wafers!”

Remember, I’m being sarcastic in love.

Seriously, though, I would never ask you to back off on any important doctrinal issue. Picking at Guanophore for things like “Latin” vs “Roman” rite is just silly, though. (And yes, Guanophore has said some pretty silly things too, but you don’t have to imitate.)

The question at hand is, Do Protestant Churches twist what Scripture says to fit their interpretation of the Bible? And of course the answer is yes. Not in everything, but certainly in some. We’ve only had 500 years to make corrections to 1200 years of adding stuff to Scripture, so of course there are things we still keep that should be dumped. Every generation of Protestants has to look at Scripture for themselves, and every generation ends up re-examining what has been kept and what got tossed and re-evaluating what should be kept and what should be thrown away. We all face the temptation to Scripturize our own culture and practices and viewpoints. The Puritans tossed out wedding rings; later generations decided that was pretty trivial and brought them back. Calvinists and Lutherans still fight over the nature of communion (hardly surprising, since it was debated for 800 years in western Christianity before making one view dogma and others heretical) and I expect sometime in the next 500 years we Protestants will come to view it as one of those disputable matters Paul says to be convinced of and not be divided over. And then we basically all keep the silly method of having our main church meetings in special buildings rather than following the NT pattern of meeting in people’s homes. Since that meeting pattern keeps unbelievers away far more than meeting in people’s homes, it’s not a trivial issue for someone intent on proclaiming the gospel. Which I’m glad you want to do. Just do it in humility and love!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

It seems almost like a Chicken and egg argument, though. Which came first and therefore should be considered authoritative? History shows that the Church predates the New Testement.

Ecclesia definitely preceded the writing of the NT, but not the concept of “Scripture”. Jews had thousands of years of practicing the concept that they were to constantly read, discuss, and apply Scripture to their lives. The idea that some new Jewish prophets would add their revelations to the Scripture was not a radical novel idea. It also was not a radical idea that the study of those Scriptures was the responsibility of each individual, or that constant immersion in Scripture would form the foundation of one’s spiritual understanding. Even the oral traditions that the Jews followed were directly related to the Scriptures and their conclusions about how best to follow Scriptural directives. Jesus didn’t rebuke them for having oral traditions, but for following them when they contradicted Scripture. That’s one area where I part ways with more doctrinaire Protestants. The very idea of oral tradition apart from Scripture gives many of them conniptions. For my part, I don’t care, as long as those traditions don’t violate the standard that Scripture sets.

(BTW, using the word “ecclesia” isn’t meant as some sort of technical addition to the discussion. But when a Roman Catholic uses the word “Church”, it is intimately connected with all the structures and hierarchies that didn’t exist in the first centuries. Since it’s a point of contention, I just wanted to use a word that didn’t conjure up images of authority structures, and I couldn’t think of a better one.)

 

[ralphinal]

Ecclesia definitely preceded the writing of the NT, but not the concept of “Scripture”. Jews had thousands of years of practicing the concept that they were to constantly read, discuss, and apply Scripture to their lives. The idea that some new Jewish prophets would add their revelations to the Scripture was not a radical novel idea. It also was not a radical idea that the study of those Scriptures was the responsibility of each individual, or that constant immersion in Scripture would form the foundation of one’s spiritual understanding. Even the oral traditions that the Jews followed were directly related to the Scriptures and their conclusions about how best to follow Scriptural directives. Jesus didn’t rebuke them for having oral traditions, but for following them when they contradicted Scripture. That’s one area where I part ways with more doctrinaire Protestants. The very idea of oral tradition apart from Scripture gives many of them conniptions. For my part, I don’t care, as long as those traditions don’t violate the standard that Scripture sets.

(BTW, using the word “ecclesia” isn’t meant as some sort of technical addition to the discussion. But when a Roman Catholic uses the word “Church”, it is intimately connected with all the structures and hierarchies that didn’t exist in the first centuries. Since it’s a point of contention, I just wanted to use a word that didn’t conjure up images of authority structures, and I couldn’t think of a better one.)

I actually understood your word choice before you put the BTW. I am cool with that and can see why. It is why I use “C” for RCC and “c” for community of beleivers.

I agree with your point of Jewish use of Scriptures and Oral Traditions. I do think that most Protestants miss two very important things. First, for some period of time, there were NO Christian Scriptures at all. Even if you take the earliest dating system, saying the NT was finished by 70 A.D., the first books were not written until between 35 and 40 A.D., meaning that for some period of time everything was oral. Books were hard to transport and even harder to produce. It was easier to teach my mouth then use Scriptures as a referance. The concept of the rank and file person having easy daily access to Scriptures is not 100% accurate. That person had to make an effort to study, and often times would not be the only one reading a particular Scripture. That is why you see cases of Jesus teaching in the Synagog. Several men would study together. Second, Judaism relied on a longer education process for religion than many give it credit for having. It would take years to learn everything. That said, the Judaism of the Bible requires the Jewish person to have a certain level of knowledge about his faith that the Modern Christain does not have and may not understand. One of the more subtle examples is Jesus calling Nathanial. Most readers today miss exactly what was said and what he meant. Oral tradition was a big part of this “understood information” for most groups except for the Sadducies.

Anyway, do you agree with the Biblical blueprint that I listed for how new communities of CHristians were founded in the first century?

 

[PerryJ]

As a Protestant trained in Scripture, I debated Catholic after Catholic about, indulgences, purgatory, papal authority etc. After many years of reading and study I found that it was pride that did not allow me to come to a full understanding of the Faith. If one reads about the Eucharist why would Christ’s followers leave him if he was only talking about a symbol of his body? How can one misinterpret something so clear? One is pride. Man always wants to believe he is enlightened more than his fellow man. Or he wishes to believe that Christ has given him special insight via the Holy Spirit. The first act is cleary spelled out in the story of the Tower of Babel. Here man takes pride in his own technology and challenges God. We see this act perpetuated throughout history time and again. The Gnostics, which Gnosis means knowledge, medieval times with alchemy, again with the age of Enlightment and the French revolution all place mans knowledge ahead of Christ teachings. (This to name just a few.) Christ gave us the thirst for knowledge and as such the search for knowledge is good. Placing it above his teachings is bad. The second is the belief that the Holy Spirit personally guides one to enlightment and that Christ is focused on you. Christ is the center on the universe and we revolve around him. Does he speak directly to individuals? Yes. Does he do this for Protestant? Yes. One has to remember though that each of us is prone to sin. We are subject to original sin and see the world through stained glasses. That is why Christ left an authority behind to help us understand his message. It is the Catholic Church. Do men in the Church fail? Yes; but, it is the teaching authority left by Christ on this Earth. Read about the early martyrs and one will find they died to partake of the Eucharist. As a Protestant I was always taught half truths. I was taught they died as Christians. True; but, they so believed that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ they died for it. They did not sit around read Luke and Mathew and determined what Christ meant. If one reads the history of the Bible one finds the Bible one wasn’t even around. Second until the printing press few could afford one and few people could read. Once I humbled myself and started to read the early Church Fathers I found the Catholic Church. The Devils greatest trick is to make people prideful. He has done it throughout history and still does it. The reason I misinterpreted the Bible was my pride and my belief that I understood everything about the Bible on my own. I ignored history, I ignored or de-emphasized parts of the Bible that were contrary to my understanding and argued to win a debate instead of humbly submitting to Christ. I misinterpreted because of my pride. This is just one testimony of a converted Protestant of why I misinterpreted the Bible.