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

[wisdomseeker]

Could it be that they just believe that they trully can enterpret the Bible ?
they developed the sense through the years that the Bible is quite simple to understand, therefore everyone is able to read and understand it.

but the Bible itself says that this is not true. you can not consider such a thing is to discard the Word of God is simple to understand.

the jews could not understand themselves. otherwise they would have accepted Jesus is the Son of God. those who did, accepted Him by faith and by the works He did.

:byzsoc:

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF, Crazy!

Take the recent exchange between Guanophore and Sandusky over the exact title that should be used to refer to what in normal discourse is called the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, this is not the case. What sandusky is bashing is not Roman in character. He characterizes it as such because he has a great deal of hostility towards “Rome” (this has been in evidence much more in other threads than this one). He is taking issue with Catholic teaching.

Guanophore haughtily suggests it implies not merely ignorance but close-mindedness as well.  The plain meaning gets trampled under eagerness to close with the foe.

I did imply this, primarily because these facts have been pointed out to him many times, and he chooses to persist in his anti-Roman rhetoric.

The first thing that gets buried is the love and humility we’re supposed to show each other. “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” is an accusation easily leveled at almost anyone who engages in doctrinal disputations.

Since when is the truth a lack of love?

Roman Catholic apologists here note (my pardon if I’m leaving out anybody from the Orthodox or Coptic churches),

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the non-Roman folks don’t wish to be left out?

Any writing can be wildly misinterpreted, especially by those whose main aim is to justify their own practices. Not that there’s anyone with those motivations here, of course…

Why should one have to be in a position to “justify their own practices” if they have already been justified by God? How is it that one’s practices are substandard if they are not Roman?

Perhaps Guanophore would challenge the motivations and emotions I’m ascribing as well.

No, but I will apologize if I have been haughty. Personally, I think it is haughty to narrow all of Catholicism to Roman, but such a wound will not heal with more haughtiness.

Without a record and demonstration that Roman Catholic bishops have a super-heavy training in exact recall of orally transmitted messages, nobody outside Roman Catholicism is going to take seriously the idea that they've maintained an unbroken oral tradition.

This is simply false. There are many that accept and affirm the Apostolic Tradition that are not Roman. In fact, were the beliefs of those non-Romans who have received of the Apostolic faith compared to the majority of so-called Roman Catholics in America, I think that it would become abundandly clear that Roman Catholics in the United States do not take seriously their Sacred Tradition. Most don’t practice what has been handed down to them, and don’t act on what they say they believe, in the voting booth, for instance.

 

[guanophore]

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

Tell me in a word.

Jesus came and said to them… “obey everything that I have commanded you.” Matt 28:18-20

Now it’s Roman; before it was Latin.

But there were many other Rites that existed before the Latin Rite emerged, especially the Greek churches founded prior to the Church in Rome. The Oriental and Coptic Churches have received and practice the Catholic faith delivered to them by the Apostles, but there is nothing “Roman” about them. What you taking issue with is Apostolic Teaching, not 'Roman" Teaching.
The Apostolic Teaching transcends Rome, and the contintent on which she resides. If you were to find an anti-Roman Catholic Orthodox with whom you could argue doctrine, you would find yourself presented with the same Catholic doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

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.

If you think doctrinal disputes have not resulted in lawsuits (as well as wars) you are gravely mistaken.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Actually, this is not the case. What sandusky is bashing is not Roman in character. He characterizes it as such because he has a great deal of hostility towards “Rome” (this has been in evidence much more in other threads than this one). He is taking issue with Catholic teaching.

This refusal to dfferentiate between Roman Rite and Catholic is intellectual dishonesty. While the Pope and the central authority of the Catholic Church (Magesterium) are located in Rome this is not the same Roman Rite Catholic. Chaldean Rite, Byzantine Rites, Maronite Rite, and others accept Rome (ie the Pope and the Magesterium) as their authority.

I did imply this, primarily because these facts have been pointed out to him many times, and he chooses to persist in his anti-Roman rhetoric.

Yes, I have noticed a lot of Protestants who are out to attack the CC seem to be using the same anti-Catholic source, a source which is inaccurate and full of mistruths about what the CC teaches, and history. They seem to think that we are unaware of history or don’t read the Bible. They are here not for discussion but to point out how wrong and false the Church is.

Since when is the truth a lack of love?

It is out of love that Catholics seek to spread the Truth. Jesus told us to spread the Good News.

This is simply false. There are many that accept and affirm the Apostolic Tradition that are not Roman. In fact, were the beliefs of those non-Romans who have received of the Apostolic faith compared to the majority of so-called Roman Catholics in America, I think that it would become abundandly clear that Roman Catholics in the United States do not take seriously their Sacred Tradition. Most don’t practice what has been handed down to them, and don’t act on what they say they believe, in the voting booth, for instance.

Sad but true. Somehow some Catholics seem to think the Church is a Cafeteria.

 

[guanophore]

(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.)

Do you think that non-Roman Catholics do not have that view?

What “structures an heirarchies” do you imagine exist now that did not exist “in the first centuries”?

 

[pismopal]

List all of the oral traditions with attribution, and you’ll have convinced me.

Nobody has attributed, without a doubt, all of the Bible books to a particular author.

 

[pismopal]

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.

Tell it like it is Perry:thumbsup:

 

[qui_est_ce]

Once I humbled myself and started to read the early Church Fathers I found the Catholic Church.

YAY!

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.

Thanks for sharing.

If Protestants are interpreting the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit, why are there so many different interpretations? Why do some Protestants believe in the Real Presence, and others not? Why are there so many denominations?

The only argument I have read here is that Protestants only disagree on the non-essentials. If this is the case why isn’t there just one non-Catholic denomination agreeing on the essentials?

My question is who deteremines what is essential? If Jesus says we must be baptized in order to be saved, is that not an essential? If Jesus tells us we must feed the poor and clothe the naked, is that not essential? If Jesus tells us his body is true food, and asks us to eat his flesh in order to have everlasing life, is that not essential?

Nowhere in the Bible do I see Jesus saying we have to read the Bible. Everywhere in the Bible I see Jesus teaching essentials. There is no filler. Jesus spend 33 years on Earth, Teaching. Surely everything he said and did was not written down. The only writing Jesus did was in the story of the adulterous women.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

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.

Okay, this is a picky point and has essentially nothing to do with your main point, but if I don’t say something someone else will, letting all their arrogance hang out; early Christians used the OT as their own Scripture, and didn’t think of themselves as needing “Christian” Scripture. To them, it was basically all right there in the OT. The big difference was, now they had a name for Messiah. Gentile believers, of course, needed a bit more explanation. Okay, back to your important point.

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.

Well, they took a lot more effort to make sure they had access than you may be giving them credit for. An official Torah had to be copied by rabbis in very particular ways, but there were a lot of rabbis involved in doing just that. Reading Scripture, memorizing it, and talking about it were inculcated from very early ages. Getting together on Saturday and having an adult male read a passage and give a short meditation on it were just part of Jewish spiritual life. All the adults would have all known the passage and been familiar with it already, quite ready to correct any really wild interpretation. It wasn’t a special activity for study, it was woven into their lives.

True, most Christians today don’t have that knowledge, and it’s a shame. Part of that is just being a grafted branch, rather than the natural branch. Part of it was having long ago accepted Greek culture as a satisfactory substitute for Jewish culture in the basic life of a Christian. Part of it is trusting oral tradition as much as written (and that’s on the part of both Protestants and Catholics), something the Jews also had trouble with, as evidenced by Jesus’ rebuke that they sometimes negated the Scripture by their tradition. But at least they actually knew what the tradition was, something I’ve found sadly lacking in most Christians I talk tradition with. You wouldn’t believe how often I’ve heard (from priests, even!) that the Assumption of Mary means that she never died, or that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door!

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.

The contexts of language and culture are very important, no question! However, the NT writers (with the exception, perhaps, of the letter to the Hebrews) knew they were largely dealing with a non-Jewish audience. They did an admirable job of explaining the parts where Jewish language, culture, and practices made a difference to the meaning of the story.

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

With the exception of those founded by captured slaves, traveling merchants, foreign converts (like the Ethiopian Eunuch), and the original wave of Jewish converts going back home after Pentecost, sure, that’s close enough.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Do you think that non-Roman Catholics do not have that view?

What “structures an heirarchies” do you imagine exist now that did not exist “in the first centuries”?

I was thinking in particular of the College of Cardinals and many of the monastic movements. It wasn’t a critical point.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Welcome to CAF, Crazy!

Thank’ee very much! And I’m sure I’ll run into Sandusky again and be able to judge then.

Since when is the truth a lack of love?

“2+2 = 4, you moron!” Feel the love!

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the non-Roman folks don’t wish to be left out?

It wasn’t irony, I truly was trying to acknowledge that there are more liturgical traditions out there than just the ones centered in Rome. I pretty regularly read the statements of HH Shenouda III, the Coptic Pope (official site here), and try to keep up a bit with news of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Admittedly, I haven’t paid as much attention to the Chaldean Rite news as I did at the beginning of the war in Iraq, and I’ve never paid much attention at all to the Maronites. Are you Byzantine, or one of the others?

This is simply false. There are many that accept and affirm the Apostolic Tradition that are not Roman.

In theory, yes, but nobody goes to their bishop to ask what Augustine said about this or that. In fact, the more educated the Catholic, the more likely they are to go straight to the written record - in Latin, if they can. And many of the oral traditions argued about aren’t really oral anymore, they have a very traceable pedigree through the written records of various people who recorded them through the ages. Originally, it all started orally, except for the original 10 commandments written directly by God on a piece of stone. But it has never taken too terribly long for somebody to write these things down, especially if they consider it really, really important. Once it’s written down, that becomes as official a historical record as anybody is going to get, and any claim to have received a different oral record inevitably gets compared to the recorded history.

In fact, were the beliefs of those non-Romans who have received of the Apostolic faith compared to the majority of so-called Roman Catholics in America, I think that it would become abundandly clear that Roman Catholics in the United States do not take seriously their Sacred Tradition. Most don’t practice what has been handed down to them, and don’t act on what they say they believe, in the voting booth, for instance.

It would be an interesting study, for sure! If anybody has a reference to such a study, I’d like to see it.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I’ll have to remember this, the next time I talk to a Copt about the Trinity, and about why they got the boot from Constantinople; and when discussing the line from the Creed “proceeds from the Father and the Son” with somebody from the Orthodox tradition. Non-Protestant liturgical traditions differ in more than just their view of the authority of Rome.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was thinking in particular of the College of Cardinals and many of the monastic movements. It wasn’t a critical point.

The College of Cardinals reminds me of Acts. Peter and the Apostles are definining the role of the Church. They speak with authority on issues such as cirumcision and dietary laws. They decide that Judas neededs successor. Peter is always mentioned first. Monastic movements are nothing new. The Essenes are a good example of an early Monastic movement.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

If you think doctrinal disputes have not resulted in lawsuits (as well as wars) you are gravely mistaken.

I wish they never had, but Paul doesn’t imply he’s talking about doctrinal disputes. The Greek courts of those days didn’t want to be involved in religious disputes, as made clear by Agrippa’s dealing with Paul. Anything that would have made it to a hearing then would have been a legal dispute between believers, which we’re still supposed to settle ourselves, not in the courts.

I don’t have a problem arguing that Scripture says to take doctrinal disputes to other believers (of whatever level of authority your tradition requires), but you can’t get it from that passage.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Okay, this is a picky point and has essentially nothing to do with your main point, but if I don’t say something someone else will, letting all their arrogance hang out; early Christians used the OT as their own Scripture, and didn’t think of themselves as needing “Christian” Scripture. To them, it was basically all right there in the OT. The big difference was, now they had a name for Messiah. Gentile believers, of course, needed a bit more explanation.

It is an important point. The Jews themselves could not agree on Scriputure. The Sadduccees only accepted the Torah as inspired. At the time of Jesus, all 46 books were accepted by most Jews.
"ralphinal:

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.

Well, they took a lot more effort to make sure they had access than you may be giving them credit for. An official Torah had to be copied by rabbis in very particular ways, but there were a lot of rabbis involved in doing just that. Reading Scripture, memorizing it, and talking about it were inculcated from very early ages. Getting together on Saturday and having an adult male read a passage and give a short meditation on it were just part of Jewish spiritual life. All the adults would have all known the passage and been familiar with it already, quite ready to correct any really wild interpretation. It wasn’t a special activity for study, it was woven into their lives.

And this is what Ralphinal is saying in his OP.

You wouldn’t believe how often I’ve heard (from priests, even!) that the Assumption of Mary means that she never died, or that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door!

Where ML posted his 95 thesis is not a doctrinal tenet. Not sure if anti-Protestant rhetoric is a rquired study in Catholic seminary theology classes. Your misunderstanding of the Catholic view on the death of Mary is showing. There is some theological debate as to whether Mary actually died before she was assumed. Most hold the view that Mary was assumed into heaven without dying.

With the exception of those founded by captured slaves, traveling merchants, foreign converts (like the Ethiopian Eunuch), and the original wave of Jewish converts going back home after Pentecost, sure, that’s close enough.

Include:
throwing out seven OT books,
adding “Alone”
adding “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory…”
deliberately mistranslating

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

It is an important point. The Jews themselves could not agree on Scriputure. The Sadduccees only accepted the Torah as inspired. At the time of Jesus, all 46 books were accepted by most Jews.
And this is what Ralphinal is saying in his OP.

This is another area where I differ from many Protestants in my view of Scripture. I truly don’t care if a few apostolic writings that fit the criteria didn’t make it in, or if somebody wants to say “Only the Gospels are really Scripture.” The really important points are repeated so often it would be difficult to eliminate them. You’d have to pare down the Scriptures and deliberately mistranslate quite a lot to lose the essence of the good news.

Of course, there’s lots more there than just the essence. There are a lot of things believers find very helpful in their spiritual walk.

Regarding those teachings that were matters of dispute in the early church, but which people still find very important for their own spirituality, I intend to listen with respect. Perhaps someday the issue will matter to me, too. I truly don’t know whether “and the Son” should have been added to the Nicene Creed. When I go to an Orthodox church, I leave it out. I’ll listen to anyone who wants to talk about what the Real Presence means, whether literal or spiritual or invention-of-those-image-worshiping-Catholics, but anywhere that I know (or think) it might be offensive, I don’t take communion.

Where ML posted his 95 thesis is not a doctrinal tenet. [snip] Your misunderstanding of the Catholic view on the death of Mary is showing. There is some theological debate as to whether Mary actually died before she was assumed. Most hold the view that Mary was assumed into heaven without dying.

Okay, I originally saw that in the writing of a RC bishop about six years ago, I now forget which one. I assumed it was “official”, but now that I think about it I believe it was in a some sort of weekly bishop’s letter to the diocese, and certainly wasn’t the main point. My (admittedly very minor) point was that many people don’t know what the full oral tradition is, only their particular version. I still think it’s a valid point, since I’ve only heard here that maybe Mary didn’t die; everywhere else it is she did die or she didn’t. With ML, I’ve only ever heard he did post or he didn’t.

 

[t68ware]

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.

Really? We Protestants will become “better Christians” if we become Catholics? Hmmm…someone should tell Billy and Franklin Graham that they are not complete Christians.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Really? We Protestants will become “better Christians” if we become Catholics? Hmmm…someone should tell Billy and Franklin Graham that they are not complete Christians.

Dude, that’s pathetic. I’m sure they’ve been told many times they’d make even better Christians as Catholics. Billy Graham wasn’t exactly a stranger to John Paul II, and that is indeed exactly how Catholics see it. It’s not disrespectful. I’ve been told the same thing myself many times, not to dis me but to say how much more better I’d be if only.

The real horror is thinking, what do Catholics imagine the Borjas would have been like if they’d been Protestant? {shudder}

 

[t68ware]

Dude, that’s pathetic. I’m sure they’ve been told many times they’d make even better Christians as Catholics. Billy Graham wasn’t exactly a stranger to John Paul II, and that is indeed exactly how Catholics see it. It’s not disrespectful. I’ve been told the same thing myself many times, not to dis me but to say how much more better I’d be if only.

The real horror is thinking, what do Catholics imagine the Borjas would have been like if they’d been Protestant? {shudder}

I guess then Billy Graham is just not bright enough to see how true the RCC is. Maybe, just maybe, after Billy talked with John Paul he was not convinced to become Catholic. Does that mean his world wide ministry and all those he helped bring to Christ was in vain? I mean, if he is not a total complete Christian, then those he helped lead to Christ are not total Christians either…then those people who lead others to Christ will help create even more imperfect Christians!! AHHHHH when will it stop?