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

[estesbob]

Your answers do not address my questions; will you try again, please?

I answered your question -you just didnt like the answer. you are insisting I take a Sola Scriptura approach to proving the Trintiy-you are the one who adheres to this false doctrine-not I.

 

[ralphinal]

Or more.

Is that good or bad? How and why does the Holy Spirit lead people to different interpretations? Is the Truth relative or objective?

That’s “orthodoxy.”

Is that good or bad? Should unorthodox views be seen as wrong if they contradict orthodoxy?

Where is the thread?

Here. I have sworn off of it. There is no logic to the pro-homosexual side. They do not acknowledge the Greek words for love are not all erotic. They do not see what is their, but they can interpret for themselves.

No—one is only in the right when He is speaking what God is saying.

But, how can anyone know who is and who is not speaking what God is saying? Can he not say different things to different people

 

[sandusky]

I answered your question -you just didnt like the answer. you are insisting I take a Sola Scriptura approach to proving the Trintiy-you are the one who adheres to this false doctrine-not I.

You do know the answer then, and you’re right—it’s verifiable by scripture, as are all of the early church creeds with which Protestant Churches agree, and which they profess.

 

[ralphinal]

Sandusky,
I cannot remmember, so I am sorry for asking, but are you a sola scriptura or a soli scriptura? What denomination are you?

 

[Abbadon]

Doesn’t everyone of every faith from all holy scripture.

Specifically christian during abolition of slavery i remeber a cardinal saying “if it is written in the bible as law it cannot be wrong” In reference to slavery laws throughout Deuteronomy and Leveticus. Pro slavery used chapter and verse as did the anti-slavery.

It’s so subjective it’s scary… What’s scarier is that a majority of america (whose political policies effect the world on a large scale) beleives it to bee the inerrand word of god… (the same goes for the islamic world but they obvioulsy pale in comparrison to the power of western countiries)

 

[qui_est_ce]

Who determines whether or a not a translation is correct, or incorrect?

This is an intresting question, and that is why I started this thread.

 

[estesbob]

You do know the answer then, and you’re right—it’s verifiable by scripture, as are all of the early church creeds with which Protestant Churches agree, and which they profess.

Ah-so we have lowered the stanadard from proven by Scripture to verfiable by Scripture. That is the standard, BTW, that is used(along with tradition and the teachings of the Magestrium) to prove the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, praying for the interecession of Saints , the authority of the Pope, purgatory, etc. , all of which are rejected by Protestants as “unscrriptual”. Of course the usual Protestant fallback position on the Scritpual basis of the Trinity is to ionvoke the “comma” but you have painted yourslef into a corner on that one.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Specifically christian during abolition of slavery i remeber a cardinal saying “if it is written in the bible as law it cannot be wrong” In reference to slavery laws throughout Deuteronomy and Leveticus. Pro slavery used chapter and verse as did the anti-slavery.

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

It’s so subjective it’s scary…

The Bible is not subjective, it contains objective Truth.

What’s scarier is that a majority of america (whose political policies effect the world on a large scale) beleives it to bee the inerrand word of god… (the same goes for the islamic world but they obvioulsy pale in comparrison to the power of western countiries)

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

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Is that good or bad?

It’s what is; moving from the primary down, ”our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps 115:3); therefore, I know that the myriad views of scripture being circulated are, at the very least, somehow “pleasing” to God.

ralphinal:

How and why does the Holy Spirit lead people to different interpretations?

Those who are led by the Spirit, are not all at the same level of understanding; He doesn’t immediately “zap” one with the whole of the truth, neither was truth revealed in that manner; others, are not led by the Spirit, but by another spirit.

ralphinal:

Is the Truth relative or objective?

”Relative” truth, by definition, is not truth; there is one truth, and that’s God’s truth, and all people are responsible for knowing it.

ralphinal:

Should unorthodox views be seen as wrong if they contradict orthodoxy?

The “rule,” or “measuring rod,” which is the meaning of “canon,” is the Scripture; therefore, anything that is claimed to be “orthodox” must agree with the scripture.

ralphinal:

Here. I have sworn off of it. There is no logic to the pro-homosexual side. They do not acknowledge the Greek words for love are not all erotic. They do not see what is their, but they can interpret for themselves.

I’ll take a look. Don’t be discouraged, your job is not convince of the truth, but to proclaim the truth; it’s the Spirit who does the convincing (1 Cor 2:14), and this medium is not the best for that sin, but face to face, and that with the commitment to the time it takes to fully make the argument against homosexuality to the one who desires that lifestyle.

ralphinal:

But, how can anyone know who is and who is not speaking what God is saying? Can he not say different things to different people

With respect to truth, there is only one truth, and that’s God truth, and God is not a God of confusion.

 

[ralphinal]

It’s what is; moving from the primary down, ”our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps 115:3); therefore, I know that the myriad views of scripture being circulated are, at the very least, somehow “pleasing” to God.

Ok.

Those who are led by the Spirit, are not all at the same level of understanding; He doesn’t immediately “zap” one with the whole of the truth, neither was truth revealed in that manner; others, are not led by the Spirit, but by another spirit.

Agreed

”Relative” truth, by definition, is not truth; there is one truth, and that’s God’s truth, and all people are responsible for knowing it.

Amen

The “rule,” or “measuring rod,” which is the meaning of “canon,” is the Scripture; therefore, anything that is claimed to be “orthodox” must agree with the scripture.

But that is where the issue of personal interpretation fits in. How can you be sure taht what you think it says is what it says?

I’ll take a look. Don’t be discouraged, your job is not convinc
e of the truth, but to proclaim the truth; it’s the Spirit who does the convincing (1 Cor 2:14), and this medium is not the best for that sin, but face to face, and that with the commitment to the time it takes to fully make the argument against homosexuality to the one who desires that lifestyle.

Great point. I have taken, for the time being, the shake the dust off my feet approach. I may return later.

With respect to truth, there is only one truth, and that’s God truth, and God is not a God of confusion.

True, true. But how does that reconcile the the first statement? If he is not the God of confusion (I agree 100%), how are all the different denominaitons pleasing when some teach vastly different theology?

 

[sandusky]

estesbob:

Ah-so we have lowered the stanadard from proven by Scripture to verfiable by Scripture.

”We?” What have you got a mouse in your pocket?

You’re quibbling.

estesbob:

That is the standard, BTW, that is used(along with tradition and the teachings of the Magestrium) to prove the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, praying for the interecession of Saints , the authority of the Pope, purgatory, etc. , all of which are rejected by Protestants as “unscrriptual”.

You and me have a different understanding of what it means to “prove by Scripture.”

estesbob:

Of course the usual Protestant fallback position on the Scritpual basis of the Trinity is to ionvoke the “comma” but you have painted yourslef into a corner on that one.

How do you know that?

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,
I cannot remmember, so I am sorry for asking, but are you a sola scriptura or a soli scriptura? What denomination are you?

Sola.

Reformed.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

But that is where the issue of personal interpretation fits in. How can you be sure taht what you think it says is what it says?

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.

ralphinal:

True, true. But how does that reconcile the the first statement? If he is not the God of confusion (I agree 100%), how are all the different denominaitons pleasing when some teach vastly different theology?

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

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.

I beleive what I bleive because it has been taught to my by the One True Church-teachings that have stood unchanging for 2,000 years. I suspect that my reasons are not at all similar to yours.

 

[sandusky]

I beleive what I bleive because it has been taught to my by the One True Church-teachings that have stood unchanging for 2,000 years. I suspect that my reasons are not at all similar to yours.

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

 

[PerryJ]

Heresy is a good thing? Did I misunderstand?

 

[eliasaph99]

Jesus is KING of kings (of the earth v.19). This does not twist to make Jesus “King of Heaven”, since there is only the one God of Heaven of which Jesus is the Second Person of that Triune Godhead.

Jesus specifically calls Heaven a Kingdom. Unless you are proposing that someone other than God is the ruler of Heaven, that would make Him King.

 

[Tietjen]

There was a time the Catholic Church not only supported it but insisted upon it.

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.

 

[PerryJ]

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 verse you used claiming that the Trinity is in the Bible is an addition. Yet you claim you do not accept additions because you believe in Sola Scriptura. If you do not then remove the Johannine Comma. Yet you can’t because if you do then you can no longer believe in the Trinity. So which way does the Protestant turn Sola Scriptura or belief in the Trinity. You can not have both. So which do you chose?

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

Heresy is a good thing? Did I misunderstand?

What did you read?

PerryJ:

Yet you can’t because if you do then you can no longer believe in the Trinity. So which way does the Protestant turn Sola Scriptura or belief in the Trinity. You can not have both. So which do you chose?

As Catholics are fond of saying, "it’s not either/or, it’s both/and."


by Francis BeckwithA concise introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity and its Biblical evidence,