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

[ralphinal]

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.

No, but for some reason this one was not as bad as some others to me.

 

[Hisalone]

Yes

No he is not alone.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The problem is that the non-Trinitarians also find their view equally “verifiable by scripture”. this goes back to that notion of “private interpretation”. Once one is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scripture, all manner of unpredictable “verifications” occur.

As far as the early creeds, Protestant Churches do not agree, and do not profess them. All reject part or all of the creeds - especially the catholic part.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree. So, how do you tell which is which? Many who produce bad fruit also justifiy themselves with Scripture.

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.

I agree that Orthodoxy agrees with Scripture. However, where in the Scripture does it say that the “measuring rod” is Scripture?

How do reconcile such a standard with Jesus telling His disciples to take their disputes to the Church, and not the Scripture, for settlement?

 

[Tietjen]

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?

Actually, I would like to see proof that the Catholic Church itself pressured Erasmus to add the Comma. When I say proof, I am not speaking of a Chick tract or some such garbage. Even the source that you quoted Wikipedia says this about it:

“Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma. Rather, Erasmus included the Comma because he wished to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy which might undermine the acceptance of his translation: "For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.”

So, please provide the proof you speak of that supports YOUR opinion concerning the big bad bully (the Catholic Church) as being the source of the Comma. This is the argument you chose to lead with, now defend it.

 

[ufamtobie]

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.

Brkn1, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! Read the verse below!

(John 18: 36) Jesus Answered: "My KINGdom does not belong to this WORLD. If my KINGdom WERE of this WORLD, my Subjects would be fighting to save me from being handed over to the Jews. As it is MY KINGDOM IS NOT HERE."

Brkn1, now Jesus himself said his Kingdom does not belong to THIS WORLD. The Point is if Jesus has a KINGDOM, not of this WORLD that means he is the KING of that Kingdom, and that KINGDOM is HEAVEN!

Brkn1, since you don’t believe that Jesus has a kingdom not of this world this means you are not now/soon tobe a SUBJECT of that kingdom and would not fight to save Jesus as it is now you are fighting with his Catholic Church.

Brkn1, If (John 18: 36) does not set you straight about Jesus saying that he does have a KINGDOM not of this WORLD which means he must be a KING of HEAVEN, AND ALSO OF EARTH then nothing what I say will MAKE YOU BELIEVE.

You are trying to TEACH and TWIST peoples Minds that Jesus is not a King Of heaven is wrong! Shame on you!!! Then again you are a protestant doing what protestants do.

For me and my houshold Jesus Christ is KING of kings and LORD of lords of heaven and of earth!

Ufamtobie

 

[Abbadon]

Actually, I would like to see proof that the Catholic Church itself pressured Erasmus to add the Comma. When I say proof, I am not speaking of a Chick tract or some such garbage. Even the source that you quoted Wikipedia says this about it:

“Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma. Rather, Erasmus included the Comma because he wished to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy which might undermine the acceptance of his translation: "For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.”

So, please provide the proof you speak of that supports YOUR opinion concerning the big bad bully (the Catholic Church) as being the source of the Comma. This is the argument you chose to lead with, now defend it.

The church is indeed horrible have you by any chance read the history of the spanish inquisition? If not and if you have the stomach for it i highly recommend it. My favourite fact is how they roasted the “witches” rather than burn them, i also found the multiple methods of torture out of which a confession was coheresed…

Ahhhhh the beauty of mother church, the haven of the sadist…

 

[Tietjen]

The church is indeed horrible have you by any chance read the history of the spanish inquisition? If not and if you have the stomach for it i highly recommend it. My favourite fact is how they roasted the “witches” rather than burn them, i also found the multiple methods of torture out of which a confession was coheresed…

Ahhhhh the beauty of mother church, the haven of the sadist…

Actually, that “history” you speak of is so fictional it’s rather ridiculas. However, by all means you go on reading it since you find it entertaining. Leave things like truth and facts for those whose IQ is greater than their waist size.

 

[wisdomseeker]

to Protestants
is this in the Bible? the reason i ask is because Prot claims only to believe on the Bible only and not what any man says.

**“Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church?”—John Calvin **

*“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… *

 

[guanophore]

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.

Nothing else was offered? It seems like a small minded thing to say to you, since you obviously DID interpret it differently, so it clearly CAN be done, and HAS been done!

I wonder if the Messiah that was revealed to John did not seem like the Messiah that followed. John knew that “his winnowing fork will be in his hand…” yet instead of a fearful prospect of judgement, Jesus went around healing and talking about Love. I don’t think John was second guessing himself, but was unable to put the first and second coming together in his mind.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

The problem is that the non-Trinitarians also find their view equally “verifiable by scripture”. this goes back to that notion of “private interpretation”. Once one is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scripture, all manner of unpredictable “verifications” occur.

Your premise is wrong: sacred tradition didn’t produce the scripture, but ”men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Will you ever understand that?

guanophore:

I agree. So, how do you tell which is which? Many who produce bad fruit also justifiy themselves with Scripture.

If you recognize that many who produce bad fruit also justify themselves with Scripture then you’ve answered your question ”how do you tell which is which.”

guanophore:

I agree that Orthodoxy agrees with Scripture. However, where in the Scripture does it say that the “measuring rod” is Scripture?

That’s a red-herring; I merely stated the definition of the word, “canon.”

guanophore:

How do reconcile such a standard with Jesus telling His disciples to take their disputes to the Church, and not the Scripture, for settlement?

Read the passage again; the passage speaks of a brother sinning, and not disputes.

The last step of that discipline is taking it to the church, and the church should judge according to the rule of the scripture.

 

[estesbob]

No he is not alone.

So why did it take you 102 posts for you to realize you were feelng insulted?

 

[estesbob]

The church is indeed horrible have you by any chance read the history of the spanish inquisition? If not and if you have the stomach for it i highly recommend it. My favourite fact is how they roasted the “witches” rather than burn them, i also found the multiple methods of torture out of which a confession was coheresed…

Ahhhhh the beauty of mother church, the haven of the sadist…

LOL-I suspect you derive your Church “history” from “Chick Tracts”

 

[Hisalone]

So why did it take you 102 posts for you to realize you were feelng insulted?

I find many, many thread titles insulting----just about everything from JimmyB. I dont make a point of it.

 

[Abbadon]

Actually, that “history” you speak of is so fictional it’s rather ridiculas. However, by all means you go on reading it since you find it entertaining. Leave things like truth and facts for those whose IQ is greater than their waist size.

wow are you serious… your kidding right… the church was rather proud of its accomplishments…

Torture methods and trails are very well recorded throughout the era… There are museums full of the torture devices used…

I mean your like… denying…(Edited) why not deny the holicost while your at it…

Apologists for the inquisition makes me sick…

 

[guanophore]

Your premise is wrong: sacred tradition didn’t produce the scripture, but ”men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Will you ever understand that?

Yes, sandy. I understand. Men moved by the spirit is what comprises Sacred Tradition. Men moved by the Spirit doing and speaking from God. Those men did not cease to be moved by the Spirit after they wrote some of the things that came from God.

If you recognize that many who produce bad fruit also justify themselves with Scripture then you’ve answered your question ”how do you tell which is which.”

No, sandy. You are asserting that the Scripture is the final rule of faith and authority. I am saying that people can justify themselves with scripture, and interpret the scripture in such a way as to justify their thinking, doctrine, and deeds. I answer the question by those persons who are in unity with the Apostolic Succession from whence the scriptures came. Division and separation from the unity is bad fruit.

That’s a red-herring; I merely stated the definition of the word, “canon.”

I think not, however I appreciate your defintion of the word “canon”. We are in agreement about the meaning of a rule or standard. However, you are saying that the scripture should be this rule and standard, not the Church. I am asking you, why do you believe this, when the Scripture does not speak of itself this way?

Read the passage again; the passage speaks of a brother sinning, and not disputes.

The last step of that discipline is taking it to the church, and the church should judge according to the rule of the scripture.

To sin is to miss the mark. When one embraces error, one misses the mark. Once one falls into doctrinal error, all kinds of other sins ensue. The NT did not exist when Christ gave this instruction, so I don’t think He meant to use the “rule of scripture”. I agree that Scripture was to inform and guide the actions of people, but nowhere does the Scripture say that it is the “rule”. In addition, Christ gives the ruling authority to His Apostles, and never instructs them to misuse the scriptures in this manner.

 

[Hisalone]

Actually, I would like to see proof that the Catholic Church itself pressured Erasmus to add the Comma. When I say proof, I am not speaking of a Chick tract or some such garbage. Even the source that you quoted Wikipedia says this about it:

“Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma. Rather, Erasmus included the Comma because he wished to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy which might undermine the acceptance of his translation: "For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.”

So, please provide the proof you speak of that supports YOUR opinion concerning the big bad bully (the Catholic Church) as being the source of the Comma. This is the argument you chose to lead with, now defend it.

There is no proof posilble for you., You have made up your mind firmly that whatever explanation that the Catholic Church offers you will follow.
BTW the source I quoted on the second link is as fine a NT scholar that we have today.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Yes, sandy. I understand. Men moved by the spirit is what comprises Sacred Tradition. Men moved by the Spirit doing and speaking from God. Those men did not cease to be moved by the Spirit after they wrote some of the things that came from God.

Your point is?

guanophore:

I think not, however I appreciate your defintion of the word “canon”. We are in agreement about the meaning of a rule or standard. However, you are saying that the scripture should be this rule and standard, not the Church. I am asking you, why do you believe this, when the Scripture does not speak of itself this way?

That’s specious; you and I both agree that scripture is inspired by God; there is no higher authority for the rule of faith and conduct than the words of God; wouldn’t you agree?

The basic thrust of your argument, ISTM, is that because Scripture nowhere states,
”I, scripture, am the sole rule of faith and conduct,” then everyone should reject it as such; however, because the Roman Catholic Church states, ”I am the sole rule of faith and conduct,” everyone should accept it as such—that’s absurd.

guanophore:

To sin is to miss the mark. When one embraces error, one misses the mark. Once one falls into doctrinal error, all kinds of other sins ensue. The NT did not exist when Christ gave this instruction, so I don’t think He meant to use the “rule of scripture”. I agree that Scripture was to inform and guide the actions of people, but nowhere does the Scripture say that it is the “rule”. In addition, Christ gives the ruling authority to His Apostles, and never instructs them to misuse the scriptures in this manner.

Say again another way; I’m not following that as phrased.

 

[guanophore]

Your point is?

That the NT represents, in it’s entirety, the Sacred Tradition. It was men, moved by the HS, who spoke from God. These men who were speaking the Gospel also wrote some of their teachings. There is no distinction between the contents or the source. The Tradition did not suddently disappear after some of it was committed to writing.

That’s specious; you and I both agree that scripture is inspired by God; there is no higher authority for the rule of faith and conduct than the words of God; wouldn’t you agree?

I do agree. I think where we disagree is that Catholics understand the Word of God to be present in a living and active way in the Church, as well as in the Scripture. God also breathed on the Church, and gave her the Teaching Authority to make disciples of all nations. It was this authority He gave that they used to write and define the contents of the NT.

The basic thrust of your argument, ISTM, is that because Scripture nowhere states,
”I, scripture, am the sole rule of faith and conduct,” then everyone should reject it as such; however, because the Roman Catholic Church states, ”I am the sole rule of faith and conduct,” everyone should accept it as such—that’s absurd.

Does it not make sense that , if the writers beleived and taught Sola Scriptura, they would have documented this? On the contrary, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach, and to be the sole rule of faith. Catholics do not “reject” the Scriptures. They are part and parcel of the Teaching. I do not expect everyone to accept Romanism, as I am not inclined to do myself. it is not a “Roman” issue. Those who embrace the Apostolic faith will not separate the Sacred Writing from the Sacred Scripture that produced them.

Say again another way; I’m not following that as phrased.

Matt 18:15-20

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Catholics maintain that the Church is the final rule of faith and morals. Protestants claim it is the Scripture. In this passage, Jesus directs disputes to be taken to the church, not the scripture.

 

[ralphinal]

Two points about authority.

First, when there is an issue with someone’s behavior, Jesus never said to refer them to scripture in Matt 18:15-20

Second, what is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth according to Scriptures? The Church.