How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Bonarges]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

 

[judy058]

Hi Jim:

I find your question interesting and the short answer from me is: we don’t know whose interpretation is correct.

or

They both are correct.

My long answer would be that we are all at different stages of salvation, with the Holy Spirit guiding us.

2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

Protestant or Catholic; believing God’s Word, we journey toward that wonderful day when we will see our Lord Jesus face-to-face, perhaps in purgatory or directly to heaven !!

We all believe what we believe because it has been taught to us that way. God didn’t cause everyone to be born into Catholic families.

You are fortunate to have the Holy See, be blessed! I believe you have 7 Sacrements, be blessed!

Protestants are in the “sola scriptura” world and just like Jesus did when he met someone, and continues to meet someones - he deals with them (us) according to their faith.

From my perspective it’s not about whose right or wrong but who is righteous?

Answer to that one is: we all are! All believers that is.

I came upon a beautiful poem a while ago while attending a Catholic mission. This poem is written by Fr. Thomas Ryan, CSP

God’s Healing Touch

When god puts us back together again
(with the aid of our willingness to co-operate)
this great Church will be marked by
the dignity & scholarship of the Anglicans,
the order & sacrements of the Roman Catholics,
the warm fellowship of the Methodists,
the Presbyterian desire for good preaching,
the Lutheran respect for sound theology,
There will be Baptist concern
for individual salvation,
the Congregational respect for the rights of lay members,
the Pentecostal reliance on the power
of the Holy Spirit
and the Quaker appreciation for silence.
We will find there the Mennonite
sense of community,
the social action of the Salvation Army,
the social justice of the United
and the Reformed love of the Bible,
all wrapped in Orthodox reverence
before the Mystery of God.

Thanks for putting your question out there Jim !

I hope my answer will give you food for thought.

Judy

 

[Bonarges]

You’re Catholic, huh. Really?

Let me begin with your short answer by stating that you’ve committed two blunders.

The fact is, Catholics do, or should know which interpretation is correct:

From The Council of Trent

ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

ON BAPTISM:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

As for the possibility that they could both be correct, I would suggest a course in Logic 101, but for now, this will have to suffice:

Principle of contradiction

In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality. This is the statement of the law given by Aristotle. It takes no account of the truth of either proposition; if one is true, the other is not; one of the two must be false.

The rest of your garbled post is a simple denial of Truth, which in principle, is a denial of Jesus Christ Who identified Himself as Truth, Who came to bear witness to the Truth.

 

[simspt]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

I think most biblical scholars protestant and catholic use various instruments for aiding their interpretation (historical critical method, patristic sources, tradition etc). This is where catholics and protestants are on the same playing ground with biblical exegesis. Obviously for the catholic dogma and Creeds are not challenged because of the authority and tradition of the church that has been established and their view of the Church. Scholars opinions change over time and famous scholars (Raymond Brown)who are honest admit the limitations of their various interpretations. Many catholics have different opinions on the interpretation of many passages however all agree on doctrine. are you talking about interpreting the literal meaning of passages or the issue of doctrine?

 

[Cachonga]

While I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and have received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never took Holy Orders), I left the Catholic Church years ago, and am currently in a good, solid, reformed church. Hopefully, this will “qualify” me as a protestant for purposes of answering your questions.

Bonarges:

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.

I don’t just grab verses, but will look at verses in the context in which they are used. I will look at other, related verses, checking their context as well (in the case of the Gosples, I look for parallel passages). If I’m uncertain about something, I can look at different versions, and even pull out the lexicon to see what the original Greek or Hebrew said. Since I believe all Scripture is God-breathed, I know it doesn’t contradict itself, so I need to make sure (as much as is humanly possible) to be consistent with my interpretation. I am also aware that I am not infallible, so I am (hopefully) always willing to be shown where I may be wrong.

1. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination?

I think it would depend on what the disagreement is. To use your example, I do not believe Baptism is salvific, but Jesus told His disciples to baptize, and we see this being done in the early Church, so it is unquestionably necessary for believers to be baptized (except under extraordinary circumstances, such as with the thief on the cross). Since we both believe in the necessity of baptism, does it really matter whether or not we believe it’s salvific?

On the other hand, if the disagreement is over the diety of Christ, I would say the Scriptures are very clear that Jesus is God!

To answer the second part of your question, I would go to my Pastor for help in understanding the Scriptures (not because I consider him infallible, but because he has more experience in the Scriptures than I do, and I have found his teaching of the Word to be accurate and consistent).

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

I would say that, in regard to what is necessary for salvation, the Scriptures are very clear. For example, I believe that God is three persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified under Puntius Pilate, buried, and rose again on the third day; that He ascended back to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). I can find these doctrines clearly stated in Scripture.

Hope this helps answer your question!

 

[simspt]

While I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and have received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never took Holy Orders), I left the Catholic Church years ago, and am currently in a good, solid, reformed church. Hopefully, this will “qualify” me as a protestant for purposes of answering your questions.

I don’t just grab verses, but will look at verses in the context in which they are used. I will look at other, related verses, checking their context as well (in the case of the Gosples, I look for parallel passages). If I’m uncertain about something, I can look at different versions, and even pull out the lexicon to see what the original Greek or Hebrew said. Since I believe all Scripture is God-breathed, I know it doesn’t contradict itself, so I need to make sure (as much as is humanly possible) to be consistent with my interpretation. I am also aware that I am not infallible, so I am (hopefully) always willing to be shown where I may be wrong.

I think it would depend on what the disagreement is. To use your example, I do not believe Baptism is salvific, but Jesus told His disciples to baptize, and we see this being done in the early Church, so it is unquestionably necessary for believers to be baptized (except under extraordinary circumstances, such as with the thief on the cross). Since we both believe in the necessity of baptism, does it really matter whether or not we believe it’s salvific?

On the other hand, if the disagreement is over the diety of Christ, I would say the Scriptures are very clear that Jesus is God!

To answer the second part of your question, I would go to my Pastor for help in understanding the Scriptures (not because I consider him infallible, but because he has more experience in the Scriptures than I do, and I have found his teaching of the Word to be accurate and consistent).

I would say that, in regard to what is necessary for salvation, the Scriptures are very clear. For example, I believe that God is three persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified under Puntius Pilate, buried, and rose again on the third day; that He ascended back to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). I can find these doctrines clearly stated in Scripture.

Hope this helps answer your question!

Was the doctrine of the trinity very clear or did it develop over time?

 

[Bonarges]

I think most biblical scholars protestant and catholic use various instruments for aiding their interpretation (historical critical method, patristic sources, tradition etc). This is where catholics and protestants are on the same playing ground with biblical exegesis. Obviously for the catholic dogma and Creeds are not challenged because of the authority and tradition of the church that has been established and their view of the Church. Scholars opinions change over time and famous scholars (Raymond Brown)who are honest admit the limitations of their various interpretations. Many catholics have different opinions on the interpretation of many passages however all agree on doctrine. are you talking about interpreting the literal meaning of passages or the issue of doctrine?

It is true that the Church has not officially interpreted every passage in the Bible, and therefore, Catholics have a certain amount of leeway regarding scriptural interpretation provided it does not conflict with already established and/or defined Church teaching.

So, my questions pertain to scriptural interpretation, since that seems to be the Protestant’s main bag, i.e., sola scriptura.

 

[Bonarges]

While I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and have received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never took Holy Orders), I left the Catholic Church years ago, and am currently in a good, solid, reformed church. Hopefully, this will “qualify” me as a protestant for purposes of answering your questions.

I don’t just grab verses, but will look at verses in the context in which they are used. I will look at other, related verses, checking their context as well (in the case of the Gosples, I look for parallel passages). If I’m uncertain about something, I can look at different versions, and even pull out the lexicon to see what the original Greek or Hebrew said. Since I believe all Scripture is God-breathed, I know it doesn’t contradict itself, so I need to make sure (as much as is humanly possible) to be consistent with my interpretation. I am also aware that I am not infallible, so I am (hopefully) always willing to be shown where I may be wrong.

I think it would depend on what the disagreement is. To use your example, I do not believe Baptism is salvific, but Jesus told His disciples to baptize, and we see this being done in the early Church, so it is unquestionably necessary for believers to be baptized (except under extraordinary circumstances, such as with the thief on the cross). Since we both believe in the necessity of baptism, does it really matter whether or not we believe it’s salvific?

On the other hand, if the disagreement is over the diety of Christ, I would say the Scriptures are very clear that Jesus is God!

To answer the second part of your question, I would go to my Pastor for help in understanding the Scriptures (not because I consider him infallible, but because he has more experience in the Scriptures than I do, and I have found his teaching of the Word to be accurate and consistent).

I would say that, in regard to what is necessary for salvation, the Scriptures are very clear. For example, I believe that God is three persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified under Puntius Pilate, buried, and rose again on the third day; that He ascended back to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). I can find these doctrines clearly stated in Scripture.

Hope this helps answer your question!

In paragraph #2, your admission that you could be wrong destroys everything that preceded it in the paragraph.

Your comments on Baptism are largely irrelevant since you did not address the actual question I asked, but merely answered my question with one of your own. I chose the example I did because it does involve salvation which is of ultimate importance. And, if two men can disagree on an issue of salvation, well then…

As for your pastor, he’s in the same boat as you being infallible. And frankly, “more experience in the Scriptures…” guarantees nothing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’d like to ring in here, even though I’m not Protestant either. I’ve been accused of being a closet Protestant, so FWIW here I go:

The whole argument of who is right or wrong shows that anyone engaged in that argument still hasn’t got the “gist” of the Good News.

The Bible shouldn’t be a weapon we use to judge each other and argue. It is transformative, and I believe that is the most important use for it.

The parables are designed to work issues of logic and fairness beyond our normal everyday experience, and to turn our “typical thinking” on its head so God’s “foolishness” can be revealed in our hearts. It is to change us; to cultivate the Good Seed that the Lord has planted in our hearts.

IMO believers are welcome to discuss how the different parts of the Bible have impact on them and explore how they feel about it, but to argue over a literal meaning and actually get themselves upset over it shows nothing except that the persons still ain’t Got It.

As far as “believing” v. “knowing” I consider them the same. I don’t claim to “know” something unless I believe it, and vice versa. Now, I can believe something either on faith or worldly evidence or both, which means I may not have physical evidence but still may believe based on faith. However, when I “believe” something based on faith, I truly “know” it just like I “know” about the force of gravity. If that weren’t true, then Heb 11:1 is inoperative.

Alan

 

[Cachonga]

simspt:

Was the doctrine of the trinity very clear or did it develop over time?

It is very clearly depicted in the Scriptures. The word “Trinity” took some time, but the early Church definitely believed in the Triune God. We certainly have the Father , Son and Holy Spirit together at the baptism; the disciples were told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and we know from Scripture that God will not share His glory with another - see Isa 42:8); and these are just a couple of the clear teachings of the Triune Godhead (which Jesus embodies - see Col 2:9).

Bonarges:

In paragraph #2, your admission that you could be wrong destroys everything that preceded it in the paragraph.

Well, gee! You got me! But I would point out that you are just as fallible as I am, so how can you “infallibly know” that the Roman Catholic Church truly represents Jesus Christ today? The fact is, you beleive them to be infallible because (basically) they claim to be infallible. But what if you’re wrong? Just because the Church claims infallibility, does that make your decision to follow them infallible? I think there is way to much emphasis placed on this supposed “infallibilty”. And my admission that I could be wrong does not destroy what I said, it simply confirms that I acknowledge that I am no more infallible than any other human being. If you want to insist that my admission of being fallible somehow destroys what I said, then please prove how this works?

Your comments on Baptism are largely irrelevant since you did not address the actual question I asked, but merely answered my question with one of your own. I chose the example I did because it does involve salvation which is of ultimate importance. And, if two men can disagree on an issue of salvation, well then…

If we both believe baptism is necessary, and we both will baptize new believers, does it really matter if you believe it’s salvific and I don’t? Isn’t the result the same? You seem to want a more in depth answer than what I first understood, and so I would like a little more clarification from you. Is baptism by itself salvific? Can you prove this with Scripture? If it is not salvific by itself, what else is needed (again, with Scriptural evidence)? Finally, was this meant to be a thread on baptism?

As for your pastor, he’s in the same boat as you being infallible. And frankly, “more experience in the Scriptures…” guarantees nothing.

True, however, because he has studied more than I have, and I have found him to be reliable, I have confidence in what he would say (even if he says, “I don’t know. I’ll have to look into that.”). Have you ever asked your priest a question about any Church teaching? If so, how is he any better equipped to answer your question than my pastor is to answer mine? When I look at something like 2 Tim 2:15, I see that study is approved and commended by Paul, but there is no guarantee of infallibilty to the one studying, just that he might be approved to God, and be able to “rightly divide the word of truth”.

 

[Bonarges]

I’d like to ring in here, even though I’m not Protestant either. I’ve been accused of being a closet Protestant, so FWIW here I go:

The whole argument of who is right or wrong shows that anyone engaged in that argument still hasn’t got the “gist” of the Good News.

The Bible shouldn’t be a weapon we use to judge each other and argue. It is transformative, and I believe that is the most important use for it.

The parables are designed to work issues of logic and fairness beyond our normal everyday experience, and to turn our “typical thinking” on its head so God’s “foolishness” can be revealed in our hearts. It is to change us; to cultivate the Good Seed that the Lord has planted in our hearts.

IMO believers are welcome to discuss how the different parts of the Bible have impact on them and explore how they feel about it, but to argue over a literal meaning and actually get themselves upset over it shows nothing except that the persons still ain’t Got It.

As far as “believing” v. “knowing” I consider them the same. I don’t claim to “know” something unless I believe it, and vice versa. Now, I can believe something either on faith or worldly evidence or both, which means I may not have physical evidence but still may believe based on faith. However, when I “believe” something based on faith, I truly “know” it just like I “know” about the force of gravity. If that weren’t true, then Heb 11:1 is inoperative.

Alan

All you’ve said is that error and heresy can be transformative, since error and heresy are often based on a false interpretation of Scripture. In all of this, you deny Truth, which in principle, is to deny Jesus Christ Who identified Himself as Truth…

I think I see why you might be considered a closet Protestant.

 

[Bonarges]

It is very clearly depicted in the Scriptures. The word “Trinity” took some time, but the early Church definitely believed in the Triune God. We certainly have the Father , Son and Holy Spirit together at the baptism; the disciples were told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and we know from Scripture that God will not share His glory with another - see Isa 42:8); and these are just a couple of the clear teachings of the Triune Godhead (which Jesus embodies - see Col 2:9).

Well, gee! You got me! But I would point out that you are just as fallible as I am, so how can you “infallibly know” that the Roman Catholic Church truly represents Jesus Christ today? The fact is, you beleive them to be infallible because (basically) they claim to be infallible. But what if you’re wrong? Just because the Church claims infallibility, does that make your decision to follow them infallible? I think there is way to much emphasis placed on this supposed “infallibilty”. And my admission that I could be wrong does not destroy what I said, it simply confirms that I acknowledge that I am no more infallible than any other human being. If you want to insist that my admission of being fallible somehow destroys what I said, then please prove how this works?

If we both believe baptism is necessary, and we both will baptize new believers, does it really matter if you believe it’s salvific and I don’t? Isn’t the result the same? You seem to want a more in depth answer than what I first understood, and so I would like a little more clarification from you. Is baptism by itself salvific? Can you prove this with Scripture? If it is not salvific by itself, what else is needed (again, with Scriptural evidence)? Finally, was this meant to be a thread on baptism?

True, however, because he has studied more than I have, and I have found him to be reliable, I have confidence in what he would say (even if he says, “I don’t know. I’ll have to look into that.”). Have you ever asked your priest a question about any Church teaching? If so, how is he any better equipped to answer your question than my pastor is to answer mine? When I look at something like 2 Tim 2:15, I see that study is approved and commended by Paul, but there is no guarantee of infallibilty to the one studying, just that he might be approved to God, and be able to “rightly divide the word of truth”.

A lot of stuff here that indicates you really do not grasp my original posting/questions.

If you want to start a new topic on infallibility, you can do it, instead of trying to derail this present topic. And by the way, if no man is infallible, you could not even make the statement itself.

I won’t respond to any more red herrings.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

All you’ve said is that error and heresy can be transformative, since error and heresy are often based on a false interpretation of Scripture. In all of this, you deny Truth, which in principle, is to deny Jesus Christ Who identified Himself as Truth…

I think I see why you might be considered a closet Protestant.

Jim, please help me understand why you think I’m writing like a Protestant.

Do you deny that transforming our hearts is the primary benefit to having the Good News in written form? If so, then please tell me what is most important about it.

How am I promoting heresy, because I say each person feels a different effect from scripture? Have you heard of the practice of Lectio Divina? That’s what I was thinking of when I wrote that. We read the scripture itself – not an expert’s interpretation of it – and reflect on it in various ways. If you have heard of Lectio Divina, do you consider it Protestant?

My main point about being “correct” is that I care less that we know exactly all the details correctly, compared to knowing the heart of Jesus. Maybe because I think this way my writing comes across differently than I expect when others read it. I honestly think that when alleged “Christians” have heated arguments about what a scripture means – regardless of which one is correct on whatever technicality it is – that it is an indicator that neither of them understands as they think they do.

I base my claim, in part, on this:

If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

• 1 Cor 8:2

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Victory!

 

[PJM]

=Bonarges;6719059]For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.

1. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

***The answer is Simple an the answer is Biblical , an th answer is clear:

If your interpetiation coresponds with the Teachings of the CC [the source of the God Ispired Bible] it is correct. If your position does not alligh it is wrong. CC***

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

The silence here betrays the deep shame at the heart of every Protestant man.

AlanFromWichita - your post is completely irrelevant to the original poster’s question.

Where are all the Protestant men to answer the question? On this question lies your very salvation - and only a few Protestants can even submit a feeble excuse for an answer? If you cannot be certain of verity of your Protestant religion, I will remain in the Catholic Church - where I can be certain.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The silence here betrays the deep shame at the heart of every Protestant man.

AlanFromWichita - your post is completely irrelevant to the original poster’s question.

Where are all the Protestant men to answer the question? On this question lies your very salvation - and only a few Protestants can even submit a feeble excuse for an answer? If you cannot be certain of verity of your Protestant religion, I will remain in the Catholic Church - where I can be certain.

Do you disagree with me then? You think it is healthy to argue details out of scripture with other believers? It is helpful to Protestants to continue to tell them their Bible and their faith is wrong, or can we share the love of Christ in more productive ways?

I am not claiming the Church has any competition for the authority to interpret it, since her members wrote it and protected it for millenia. As far as I’m concerned, the Church is in charge of the written Word in the Bible. I’m in charge of the Word written on my heart, though, and it hurts me to see Catholics putting down Protestants. The Good Shepherd is willing to leave the flock, if necessary, to find the lost sheep. If I’m totally off-base here, show me how I’m wrong and I’ll stand corrected.

Alan

 

[AnneElliot]

Do you disagree with me then? You think it is healthy to argue details out of scripture with other believers? It is helpful to Protestants to continue to tell them their Bible and their faith is wrong, or can we share the love of Christ in more productive ways?

Do you think it’s better to leave people in error without correction? That’s not love, that’s a lie.

I am not claiming the Church has any competition for the authority to interpret it, since her members wrote it and protected it for millenia. As far as I’m concerned, the Church is in charge of the written Word in the Bible. I’m in charge of the Word written on my heart, though, and it hurts me to see Catholics putting down Protestants. The Good Shepherd is willing to leave the flock, if necessary, to find the lost sheep. If I’m totally off-base here, show me how I’m wrong and I’ll stand corrected.

Putting down Protestants? How so? By pointing out to them that they have no guarantee of interpreting the Scriptures correctly… that’s not putting them down, that’s leading them to the truth… leading them to Jesus, and to His Church.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Protestants? Let’s get to the nitty-gritty.

How many of you here did not know that Catholics believe your church has wrong teachings and doesn’t know how to interpret Scripture properly?

If you already knew, does being reminded make you more likely to want to become Catholic?

If you did not know, now you do.

Alan

 

[AnneElliot]

Protestants? Let’s get to the nitty-gritty.

How many of you here did not know that Catholics believe your church has wrong teachings and doesn’t know how to interpret Scripture properly?

If you already knew, does being reminded make you more likely to want to become Catholic?

If you did not know, now you do.

Why do you think they are on a Catholic forum… if not to -]debate/-] discuss these very issues?