A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You got me with that one.
Why do you think they are on a Catholic forum… if not to -]debate/-] discuss these very issues?
Alan
- Status
Alan
A
AnneElliot
Guest
See? So then this thread serves a good purpose… it provides for them a platform on which to demonstrate the proper interpretation of Scripture. If they cannot answer Bonarges questions, then they must re-examine themselves and their method of Scriptural interpretation. Ultimately, this should lead them to the notion that they cannot interpret Scripture individually, but must use “the pillar and bulwark of truth” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15) as a guideline… and since there can only be one truth (and thus, one Church) they will be forced to realize that the Catholic Church is the only Church with an unbroken Apostolic succession that has remained faithful to the deposit of Faith handed on by the Apostles. Thus, being honest people, true seekers of Jesus, they will want to become Catholic.
P
PhanxicoXavier
Guest
I think that you’ve misunderstood the original poster’s question. You seem to be think that he is talking about minutia, but the way that I read the question, he is asking Protestants how they can be sure that they are interpreting the whole Bible correctly, especially on issues of the utmost importance - such as Baptism. Its a perfectly good question that every Protestant needs to seriously reflect on. As this thread is evidence of, none of them have a satisfactory answer - because they simply can’t be sure that their interpretation is correct. This is the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of Protestantism. They can rant and rave all they want against the Church of Rome, but when you politely ask “Good Christian, if I am in error, how can you be sure that you are not? If my Christianity is wrong, how can I be sure that yours is not?” they are either left mute and bow their heads in shame, or rant and rave even more.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.
I distinguish between serious Protestants that are firmly set against the Church of Rome for apologetic reasons and cultural Protestants that are ignorant. The latter has no excuse to remain ignorant, and it is their duty to find the one, true religion and convert to it; the former on the other hand, are idolaters. They do not worship Christ, but their own fantastical and perverted concept of Him, they do not proclaim the Word of God, but the word of Satan - the offspring of their own private interpretation. In short, they are not much above atheists and agnostics - for they make an idol out of their own “intellect” and reject Christ, the Truth itself. Their sects are nothing but the work of human hands mixed with phantasmagorical vestiges of true Christian religion.
I say all this out of Christian charity. Protestants, harden not your hearts when you read this. You have seen how frail the foundations of your religion are – you are posting on a Roman Catholic forum, look then at the Church of Rome, outside of which there can be absolutely no salvation.
B
Bonarges
Guest
Thanks, Anne and Phanxico.
It is telling, I think, that so few Protestants would attempt a response. My questions, of course, address ultimate Truth, and how one can come to know it.
It is telling, I think, that so few Protestants would attempt a response. My questions, of course, address ultimate Truth, and how one can come to know it.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Thank you all for your patience and your explanations.
I believe you are offering your corrections as an act of love. Also I believe this thread serves a purpose. I still think, though, that it came across to me as a bit condescending. :banghead:
That said, maybe the reason that Protestants haven’t answered is that it was a trap. There is no real way to argue against someone who believes their own position is infallibly right. Another reason is I suppose I may have fouled up the intent of the OP by arguing among Catholics rather than letting the Protestants answer their own questions.
Oh well, I’ll quit thinking for them: Protestants, I’ll get out of your way if you wish to answer the questions. (Reminiscent of the “bridge of death” - hee hee)
Alan
I believe you are offering your corrections as an act of love. Also I believe this thread serves a purpose. I still think, though, that it came across to me as a bit condescending. :banghead:
That said, maybe the reason that Protestants haven’t answered is that it was a trap. There is no real way to argue against someone who believes their own position is infallibly right. Another reason is I suppose I may have fouled up the intent of the OP by arguing among Catholics rather than letting the Protestants answer their own questions.
Oh well, I’ll quit thinking for them: Protestants, I’ll get out of your way if you wish to answer the questions. (Reminiscent of the “bridge of death” - hee hee)
Alan
A
AnneElliot
Guest
There is a way to argue against someone who mistakenly believes their own position is infallibly right, with logic and reason. Now, on the other hand, if someone’s position is true, then there is no way to argue against the truth except blatant denial (i.e., lying).
W
wfr
Guest
Hi Bonarges,
I like your question. The difference in Biblical interpretation is exactly why there are so many Protestant denominations. The Protestant idea that every believer can interpret the Bible for his or her self has caused much confusion, even within the same denominations. The problem is that there is no ultimate authority in Protestantism. Take this example. What if we held the view, that all Americans, by virtue of their citizenship could interpret the laws of the land for themselves? What if there was no supreme court? Can you see how quickly America would fall into anarchy? This is exactly what happened in Protestantism.
Another BIG problem in Charismatic groups is that they believe the Holy Spirit personally gives them the correct interpretation of Scripture. This has lead to all kind of crazy stuff. We Catholics are free to interpret Scripture, but we have the Magisterium which keeps us from going too far afield. The Magisterium acts as a kind of supreme court in faith and doctrine.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
I like your question. The difference in Biblical interpretation is exactly why there are so many Protestant denominations. The Protestant idea that every believer can interpret the Bible for his or her self has caused much confusion, even within the same denominations. The problem is that there is no ultimate authority in Protestantism. Take this example. What if we held the view, that all Americans, by virtue of their citizenship could interpret the laws of the land for themselves? What if there was no supreme court? Can you see how quickly America would fall into anarchy? This is exactly what happened in Protestantism.
Another BIG problem in Charismatic groups is that they believe the Holy Spirit personally gives them the correct interpretation of Scripture. This has lead to all kind of crazy stuff. We Catholics are free to interpret Scripture, but we have the Magisterium which keeps us from going too far afield. The Magisterium acts as a kind of supreme court in faith and doctrine.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
C
Cachonga
Guest
Very interesting discussion. The problem for me is that when I answered the questions as I understood them, I was told that my admission that I am not infallible basically negates my entire argument, and that I didn’t answer the question. When I asked for clarification, I was told in no uncertain terms that my postings were nothing more than “red herrings”. Even AlanFromWichita got jumped on for “sounding” like a Protestant. Why are you surprised that Protestants are responding to this thread?
In regard to “infallibly” knowing the interpretation of Scripture, did the Jews have an “infallible” magisterium? Did they “infallibly” know the Scriptures? The obvious answer is “No”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was written in the Scriptures. Why do you think we need an “infallible” interpretation? Here’s the problem I see with the Catholic Church (and part of the reason I left) - once the “infallible” magisterium defines what a specific scripture verse means, YOU have to accept it as true. For example - how do you know the teachings of the Church are infallible? Think about this - who defines what Scripture is, and what it means? Who defines what Tradition is, and what it means? If the Magisterium defines and interprets both Scripture and Tradition, and claims that these things give it the infallibility it claims to have, how can you test this claim? If you examine the Scriptures, you will not find any promise of infallibility to the Church. True, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (ALL Christians), and He will lead us into His Truth, but that is not a promise of infallibility.
I guess it comes down to this - I have complete trust in my ultimate authority, which is the God-breathed Scriptures. If I am proven wrong on a particular point, the fault is mine, not the Scriptures. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have (or are supposed to have) complete trust in their ultimate authority, which is the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The difference is, my authority doesn’t change. Your authority makes changes in the form of dogmatic decrees (such as Mary’s immaculate coneption, made dogma in the 1800’s, papal infallibility, made dogma at Vatican I, also in the mid 1800’s, and the bodily assumption of Mary, made dogma around 1950, and there is talk of making Mary co-redeemer and co-mediator a dogma).
Having said all that, I will leave this thread and leave you to do what you feel is appropriate.
Pax!
In regard to “infallibly” knowing the interpretation of Scripture, did the Jews have an “infallible” magisterium? Did they “infallibly” know the Scriptures? The obvious answer is “No”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was written in the Scriptures. Why do you think we need an “infallible” interpretation? Here’s the problem I see with the Catholic Church (and part of the reason I left) - once the “infallible” magisterium defines what a specific scripture verse means, YOU have to accept it as true. For example - how do you know the teachings of the Church are infallible? Think about this - who defines what Scripture is, and what it means? Who defines what Tradition is, and what it means? If the Magisterium defines and interprets both Scripture and Tradition, and claims that these things give it the infallibility it claims to have, how can you test this claim? If you examine the Scriptures, you will not find any promise of infallibility to the Church. True, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (ALL Christians), and He will lead us into His Truth, but that is not a promise of infallibility.
I guess it comes down to this - I have complete trust in my ultimate authority, which is the God-breathed Scriptures. If I am proven wrong on a particular point, the fault is mine, not the Scriptures. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have (or are supposed to have) complete trust in their ultimate authority, which is the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The difference is, my authority doesn’t change. Your authority makes changes in the form of dogmatic decrees (such as Mary’s immaculate coneption, made dogma in the 1800’s, papal infallibility, made dogma at Vatican I, also in the mid 1800’s, and the bodily assumption of Mary, made dogma around 1950, and there is talk of making Mary co-redeemer and co-mediator a dogma).
Having said all that, I will leave this thread and leave you to do what you feel is appropriate.
Pax!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
When I think of “infallibility” I don’t think of it so much as meaning it is completely impossible to be unerrant – even in God’s eyes – as I think it has to do with the authority of the Church.
SOMEbody had to decide who was in charge of keeping the Word, and the Catholic Church did so for many years until everybody and his dog decided to rewrite/reinterpret the Bible. Through it all, a single organization kept in charge of it, so it hopefully minimizes the chance it was corrupted and changed through reinterpretation.
That said, I still think the main benefit to having the Gospel in writing is its transformative effect on the human heart. We are striving to learn to love, and to have peace, joy, and the other fruit of the spirit in our hearts. These things can be done without even knowing – much less arguing about – some of the technical details. If we simply obeyed the Church and there was no other benefit to the Bible than to know how to act, then they would be redundant and we wouldn’t need to read the Bible at all – like in the days before the printing press. We have the Church to give us the rules and explain important details, and the Bible to bring us God’s heart.
How exciting we live in the age of ushering in the Internet and can now see instant access to the Word and to fellowship 24/7.
Alan
SOMEbody had to decide who was in charge of keeping the Word, and the Catholic Church did so for many years until everybody and his dog decided to rewrite/reinterpret the Bible. Through it all, a single organization kept in charge of it, so it hopefully minimizes the chance it was corrupted and changed through reinterpretation.
That said, I still think the main benefit to having the Gospel in writing is its transformative effect on the human heart. We are striving to learn to love, and to have peace, joy, and the other fruit of the spirit in our hearts. These things can be done without even knowing – much less arguing about – some of the technical details. If we simply obeyed the Church and there was no other benefit to the Bible than to know how to act, then they would be redundant and we wouldn’t need to read the Bible at all – like in the days before the printing press. We have the Church to give us the rules and explain important details, and the Bible to bring us God’s heart.
How exciting we live in the age of ushering in the Internet and can now see instant access to the Word and to fellowship 24/7.
Alan
J
judy058
Guest
I must have misunderstood; I thought when Jim put the question out there to all “the Protestants on board” that you expected to get a Protestant perspective.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I guess the initial idea was to have a “rational” discussion.
That’s kind of why I jumped in. I was hoping to see it become a “charitable” discussion as well.
Alan
T
TimothyH
Guest
What we are really talking about is how we know the truth with certainty.
"Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’" (John 14:6)
So the truth is a person and his name is Jesus. There is only one Jesus so there can be only one truth. We must find that truth in order to “come to the Father.”
Using the example of baptism given in the original post, it cannot be both necessary for salvation and not necessary for salvation at the same time. It is either necessary or not necessary but it cannot be both necessary and not necessary at any given time. This illustrates Jesus’ point that for matters of salvation (coming to the Father), there can be only one truth.
If multiple conflicting and opposite truths all correct at the same time are not possible, and if there is no authoritative source on earth by which man is to know the one singular truth with certainty,then we must accept the fact that at least some of us will be wrong about some matter of salvation at least some of the time. If there is no authoritative source of the truth by which man can know for sure, then at least some of us will not “come to the Father.”
Jesus did not intend for there to be conflicting truths and conflicting intepretations of scripture. There is only one Jesus. There is only one truth. And as to that truth, the unerring word of God is clear…
***“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in te houshold of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” *(1 Timothy 3:16)
If the Church is the upholder of truth and the base upon which all truth is built, then our personal intepretation of scripture - our view of the truth, becomes a moot point.
-Tim-
"Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’" (John 14:6)
So the truth is a person and his name is Jesus. There is only one Jesus so there can be only one truth. We must find that truth in order to “come to the Father.”
Using the example of baptism given in the original post, it cannot be both necessary for salvation and not necessary for salvation at the same time. It is either necessary or not necessary but it cannot be both necessary and not necessary at any given time. This illustrates Jesus’ point that for matters of salvation (coming to the Father), there can be only one truth.
If multiple conflicting and opposite truths all correct at the same time are not possible, and if there is no authoritative source on earth by which man is to know the one singular truth with certainty,then we must accept the fact that at least some of us will be wrong about some matter of salvation at least some of the time. If there is no authoritative source of the truth by which man can know for sure, then at least some of us will not “come to the Father.”
Jesus did not intend for there to be conflicting truths and conflicting intepretations of scripture. There is only one Jesus. There is only one truth. And as to that truth, the unerring word of God is clear…
***“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in te houshold of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” *(1 Timothy 3:16)
If the Church is the upholder of truth and the base upon which all truth is built, then our personal intepretation of scripture - our view of the truth, becomes a moot point.
-Tim-
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
What you “know” about Bible interpretation depends on how you use the word “know.”
If you mean “know” as in through worldly senses and scientific discovery, then nobody knows anything about the Bible. We weren’t there to observe it, nor do we have any direct access to the authors.
If you mean “know” as in with faith, then for Catholics we “know” that what the Church teaches is correct.
Same with Protestants. They “know” as in with their faith, but they trust a different printed version of the Bible than we do and maybe they are lacking some of the resources to interpret.
If that is illogical, then please point to the illogic and refrain from calling me names.
Alan
P.S. I got to wondering why I care so much more about this than most others seem to. Then I remembered a childhood episode where the mother of my Lutheran friend had us say the “Lord’s Prayer” together. She knew very well that Gary was going to add the doxology onto it, and when he did she clucked with delight. She told me that my prayer was not as long as his – with the tone that my religion is not as good as his. I was confused, but I didn’t know much about my faith yet or I would have been offended by her attitude. As it was, I was not impressed. If the prayer was supposed to have an extra part on the end, why hadn’t I learned it? One thing for sure, though, it did NOT want me to become Lutheran because they had “better” prayers. It didn’t even occur to me to consider changes religions just because Gary’s mom thought their prayers were better than mine. Now that I can look back and see how outrageous it was what she did, I see that her claims of better prayers – though I had no way to refute them at the time – did NOT make me want to convert. It was just gratuitous entertainment for her, at the expense of two children. Let’s not be like her.
If you mean “know” as in through worldly senses and scientific discovery, then nobody knows anything about the Bible. We weren’t there to observe it, nor do we have any direct access to the authors.
If you mean “know” as in with faith, then for Catholics we “know” that what the Church teaches is correct.
Same with Protestants. They “know” as in with their faith, but they trust a different printed version of the Bible than we do and maybe they are lacking some of the resources to interpret.
If that is illogical, then please point to the illogic and refrain from calling me names.
Alan
P.S. I got to wondering why I care so much more about this than most others seem to. Then I remembered a childhood episode where the mother of my Lutheran friend had us say the “Lord’s Prayer” together. She knew very well that Gary was going to add the doxology onto it, and when he did she clucked with delight. She told me that my prayer was not as long as his – with the tone that my religion is not as good as his. I was confused, but I didn’t know much about my faith yet or I would have been offended by her attitude. As it was, I was not impressed. If the prayer was supposed to have an extra part on the end, why hadn’t I learned it? One thing for sure, though, it did NOT want me to become Lutheran because they had “better” prayers. It didn’t even occur to me to consider changes religions just because Gary’s mom thought their prayers were better than mine. Now that I can look back and see how outrageous it was what she did, I see that her claims of better prayers – though I had no way to refute them at the time – did NOT make me want to convert. It was just gratuitous entertainment for her, at the expense of two children. Let’s not be like her.
J
JustaServant
Guest
The problem with the Protestant concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ is that it creates the problem they were hoping to solve. If it is ‘Scripture Alone’, who interprets? Where is the authority? To say it is the Holy Spirit creates more problems than it solves by simply observing the number of denominations. Is God the author of confusion?
Sola Scriptura is like taking the engine out of your car, placing it on the garage floor and expecting it to move. It won’t, it needs to be attached to the rest of the car to give it movement and direction.
It comes down to authority, plain and simple.
Sola Scriptura is like taking the engine out of your car, placing it on the garage floor and expecting it to move. It won’t, it needs to be attached to the rest of the car to give it movement and direction.
It comes down to authority, plain and simple.
W
wfr
Guest
Hi Cachonga,
I know you said you were leaving this thread, but you brought up some issues that I would like to address. If I may take your points in order:
You state, “In regard to “infallibly” knowing the interpretation of Scripture, did the Jews have an “infallible” magisterium? Did they “infallibly” know the Scriptures? The obvious answer is “No”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was written in the Scriptures.” The early Jews were not call to “personally interpret” the Torah, that was the job of the priests and rabbis.
Remember that before 33AD the Jewish religion was Temple based and not Scripture based. The average Jew did not have a copy of Torah (that is why there is so much emphasis on memorizing Torah). The priests held religious authority as the valid successors of Moses. The Jews relied on the “Oral Torah” as a guide to interpretation of Torah. This oral tradition was considered to be authoritative as God had given the tradition to Moses. This was later codified as the Mishnah. But this is not really reliant to our discussion.
You stated: “Here’s the problem I see with the Catholic Church (and part of the reason I left) - once the “infallible” magisterium defines what a specific scripture verse means, YOU have to accept it as true. For example - how do you know the teachings of the Church are infallible?”
My Response: This is a great question, and was the argument that I used all the time back in my Protestant days. Why do we have faith in the magisterium? It is based in the promise of Jesus that the “gates of hell” would not overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18). This was said in connection with whit Jesus’ elevation of ST. Peter as His successor. The bishops of the Church and the Pope in particular are the successors of Peter and the apostles. (If you want to discuss the One True Church position I would be blade to engage in that discussion, start another thread or contact me privately) So the authority of the magisterium is based on the authority of the Church. If the Scriptures can be corrupted, then Jesus’ promise is null and void and we are all lost.
You state: “? If you examine the Scriptures, you will not find any promise of infallibility to the Church. True, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (ALL Christians), and He will lead us into His Truth, but that is not a promise of infallibility.”
My response: First of all, remember that the New Testament was not written until years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. For years the New Testament was not contained in written form, but in oral Tradition. It was the Church, the magistertium if you will, that guarded that truth. Jesus promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into “all truth” (John 16:13). That sure sounds like a promise of infallibility to me. This promise was not given to all Christians, but the Apostles. We see this in the beginning of John 16:
"I have told you this so that you may not fall away. They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me. I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you. "I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts. But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:1-7)
Notice that Jesus is speaking specifically to His apostles.
You stated: I guess it comes down to this - I have complete trust in my ultimate authority, which is the God-breathed Scriptures. If I am proven wrong on a particular point, the fault is mine, not the Scriptures. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have (or are supposed to have) complete trust in their ultimate authority, which is the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The difference is, my authority doesn’t change. Your authority makes changes in the form of dogmatic decrees (such as Mary’s immaculate coneption, made dogma in the 1800’s, papal infallibility, made dogma at Vatican I, also in the mid 1800’s, and the bodily assumption of Mary, made dogma around 1950, and there is talk of making Mary co-redeemer and co-mediator a dogma).
My Response: I agree that the Scriptures are God-breathed. But of what good are infallible Scriptures without an infallible interpretation? If I had directions of how to find the world’s greatest treasure, what good would it do me if I could not understand them? Keep in mind also that for most of Christian history, Bibles were widely unavailable because of the tremendous cost of having one hand copied. And even if the Scriptures were available, most people could not read. If the Bible teaches the doctrine of personal interpretation of the scriptures, what was the purpose of a promise that was a mute point for the vast majority of Christians who have lives since Christ?
Lastly you said that Catholic dogma changes. This is a misunderstanding, the Immaculate Conception and other relatively late pronouncements changed nothing. Dogmatic pronouncements are made when an important Tradition is called into question. They are clarifications of what the Church has always held to be true.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
I know you said you were leaving this thread, but you brought up some issues that I would like to address. If I may take your points in order:
You state, “In regard to “infallibly” knowing the interpretation of Scripture, did the Jews have an “infallible” magisterium? Did they “infallibly” know the Scriptures? The obvious answer is “No”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was written in the Scriptures.” The early Jews were not call to “personally interpret” the Torah, that was the job of the priests and rabbis.
Remember that before 33AD the Jewish religion was Temple based and not Scripture based. The average Jew did not have a copy of Torah (that is why there is so much emphasis on memorizing Torah). The priests held religious authority as the valid successors of Moses. The Jews relied on the “Oral Torah” as a guide to interpretation of Torah. This oral tradition was considered to be authoritative as God had given the tradition to Moses. This was later codified as the Mishnah. But this is not really reliant to our discussion.
You stated: “Here’s the problem I see with the Catholic Church (and part of the reason I left) - once the “infallible” magisterium defines what a specific scripture verse means, YOU have to accept it as true. For example - how do you know the teachings of the Church are infallible?”
My Response: This is a great question, and was the argument that I used all the time back in my Protestant days. Why do we have faith in the magisterium? It is based in the promise of Jesus that the “gates of hell” would not overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18). This was said in connection with whit Jesus’ elevation of ST. Peter as His successor. The bishops of the Church and the Pope in particular are the successors of Peter and the apostles. (If you want to discuss the One True Church position I would be blade to engage in that discussion, start another thread or contact me privately) So the authority of the magisterium is based on the authority of the Church. If the Scriptures can be corrupted, then Jesus’ promise is null and void and we are all lost.
You state: “? If you examine the Scriptures, you will not find any promise of infallibility to the Church. True, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (ALL Christians), and He will lead us into His Truth, but that is not a promise of infallibility.”
My response: First of all, remember that the New Testament was not written until years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. For years the New Testament was not contained in written form, but in oral Tradition. It was the Church, the magistertium if you will, that guarded that truth. Jesus promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into “all truth” (John 16:13). That sure sounds like a promise of infallibility to me. This promise was not given to all Christians, but the Apostles. We see this in the beginning of John 16:
"I have told you this so that you may not fall away. They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me. I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you. "I did not tell you this from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts. But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:1-7)
Notice that Jesus is speaking specifically to His apostles.
You stated: I guess it comes down to this - I have complete trust in my ultimate authority, which is the God-breathed Scriptures. If I am proven wrong on a particular point, the fault is mine, not the Scriptures. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have (or are supposed to have) complete trust in their ultimate authority, which is the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The difference is, my authority doesn’t change. Your authority makes changes in the form of dogmatic decrees (such as Mary’s immaculate coneption, made dogma in the 1800’s, papal infallibility, made dogma at Vatican I, also in the mid 1800’s, and the bodily assumption of Mary, made dogma around 1950, and there is talk of making Mary co-redeemer and co-mediator a dogma).
My Response: I agree that the Scriptures are God-breathed. But of what good are infallible Scriptures without an infallible interpretation? If I had directions of how to find the world’s greatest treasure, what good would it do me if I could not understand them? Keep in mind also that for most of Christian history, Bibles were widely unavailable because of the tremendous cost of having one hand copied. And even if the Scriptures were available, most people could not read. If the Bible teaches the doctrine of personal interpretation of the scriptures, what was the purpose of a promise that was a mute point for the vast majority of Christians who have lives since Christ?
Lastly you said that Catholic dogma changes. This is a misunderstanding, the Immaculate Conception and other relatively late pronouncements changed nothing. Dogmatic pronouncements are made when an important Tradition is called into question. They are clarifications of what the Church has always held to be true.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
T
twinc
Guest
exactly and this is the problem or deadlock and the cause of contention and division and so a reliable and infallible resort must be found to decide on that which is the cause of contention and division - twincJim, 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.
Alan
- 1 Cor 8:2
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your message. What is the problem … something about the way I think or write? Please elaborate:
Alan
T
twinc
Guest
as you stated “heated arguments and varying interpretations” causing divisions etc - twinc
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
As for your pastor, he’s in the same boat as you being infallible. And frankly, “more experience in the Scriptures…” guarantees nothing.
As for your pastor, he’s in the same boat as you being infallible. And frankly, “more experience in the Scriptures…” guarantees nothing.
Every heresy in the church was started by people who studied more than the average man and thought their ideas were better than the church’s teaching. Arius was a priest, Nestorious a bishop, Luther a priest. Look at the divisions in protestantism with preachers teaching different doctrines. The need for an authoritative source of teaching is obvious and the Bible is not it as proved by the thousands of protestant denominations all with their own interpretations. You bring up asking a Catholic priest about church teaching. I would be more confident about asking a priest than your minister. First of all, a priest has many more years of study than any protestant minister. Secondly, I can check what my priest tells me by going to the Catechism or the GIRM, Thirdly I can check what my priest tells me by consulting the historical tradition of the church. Fourth my priest has taken a vow of obedience to the bishop and can be removed from ministry if he taught error. A protestant minister is answerable to no one. Protestants who follow their minister as you seem to do should remind themselves of Heavensgate and Jonestown. These are but two of the tragedies of the wandering protestant.
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
We must all rightly divide the word.; 2 Timothy 2:15.
Come let us reason together; Isaiah 1:18. Today, it is hard to find true apostles chosen of God that have the true message.
The disciples had the truth directly from Jesus and the disciples passed it on to faithful men which passed it on to others who were faithful. However, satan always has a plan to muddy the waters. The book of Jude recites about the common salvation and that they should contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Normally, the longer the transmission of things go on it can run the risk of getting thinned out if not preserved well enough. This is usually associated with oral interpretation. The same can be of written interpretation because of cultral change and language differences that stem. from a breakdown of transmission. If this happened in Jude’s day when some of the original apostles were still living, how much more would it be after they were gone.
Constantine was favorable in the eyes of christians when he made christianity the national religion because they were no longer fed to the lions, or any other kind of persecution. The problem was that Constantine made some man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine.
We all have to be pliable to God, especially those who say they are aposles. And we have to try those who claim to be apostles. We hve to be pliable, exhort, reason, callenge and edify each other as the body. We need to be set in what we believe in but surrender to the truth when we. Are wrong for the truth will set us free, We have a personal responsibility that is summed up as being like bereans to see wheter they are telling the truth.2 Timothy 3:16.; talks abot scripture is profitable for doctrine,reproof,correction, and instruction in righteousness…
There are other things such as history,hermeneutics, and reconciling all the scriptures and there contexts on a given subject Having a. website such as this should be about learning from each other. Yet, it is also about challenging, and contending for the faith. Paul said we’re to say the same thing and yet we say different things.
If I said that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation or it is not a new testament ordinance would you be surprised or curious to find out or would you automatically think I’m crazy and label me a heretic and not hear me out at all. We are perfect in love not knowledge
The Holy spirit is our teacher but even hermeneutics can filter through at the same time.
t. Better communication. with the Holy Spirit and better knowledge of hereneuttics would definiely be a start. God Bless! Jerry Kelso
.
Come let us reason together; Isaiah 1:18. Today, it is hard to find true apostles chosen of God that have the true message.
The disciples had the truth directly from Jesus and the disciples passed it on to faithful men which passed it on to others who were faithful. However, satan always has a plan to muddy the waters. The book of Jude recites about the common salvation and that they should contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Normally, the longer the transmission of things go on it can run the risk of getting thinned out if not preserved well enough. This is usually associated with oral interpretation. The same can be of written interpretation because of cultral change and language differences that stem. from a breakdown of transmission. If this happened in Jude’s day when some of the original apostles were still living, how much more would it be after they were gone.
Constantine was favorable in the eyes of christians when he made christianity the national religion because they were no longer fed to the lions, or any other kind of persecution. The problem was that Constantine made some man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine.
We all have to be pliable to God, especially those who say they are aposles. And we have to try those who claim to be apostles. We hve to be pliable, exhort, reason, callenge and edify each other as the body. We need to be set in what we believe in but surrender to the truth when we. Are wrong for the truth will set us free, We have a personal responsibility that is summed up as being like bereans to see wheter they are telling the truth.2 Timothy 3:16.; talks abot scripture is profitable for doctrine,reproof,correction, and instruction in righteousness…
There are other things such as history,hermeneutics, and reconciling all the scriptures and there contexts on a given subject Having a. website such as this should be about learning from each other. Yet, it is also about challenging, and contending for the faith. Paul said we’re to say the same thing and yet we say different things.
If I said that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation or it is not a new testament ordinance would you be surprised or curious to find out or would you automatically think I’m crazy and label me a heretic and not hear me out at all. We are perfect in love not knowledge
The Holy spirit is our teacher but even hermeneutics can filter through at the same time.
t. Better communication. with the Holy Spirit and better knowledge of hereneuttics would definiely be a start. God Bless! Jerry Kelso
.
- Status