How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[joe370]

About 12 years ago, during my early stages of returning to God after having gone astray for 22 years, I experimented a lot. One such experiment was saying my confession to the most tainted and scandalous priest and also saying it to a non-controversial and respected priest. The advice and counsels received were amazingly identical. I was dumbfounded and all doubts took to flight. I am convinced beyond doubt that the Triune God sits in the confession box.

• The Holy Spirit listens as well as reminds what we miss.He searches our heart for true repentance and reports exact truth to the Father. So many unplanned and forgotten but serious sins have come to mind just in time. Repentance that was absent has suddenly appeared and made me weep. I realised much later that the HS had convicted my own spirit of my guilt
• The Father wills i.e., decides
• The Son does the Father’s will and absolves our guilt.

Hey Pitcharan that was an amazing testimony…Very inspiring!

 

[joe370]

Hey tqualey you said:

…There is a 2,000 year history where there were some Church leaders who created more scandal than anything else - but, even under these poor leaders, no heresy was taught!

And that is true testament to the power of the holy spirit forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth in spite of the efforts of the evil one.

 

[Cinette]

I’ve been asking for the source of your beliefs. According to your statement above, the source is not Church Fathers, Pope, encyclicals, Bible, institutions, or ecclesiastical leaders. You claim to be a Christian. What is the source of your beliefs? I think this is a fair question.

…

Roy, you display such arrogance in your posts, and then say spiritual arrogance turns you off.

:hammering:*Pow! You have hit the nail on the head Anna.

Roy, if you will, please define freedom.

Thank you
Cinette*

 

[Pitcharan]

:hammering:*Pow! You have hit the nail on the head Anna.

Roy, if you will, please define freedom.*

Thank you
Cinette

Dear Anna and Cinette, and many others like you, I acknowledge your gentle and loving but firm persverence. A great learning for me and I am sure for many more

 

[david_ruiz]

My dear brother in Christ, you have sadly misunderstood the factual position of the CC. Salvation is very much possible for all mankind not only protestants. That is the firm position of the CC. If it were otherwise as you allege, why would they solemnise marriages between catholics and followers of any other religion. Are you saying that the CC believes that non-catholics are hell bound on the one hand and on the other hand accords sanctity to marital unions between catholics and those outside CC fold?
This again is an unnecessary and unwarranted debate. The church led its flock since inception and to doubt her teachings is nothing but folly. To imagine that the human nature of the head of the church can be barrier to truth amounts to rejecting our Lord’s promise and assurance "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18b)

“The church led its flock”??? The church is the flock .Is not the church Christ’s ? Did He not leave The Holy Spirit as Himself ?.Well I am glad you did not contest historical facts.You sadly still hold on to a wrong interpretation of that scripture and stick your head in the sand Just as with the Great Schism- Rome still insisted that there was a unified church , a one piece garment) .The gates of hell prevail Every time you and I sin. He certainly prevailed in all the church’s dark moments. What would you be thinking if you were burning at the stake because of your faith by the prevailing church ? Did not Satan prevail with Peter , just after being told he was a "rock " , enough for Jesus to say to him ,“Get behind me Satan” ??? The best you can say is , in the end The lord prevailed in Peter .The best you can say as a Catholic is that perhaps in the end the Lord will have His way with you (Rome) , but there is no guarantee He is now . He may very well be saying ,Get behind Satan (for all your wrong teachings and pronouncements and judgements). That scripture is a promise for the end , not a guarantee that you will not err in the interim. The seven churches in Revelations is ample proof for that .I believe only one of seven had no error , and several were warned of becoming extinct. You do not believe in once saved always saved, so why do you think it for many believers ,each being equally wrong in a particular church. But alas ,this is the problem when you think only your church is fully Jesus’s church around the whole world ,and I and half of Christendom believe the church IS all believers whose souls have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

 

[david_ruiz]

“The church led its flock”??? The church is the flock .Is not the church Christ’s ? Did He not leave The Holy Spirit as Himself ?.Well I am glad you did not contest historical facts.You sadly still hold on to a wrong interpretation of that scripture and stick your head in the sand Just as with the Great Schism- Rome still insisted that there was a unified church , a one piece garment) .The gates of hell prevail Every time you and I sin. He certainly prevailed in all the church’s dark moments. What would you be thinking if you were burning at the stake because of your faith by the prevailing church ? Did not Satan prevail with Peter , just after being told he was a "rock " , enough for Jesus to say to him ,“Get behind me Satan” ??? The best you can say is , in the end The lord prevailed in Peter .The best you can say as a Catholic is that perhaps in the end the Lord will have His way with you (Rome) , but there is no guarantee He is now . He may very well be saying ,Get behind Satan (for all your wrong teachings and pronouncements and judgements). That scripture is a promise for the end , not a guarantee that you will not err in the interim. The seven churches in Revelations is ample proof for that .I believe only one of seven had no error , and several were warned of becoming extinct. You do not believe in once saved always saved, so why do you think it for many believers ,each being equally wrong in a particular church. But alas ,this is the problem when you think only your church is fully Jesus’s church around the whole world ,and I and half of Christendom believe the church IS all believers whose souls have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

Furthermore ,could you elaborate more when you say it is “possible” for a non-catholic Christian to be saved .I mean it is possible for the whole world to be saved ,if they would only…Of course it is possible, but Am I now ?

 

[benedictus2]

There can be disagreement as to what the early writings show about the early church. You are also assuming a definition of Church which requires that it subsist in one organization.

Christ founded only one Church. This fuzzy definition of Church which consists of a group of believers is an invention that came 1500 years after Christ.

If we go back to Scripture and the early Christian writings, it is clear that they mean one visible Church.

You are again assuming that since the Bible is accurate in somethings that it is accurate in all things. This is something that must be proved, not assumed, if your argument is to be accepted.

That is an argument that an atheist can make. Not those who claim to be Christians. For once you contest this, then this discussion ends right now for this premise becomes circular reasoning. The only way it avoids circular reasoning is when Christian accept the inerrancy of the Bible.

Also, even if the early church resembled the Catholic Church in some ways, you are assuming that this means that the Catholic Church is the one He founded.

Wrong word to use. Not resemble but IS. And this is not an assumption we make but something that even a cursory glance at history will prove.

However the Orthodox Church could also be said to resemble the Church Jesus founded.

Because it is part of the Church that Christ founded on earth. They have valid apostolic succession.

Your reasoning would not allow us to determine which of these bodies is the Church Jesus founded.

Perhaps not but history does allow for us to determine which one. But that is not the subject of this thread.
So, if you claim that the Orthodox Church DOES resemble the Church that Christ founded on earth and we grant you that it is, then how come you are not Orthodox?
I assume you are Protestant. Since you yourself have allowed for these two choices why are you not in either one?

At this point you appear to be going completely in circles. You are assuming the very thing that you are attempting to prove. You are saying that we can take the Catholic Church’s word that the Bible is inspired because the Church is infallible.

Actually, it is the other way around and as I have explained to Andrew we can only have a meaningful discussion of this with a Christian for we have a common ground to work from.

If we accept that the Bible is inspired (which every Christian, I assume, does) then we can proceed from there and ask how can we be sure it is inspired if the authority that wrote and canonized this book is not infallible.

Without accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then we cannot accept the inerrancy of the Bible.
Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for us), the inerrancy of the Bible and the inifallibility of the Church is tied up together.

Without an infallible Church we cannot say that the Bible is inerrant. Without an inerrant Bible we are all delusional and might as well be atheists like Dawkins.

No where in your argument have you proven that, even if the Catholic Church is the only church that can claim Jesus as its founder, that this makes it infallible.

If Randy hasn’t then I say read history. Even secular history attests to this.
And since we can prove this historically, if we accept the Bible then we can be sure that it is infallible precisely because according to the Bible, Christ said He will send His Church to guide her into all truth.

The truth of this assumption is still dependent on the interpretting of Scripture to mean that the Catholic Church is infallible.

Nope. The truth of this “assumption” rest on both sides’s acceptance of the inerrancy of the Bible and following that to its logical conclusions.

 

[benedictus2]

Furthermore ,could you elaborate more when you say it is “possible” for a non-catholic Christian to be saved .I mean it is possible for the whole world to be saved ,if they would only…Of course it is possible, but Am I now ?

You are not saved right now. You are still here on earth. When you are dead and you are in heaven then we can say that yes you are saved.

But, you are indeed BEING saved.

God will not cease to give you graces that will aid in your salvation until you breathe your last.

However you have the freedom reject it and many do.

And you have the freedom to rationalize your sins so that you may think that you are 'saved" because you have rationalized your guilt away but that is a fairy tale. And that is one fairy tale that we all love telling ourselves.

 

[Pitcharan]

Furthermore ,could you elaborate more when you say it is “possible” for a non-catholic Christian to be saved .I mean it is possible for the whole world to be saved ,if they would only…Of course it is possible, but Am I now ?

It is plainly there in the Gospel for all to read and understand. God the Father draws us to Jesus without discrimination. “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.” (John 6:37, 40, 44-45)

 

[benedictus2]

You sadly still hold on to a wrong interpretation of that scripture and stick your head in the sand

If you are referring to Matthew 16:18 and Peter as Rock, we have the right interpretation you sadly have the wrong one.

That will probably one of the most debated texts but in the end there is no getting around scripture. Peter is the Rock. And yes, sinful as he was Christ made him Rock.Peter is not Rock by himself but only because Jesus said so. And because Jesus is God, what He says goes.

Just as with the Great Schism- Rome still insisted that there was a unified church , a one piece garment) .

The gates of hell prevail Every time you and I sin.

Wrong. When we sin we capitulate to the devil but the devil does not prevail against the Church.

Here it is in a few steps.

1. 
   *]Jesus called the Devil the Father of Lies
   *]For the gates of Hell therefore to prevail, that would be when Christ’s Church teaches error (the lies of the Father of Lies0
   *]Since Christ, has made this solemn promise, we can believe that He will keep His promise or you have two options : A) He lied (in which case he is the devil) or B) He can’t keep a promise in which case He is not God. Neither scenario I think is acceptable to any Christian of any stripel
   *]The only times we have seen these lies (teachings that are contrary to what Christ has taught) are in the protestant churches in their acceptance of divorce, abortion, contraception, watering down of the Eucharist, etc.
   *]So if any prevailing of the gates of hell has happened it has not happened to the Catholic Church but to the other churches. And this can be expected because Jesus made this solemn promise and He made this promise because He knew that time will come when this will be questioned. So he made sure that there is a mark by which we can identify His Church - that one against whom the gates of hell has not prevailed.
   

   He certainly prevailed in all the church’s dark moments.

   Nope. The Church certainly became incredibly corrupt but even in its darkest days it never taught error.
   

   What would you be thinking if you were burning at the stake because of your faith by the prevailing church ?

   And you think the protestants were not guilty of even more, much more atrocities? Brother, you ought to wake up and start researching your own history and you will weep when you read.
   

   Did not Satan prevail with Peter , just after being told he was a "rock " , enough for Jesus to say to him ,“Get behind me Satan” ???

   So Jesus who is God made a mistake? Take note of this. He made Peter rock before Peter started saying those stupid things. You think Jesus did not know that Peter would say it? Yet, He still chose Peter. Think about it. Peter was God’s choice.
   

   The best you can say is , in the end The lord prevailed in Peter .

   As the Lord knew He would! This is precisely the point. When God chooses, His choice is always right. He may pick a total scoundrel but He can turn that total scoundrel around.
   

   The best you can say as a Catholic is that perhaps in the end the Lord will have His way with you (Rome) , but there is no guarantee He is now .

   Oh yes, there is now, straight out of Jesus mouth. If you doubt that you doubt the Bible and you doubt God.
   

   He may very well be saying ,Get behind Satan (for all your wrong teachings and pronouncements and judgements).

   Well as I have shown you it is not the Catholic Church that has come up with the wrong doctrines but the Protestant churches. And the further they are are from the teachings of the Church, the more corrupt and erroneous their doctrines become. The devil is having a field day.
   

   That scripture is a promise for the end , not a guarantee that you will not err in the interim.

   Sorry but totally wrong there. It is a guarantee. I suggest you re-read the passage to be better acquainted with it.
   

   The seven churches in Revelations is ample proof for that .I believe only one of seven had no error , and several were warned of becoming extinct.

   You are reading revelation wrong.
   

   You do not believe in once saved always saved, so why do you think it for many believers ,each being equally wrong in a particular church. But alas ,this is the problem when you think only your church is fully Jesus’s church around the whole world and I and half of Christendom believe the church IS all believers whose souls have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

   Well half of Christendom is wrong. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church. However, we do not say that only Catholics are saved.
   
   And OSAS is a corrupt doctrine and totally un-biblical.

 

[Pitcharan]

“The church led its flock”??? The church is the flock .Is not the church Christ’s ?

When we say church we can mean the “flock” which is “Christ’s mystical body”; we can also mean “the Shepherd, who is Christ’s Vicar on earth”. When I said “Church led” I meant “the Shepherd of the flock who is Christ’s representative on earth and successor of Peter who was appointed by Christ Himself”.

Did He not leave The Holy Spirit as Himself ?.

Certainly. That’s how He fulfilled the assurance He gave Peter that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church

Well I am glad you did not contest historical facts.You sadly still hold on to a wrong interpretation of that scripture and stick your head in the sand Just as with the Great Schism- Rome still insisted that there was a unified church , a one piece garment) .The gates of hell prevail Every time you and I sin. He certainly prevailed in all the church’s dark moments. What would you be thinking if you were burning at the stake because of your faith by the prevailing church ? Did not Satan prevail with Peter , just after being told he was a "rock " , enough for Jesus to say to him ,“Get behind me Satan” ??? The best you can say is , in the end The lord prevailed in Peter .The best you can say as a Catholic is that perhaps in the end the Lord will have His way with you (Rome) , but there is no guarantee He is now . He may very well be saying ,Get behind Satan (for all your wrong teachings and pronouncements and judgements). That scripture is a promise for the end , not a guarantee that you will not err in the interim. The seven churches in Revelations is ample proof for that .I believe only one of seven had no error , and several were warned of becoming extinct. You do not believe in once saved always saved, so why do you think it for many believers ,each being equally wrong in a particular church. But alas ,this is the problem when you think only your church is fully Jesus’s church around the whole world ,and I and half of Christendom believe the church IS all believers whose souls have been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

Your delusions and confusions are because of being cut-off. Come and receive the the free gift; try abiding in the vine and see for yourself. I am able to say so, because I had abided, have been cut-off for awhile and now abiding again. Each time I stray even by mistake I experience the trauma of confusion which helps me to get back and walk straight in His Way. If you choose not to belive my testimony, it is your own free will

 

[benedictus2]

About 12 years ago, during my early stages of returning to God after having gone astray for 22 years, I experimented a lot. One such experiment was saying my confession to the most tainted and scandalous priest and also saying it to a non-controversial and respected priest. The advice and counsels received were amazingly identical. I was dumbfounded and all doubts took to flight. I am convinced beyond doubt that the Triune God sits in the confession box.

• The Holy Spirit listens as well as reminds what we miss.He searches our heart for true repentance and reports exact truth to the Father. So many unplanned and forgotten but serious sins have come to mind just in time. Repentance that was absent has suddenly appeared and made me weep. I realised much later that the HS had convicted my own spirit of my guilt
• The Father wills i.e., decides
• The Son does the Father’s will and absolves our guilt.

 

[benedictus2]

Some people apparently want and/or need a neatly arranged, cookie-cutter faith handed to them by some church. I don’t criticize them if that have that need, but I don’t. What I do require is a reasonable faith, and I resist believing the unbelievable because that what "i’m supposed to do’.

Nope. Some people simply want the truth, not mish mash of doctrines made to look like the truth.

No matter how you look at it, your kind of thinking puts yourself on the Chair of Peter (much as you dislike the idea of the Papacy). Your own church and denomination of one.

There is much about the church - nearly any church - that I admire. One of my brothers became an atheist some years ago, though we were raised in a very faith-oriented family. He put it this way. The church provides for millions not only a source of strength through faith but also an extended family. So, ironically, he believed in the church. What he rejected were many of the teachings which he considered passe.

And I suppose your brother is competent enough to declare these teachings passe. What most people declare as passe are those that go against their grab for wealth and pleasure. Give them a god that gives them a pat in the head all the times and confirms them in their error and they are happy. And that kind of god anyone can manufacture in their piddly little brains.

He is a graduate of Cornell and MIT, with a scientific mind, and he thought most doctrines of most religions were man-made.

In short he is an atheist with all the atheistic delusions that come with this atheistic doctrines. And yes the are doctrines.

For one thing, atheist just don’t get that if we are proposing a Supernatural Being, that being is logically out of the scope of science because science deals with natural material reality.
But I suppose that is to logical for some of them to comprehend.

He honestly believed that they once served a purpose when people didn’t understand thunder and lightning, so they thought the gods were angry. Or they knew nothing about germs, so they had ‘religious’ healers of one sort or another. Etc.

And scientists believed that there was no such thing as a God except that shock horror, science seems to be proving otherwise.

 

[Pitcharan]

…How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences. In the space of 2 years no one has ever answered this question; just a lot of dodge ball; perhaps that will change here at this thread. Thanks guys…

Say ‘no non-catholic has ever answered this question’. But I have answered it in post #765 on this very thread. Here’s the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6966787

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks to all who participated.
Thread closed.