How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[benedictus2]

You’re right! And this is my only point. It is because of human sin that our Church is in division and schism. There is division between Rome and Orthodoxy, Anglicans and Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians. Few Protestants will tell you this is ok. at least they shouldn’t.

Having said that though, how do you as a Lutheran justify to yourself being one if according to you it is because of human sin that we are in schism when it is so easy to come home to Christ’s Church.
And a confessional Lutheran should, must, in my opinion, view the division between Rome and Wittenburg as temporary. Or we are no longer a reformational Church, but then merely Protestant.
Then my question again stands. Neuhaus converted. He didn’t need to wait for the whole of the Lutheran denomination to convert before he did.

I am not sure whether you are familiar with his reasons but if you are, what are your reasons that differ from his which is preventing you from converting?

 

[benedictus2]

Bonarges,

Jesus said “I know my sheep and my sheep know me”. It is apparent from this statement that only those who know Christ will know Him for who He truly is. Of course, everyone says they know Him and we also know that many will eventually hear this “Go away you evil do-er, I know you not”

You mentioned the Holy Spirit. And you’re right. It is the spirit that gives understanding for only the spirit of God knows the mind of God. Yet again, we faced a dilemma, many also claim to have the spirit!

But the Bible teaches us this - 1 John 4:1 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

There is only ONE God and ONE Spirit and ONE Jesus. They are ONE.

There’s this saying - “Whoever wants to be my disciple, let him pick up his cross daily and follow me”. I think its very true. Instead of constantly accusing the other sides of being in error (except the obvious evil ones that deny the deity of Christ which makes them the Anti-Christ), we should be busy building ourselves up in the faith and relying on God.

Rome was not built in a day. Neither is a spiritual man built with one confession. Knowing God starts with fearing Him, Seeking Him, Knowing what He wants of you, doing it and doing it and doing it…and finally getting it. There is only 1 truth - Jesus Christ.
**
“I AM THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE, NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME”**

This is all very good but it does not answer Bonarges’s question.

As you pointed above, we face the dilemna because many also claim the same spirit. Your explanation following that is no explanation at all as it leaves this very point unanaswered.

How can you know that the spirit is leading you when it is leading you to a different conclusion to the other person / persons who claim to be so guided as well?

 

[benedictus2]

Justamoose, the only truth is Jesus, and He has already spoken in the Bible. Anything else outside is subject to scrutiny & suspect.

Tocra, are you aware that before the Bible there was only the Catholic Church?

I quote here from the conversion testimony of Francis Becwith who was the President of the Evangelical Theological Society prior to his return to Rome:

“The great debates that divided the Church during its first 500 years were over the Trinitarian nature of God, the two natures of Jesus Christ, and Pelagianism. During this time, the canon of the New Testament was being fixed. And yet, the Church delivered to its people, without controversy as to their gracious efficacy and status as legitimate Christian practices, the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist, with the understanding that these practices imparted to the believer grace so that he or she may be made into the imae of Christ.”

I personally believe in the immeasurable wisdom of God. “The wisdom of man is foolishness to God”. With that in mind, we should not attempt to implement ‘elements of truth’ outside of the Holy Bible. And I believe whatever God has NOT put in the Bible, He has meant it so.

But how can you support that when it is only through the Church that you have the Bible. Christ established the Catholic Church, He did not take pen and paper and proceeded to write the NT.

If the Bible is unclear, there would be a reason just like there is a reason why Jesus also spoke in Parables. Some are not meant to perceive. If God wills that you understand, He will do so if you Ask & Seek.

But that is not an answer. How do we know if we say that both of us did seek but found completely different answers. Which one of us is correct? What measuring stick do we use to determine which of our varied interpretations is correct?

Just like anything done outside of faith is Sin. Anything done outside of the Bible is not Scripture.

Yes of course, anything outside of the Bible is not scripture (that is pretty obvious). But that is not the question here. How do we know which interpretation of Scripture is correct?

Also, which Bible? You are missing books in yours I think.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, the only other Protestant, offered the forum this answer, the only answer he gave among many which actually addressed the questions I raised, although missing the very simple point altogether:

“On this issue of Baptism, Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture. This is true of the Eucharist, as well.
It would not be “a Lutheran” who walks up to scripture, as that would imply individual interpretation, which Lutherans do not practice. When one reads the Lutheran Confessions, one will find often a positive reference to the ECF’s and the early councils.”

AlI I can say is that JonNC seems unfamiliar with sola scriptura, or actually, is pretending to be unfamiliar with it. Rather scandalous considering his own spiritual father (Luther) has much to say about it,ahem. The fact is, like every other Protestant denomination, the Lutherans have no objective standard by which they can know that their own interpretation of the Bible is correct. And not to get off track, why are there so many Lutheran synods? Just curious…

Why are there different Catholic Churches (rites)? And it is off the track, but your thread, so do as you please.

As to the charge that I am pretending to not understand sola scriptura, it is the first time I’ve been charged on CAF by a Catholic of being in any way deceptive. I will overlook it since you have just 50 posts.

The Lutheran objective standard - your post seems to indicate a rather lack of knowledge about Lutheranism - is scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. you can read tham at
www.bookofconcord.org

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Actually this is where the difference arises.

Before the Bible was considered Scripture, there was first the Church and her Traditions. So when the canon was established, the books that made the cut were weighed against tradition. Some would say then that since the canonization of Scripture there is no longer a need for Tradition. But Tradition is always needed because any interpretation of scripture has be based on tradition. Scripture will not contradict tradition but its interpretation could do that so interpretation has to be checked against tradition.

And no we have never ever claimed that the Pope is absolutely infallible.

I offered my mea culpa sincerely for my poor wording. I know quite well the teaching regarding ex cathedra.
Perhaps it needs to be an apology, and I do apologize, as it is never my intention to misrepresent the teachings of others.

Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not getting into a debate on this but the fact of the matter everything you’re saying is debatable. You’re simply stating one side, it isn’t so cut and dried as you like to portray it. My point still stands, using a source with bias doesn’t prove such a contentious point, and belittling those whom you wish to ally with is itself madness.

Excuse me. A ‘source with bias?’ And of course, you can point to a source which is NOT ‘biased?’

Dear, the sources that speak of the Orthodox ‘right’ are biased in favor of Orthodox, the Catholics in favor of Catholics, and ‘secular’ in whatever ‘worldview’ the secularist happens to uphold, in the sense that they believe in the truth of what they state as opposed to ‘other claims.’

they are all biased in that they are upholding a position they believe is TRUE.

The way you post you’re implying that the source you CHOOSE to call ‘biased’ (Mr. Crocker’s book) is the biased one, whereas the ones you use (which you still do not name) are not, and you do so only because the point he makes conflicts with YOUR view. But YOUR view is as ‘biased’ to me as mine is to you.

If you can recognize this and decide to use ‘unloaded’ words it would be well.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6740860]Having said that though, how do you as a Lutheran justify to yourself being one if according to you it is because of human sin that we are in schism when it is so easy to come home to Christ’s Church.
It seems to me that we hold differing definitions, here, so let me qualify.
First, I believe I am, as you are, a member of Christ’s Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I believe that one Church which Christ established is, due to human sin, in division and schism. And I, like the Catholic Church, believe that there was blame (sin) on all sides that led to our division.
So, for me, it isn’t a matter of “coming home to Christ’s Church”. And it isn’t completely a matter of converting to avoid being in schism. Even if I were confirmed in a local Catholic Parish next Easter, I would still be in schism and division - from my Lutheran siblings I would leave behind, from Orthodox, etc.

But let’s use your definition of “Christ’s Church” for a moment. since the Church founded at Pentecost is in schism - Orthodox and Rome - how am I to know which is truly the one true Church established by Christ?

Then my question again stands. Neuhaus converted. He didn’t need to wait for the whole of the Lutheran denomination to convert before he did.

I am not sure whether you are familiar with his reasons but if you are, what are your reasons that differ from his which is preventing you from converting?

Doctrine.
Father Neuhaus, from what I understand, felt the division was no longer theologically necessary. While I’m his decision was a blessing to him, I’m not there yet. And I wouldn’t make that change without that certainty.

Jon

 

[Bonarges]

Why are there different Catholic Churches (rites)? And it is off the track, but your thread, so do as you please.

As to the charge that I am pretending to not understand sola scriptura, it is the first time I’ve been charged on CAF by a Catholic of being in any way deceptive. I will overlook it since you have just 50 posts.

The Lutheran objective standard - your post seems to indicate a rather lack of knowledge about Lutheranism - is scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. you can read tham at
www.bookofconcord.org

Jon

“Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture.”

What ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture, validate your understanding of justification? What Church Father held to your understanding of justification?

 

[Wesley7]

The Lutheran objective standard - your post seems to indicate a rather lack of knowledge about Lutheranism - is scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. you can read tham at
www.bookofconcord.org

I have that book.

 

[benedictus2]

Changed by a man, and God did nothing??? Think again.

God was always working. He didn’t need to do anything with regards that because the true Canon remained unchanged as His Church has proclaimed. God continues to work through His Church. That some follow a changed canon has no bearing in it because the guidance was promised to His Church not every Tom Dickens and Harry who sets up shop and opens a new church.

Mind you, I am not saying that God is not at work in the people at your church. He loves every one and will never forsake those who seek Him in sincerity.

 

[Tocra]

“Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture.”

What ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture, validate your understanding of justification? What Church Father held to your understanding of justification?

Bonarges, I’ll cut the story short since you are not able to read between the lines.

To us, there is no such thing as tradition. Jesus gave of the Holy Ghost in no un-specific terms. The spirit was given as promised by Jesus, just a few days in Jerusalem after the death of Christ. Go read the book of Acts 1 & 2. How did the apostles know the Spirit had been poured?

Acts 1: 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Note: A FEW days…and how did these people know they were baptized by the Holy Ghost? The apostles SPOKE IN TONGUES.

Acts 2: 1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Now, we have seen the PENTECOST according to the Bible. And it certainly made no mention of the RC. And how do people know when someone has the spirit?

Again…we see this:

Acts 19: 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Notice something throughout these verses? Firstly, they were Baptized in the Name of Jesus (Note: NOT The Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost, BUT JESUS) Secondly, the number of people who received the Holy Spirit could be counted because they had a physical manifestation (ie. the Speaking of Tongues). Ask yourself, if I show you a team of 12 x catholics can you pick out the men who has the spirit? You cannot. You’d just very conveniently tell me that they all have the spirit. Sure.

You might say, “SO?..that still doesn’t mean that you are right and that our RC has not inherited that spirit”. Well, to that I must say that the Spirit manifests itself not only by its fruits but by its powers.

Comparing the ability to heal, raise the dead versus relying on tradition. I believe the former would certainly be closer to the spiritual. Of course, its easy to declare the Bible of insufficiency and then have you create more texts to append to it. But what you can NEVER append is the Holy Ghost.

Either you have it, or you don’t.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever. 17 The Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

**
“I know my Sheep and my Sheep know me”**.

I can tell a man born-blind about how the rainbow looks like, but if he dies blind, then he will never know in him what that image really is.

Mark 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin..

Tradition Cannot Save You. Only His Spirit Can.

 

[gcnuss]

Well, in all of these responses, there were only two Protestants who even made an attempt to address the questions I raised. For a purely human belief system (Protestantism) that claims so many adherents, I’m surprised at the dismally low turnout here. I figured on many responses, like so many red fire ants, spewing out ad hominems, irrelevancies, rhetorical questions…you know, the typical Protestant dodge that even an atheist child would pick up on.

I’m always stunned, yet not surprised, at the Protestant reaction to questions of this nature, a reaction that seems to undermine simple God-given human reason. It is as if the conception of such a question is utterly foreign to them, a question which should be the first question for a person with a working intellect.
[snip]

JonNC, the only other Protestant, offered the forum this answer, the only answer he gave among many which actually addressed the questions I raised, although missing the very simple point altogether:

“On this issue of Baptism, Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture. This is true of the Eucharist, as well.
It would not be “a Lutheran” who walks up to scripture, as that would imply individual interpretation, which Lutherans do not practice. When one reads the Lutheran Confessions, one will find often a positive reference to the ECF’s and the early councils.”

AlI I can say is that JonNC seems unfamiliar with sola scriptura, or actually, is pretending to be unfamiliar with it. Rather scandalous considering his own spiritual father (Luther) has much to say about it,ahem. The fact is, like every other Protestant denomination, the Lutherans have no objective standard by which they can know that their own interpretation of the Bible is correct. And not to get off track, why are there so many Lutheran synods? Just curious…

I come into this discussion as another Lutheran, so you may find that much of what I have to offer echoes what JonNC has said. First and foremost, we Lutherans do not believe that our personal interpretations of scripture are necessarily accurate. That is why we explore the interpretations of the ECFs and subsequent theologians as well. It is important to remember that the first 1500 years of Christian history is our common history. Lutheranism did not arise out of nothing.

Second, although we are Lutherans, it does not follow that every word spoken or written by Luther is authoritative for our faith. If you want to see Luther at his best (and briefest), read his Small Catechism. We treasure these teachings. If you want to see Luther at his worst, read his screeds against the Jews. Those writings do not form any part of our faith and we, in fact, reject them.

Third, with regard to your question about the number of Lutheran synods we Lutherans, like all Christians, are not without sin. We have allowed differences in theology and ecclesiology to separate us.

 

[Publisher]

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.

---

There is no guarantee that any particular religious body can provide anyone with the “correct interpretation”.

If I rely on a church heirarchal system…I’m still relying on humans to tell me what they believe the scriptures teach…and should they be wrong what does it really matter?

I would rather study and make my own decision with the help of the Holy Spirit than rely on someone else telling me what they mean because “God told them” or they claim some mystic sense of what the truth is.

Any disputed doctrine that really makes a difference will show it’s truth in the lives of those who profess it. If a “doctrine” is correct, then it will inspire and lead it’s adherants to serve others and live in kindness, peace, display mercy and lovingkindness. If a “doctrine” in no way causes one to love God and love others…including one’s enemies…then it’s “tinkling brass and clanging bells”…“it avails nothing.”

 

[justamoose89]

Note: A FEW days…and how did these people know they were baptized by the Holy Ghost? The apostles SPOKE IN TONGUES

“I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.” 1 Corinthians 14:5. This shows us that SOME but not ALL were able to speak in tongues.

I would also like to note…if you came to Catholic answers assuming that Catholics don’t speak in tongues…you came with the wrong site! Some have the gift of tongues, and some do not. Some have other gifts that are mentioned in the Bible, and others do not. I myself do know Catholics with the gift of healing. And I know Catholic priests with the gift of prophecy.

You say Catholics blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. How do we do this?? We baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost because it is what JESUS said in the Bible! It seems to me like we esteem the Holy Ghost more than you do! We recognize the Holy Ghost as He truly is: an equal member of the Godhead.

 

[ufamtobie]

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

Jon

Jon,

This is how one determines who is correct, by Listening to Jesus Christ! What do I mean by this, Put it this way why did Jesus Christ leave His Church in the Hands of man? Why did He even leave a church to begin with? Why? It is only obvious that Left His Church to take charge of us, to correct us, to lead us, to forgive us that we may find Eternal Glory with Jesus Christ. Amen

Jon, if You notice from the begining of the Old Testament and in the New Testament God The Father always had Leaders for His People, Adam…to Moses…David…to Jesus Christ who always will be, and now for us His Catholic Church the the Apostles and their Successors to guide us until He comes again.

No other Church has this Authority but the Catholic Church and Blessed/Graced are they who Know this to be True because they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who gave such Power and Authority to the Leaders of His church.

Ufamtobie

 

[larkin31]

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.

One is never 100% certain. This is the nature of human existence and knowledge.

 

[gcnuss]

Notice something throughout these verses? Firstly, they were Baptized in the Name of Jesus (Note: NOT The Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost, BUT JESUS)

Tocra,

But don’t forget these verses from Matthew 28:

18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Should we ignore the command of our Lord to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?”

 

[JonNC]

“Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture.”

What ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture, validate your understanding of justification? What Church Father held to your understanding of justification?

Change of subject, Jim? That’s fine. I actually prefer a dialogue regarding our agreements and that which still divides us, with charity and good will.

Show me a quote from an ECF that doesn’t. But first, you have to understand the Lutheran teaching of justification. I suggest we start with a common ground. Try this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.

17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God’s saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.

That speaks quite well to my belief regarding justification. Do you think any ECF would disagree with it?

Further, I’ll provide you with an interesting essay by Catholic apologist James Akin.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

Jon

 

[Faith1960]

Now this is very good. I await answers from others as I have in the past, (for the years I was away from the Catholic Church) heard these points of view more times than I can remember. Each one told me the other was wrong. How could that be I asked. Things like this is what brought me Back home after almost 20 years of being away from the Catholic Church.

My husband used to work with two very faithful men, one a Baptist (I think), and the other Pentacostal. Oh the arguments those two used to have.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

This is how one determines who is correct, by Listening to Jesus Christ! What do I mean by this, Put it this way why did Jesus Christ leave His Church in the Hands of man? Why did He even leave a church to begin with? Why? It is only obvious that Left His Church to take charge of us, to correct us, to lead us, to forgive us that we may find Eternal Glory with Jesus Christ. Amen

Jon, if You notice from the begining of the Old Testament and in the New Testament God The Father always had Leaders for His People, Adam…to Moses…David…to Jesus Christ who always will be, and now for us His Catholic Church the the Apostles and their Successors to guide us until He comes again.

No other Church has this Authority but the Catholic Church and Blessed/Graced are they who Know this to be True because they trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who gave such Power and Authority to the Leaders of His church.

Ufamtobie

I know this is what you believe, and your statements of faith have always impressed me.
But more than just on your belief, or the say-so of the Magisterium, how is one to know that Rome is the one true Church, and Orthodoxy is not? You could say Christ built His Church on St. Peter, but Peter was in Antioch, too.

As far as listening to Jesus Christ, we all believe we are doing that.

Jon

PS, Remember that I am in no way doubting the special place that the Bishop of Rome holds, nor am I rejecting the clear truth that the Catholic Church is indeed a very important part of Christ’s Church.