How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[agent_grey]

thats the funny side. If you claim your interpreation to be perfect you cliam infalibility. the funny part is the view that the scriptures speak for themselves. LOLOLOLOL I don’t know about you but my bible quotes God as commanding genocide. Thats right… the executuoin of man woman and child. Yes my bible and every bible I have come across has God comanding certain babies to be put to death. I always get a charge out of the BILLY GOAT PROT explanation of this fact.

So billy goats… go ahead and crack me up?

LOL!

 

[Cinette]

How do You Know Your Interpretation is Correct?

*Hmmmmm…that is a question Protestants cannot answer!

How many Protestants have attempted to answer this question here?

Cinette*

 

[larkin31]

How do You Know Your Interpretation is Correct?

*Hmmmmm…that is a question Protestants cannot answer!

How many Protestants have attempted to answer this question here?

Cinette*

no human has ever satisfactorily answered this question

 

[Cinette]

no human has ever satisfactorily answered this question

*I do not agree with you. No agnostic can satisfactorily answer this question!

You see it requires Faith and Reason. The reason part is easily to understand because Jesus would not have founded His Church and leave it to mere humans to take care of.

He left the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. He empowered the Apostles and we have seen how the Apostles who were mere fishermen were transformed at Pentecost. We have seen how these same fishermen went out into the world to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. We have seen (through history of course) how almost all the Apostles were martyred for their faith. Not only that but most of the Popes for the first 300 years were martyred. We have seen because it is recorded in the bible and the witness of history.

We have also the witness of 2000 years and despite heresy (which is always lurking around), and the sinfullness of men (popes and clergy) the truth remains intact. The Holy Father and the Magisterium are there to oversee the Church of Jesus Christ. I would say that this is testimony to the Truth of the power of the Holy Spirit - that mere fishermen were able to successfully build the Church which continues to stand and continues to grow after 2000 years.

And then there is Faith. A friend of mine sent me a book today “An Atheist Defends Religion” by Bruce Sheiman. Sheiman has been a student of philosophy and theology for 30 years. This atheist is an aspiring theist, he wants to believe in God. What he does believe in is the “belief in God” - that religion is good. I have only read a few pages. “After more than half a lifetime, I have learned that there is a difference between lowercase truth (facts and knowledge) and uppercase Truth (wisdom and fulfillment)”. Interesting don’t you think?

We live in a complex society and today this society is more complicated than ever and it is not easy to be a Christian. We have just hosted the World Cup and I was struck at how grown men get all excited like children - one sees a sea of arms raised and people getting excited over a game of football (soccer). The stadia are magnificent, expensive structures and I couldn’t help thinking that it would be wonderful if people could feel as excited about God. The stadia are the cathedrals of modern day “worship” in a secular society. It really makes one think. Our lives are a struggle between good and evil. We humans are created in God’s image and we have souls and this is something to think about - our humanity is temporary, our souls are eternal. We have to decide what to do about this. What do we want? We were given free will to choose.

God bless you
Cinette*

 

[JonNC]

=Cinette;6852167He left the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. He empowered the Apostles and we have seen how the Apostles who were mere fishermen were transformed at Pentecost. We have seen how these same fishermen went out into the world to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. We have seen (through history of course) how almost all the Apostles were martyred for their faith. Not only that but most of the Popes for the first 300 years were martyred. We have seen because it is recorded in the bible and the witness of history.

We have also the witness of 2000 years and despite heresy (which is always lurking around), and the sinfullness of men (popes and clergy) the truth remains intact. The Holy Father and the Magisterium are there to oversee the Church of Jesus Christ. I would say that this is testimony to the Truth of the power of the Holy Spirit - that mere fishermen were able to successfully build the Church which continues to stand and continues to grow after 2000 years.

Hi Cinette,
After how many posts we are back to the beginning.
How do you know that what you say here is true?
How do you know for sure that the Holy Spirit isn’t protecting Holy Orthodoxy?
You “know” by faith. And so do I. And where we differ in our beliefs, we must look first for forgiveness, and second pray for His continuing guidance toward unity here, now, or at Parousia.

Jon

 

[larkin31]

I do not agree with you. No agnostic can satisfactorily answer this question!

Disagreement among ALL the faiths and religions (and lack) merely proves my point. No single answer satisfies everyone. There have been many many “answers” over the millenia.

 

[Cinette]

Disagreement among ALL the faiths and religions (and lack) merely proves my point. No single answer satisfies everyone. There have been many many “answers” over the millenia.

*The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are as Pope JPII said “like two lungs” - there are no real theological differences - some small disagreements - but essentially our beliefs are the same.

My comment was that almost no Protestant had responded to the question of the OP. All is quiet on this thread…

Cinette*

 

[JonNC]

=Cinette;6855823]*The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are as Pope JPII said “like two lungs” - there are no real theological differences - some small disagreements - but essentially our beliefs are the same. *

Hi Cinette,
No real theological differences - some small disagreements? I hear this often - usually from Catholics, but rarely from Orthodox - and it always leaves me perplexed. You mean in a 1,000 years you haven’t been able to overcome some minor disagreements, even though there are no real theological differences?
Answer me this: if this is the case, how can even someone like me, who honestly has Catholic leanings, have any confidence that converting to either Church makes sense?

My comment was that almost no Protestant had responded to the question of the OP. All is quiet on this thread…

One of the issues in the OP is the fact that the question itself puts each communion in the position of proving it is right by its own say-so.

The CC says it is right because it is infallible (its teaching is protected from error by the Holy Spirit), and since it is infallible, it must be right, and it is infallible because it says it is infallible. Therefore it must be right and infallible because it says so.

The LC will say it are rigtht because the Unaltered Augsburg Confession rightly reflects the truth of scripture. This is true because scripture is inerrant, and the UAC rightly reflects inerrant scripture, so therefore it is right. The UAC rightly reflects inerrant scripture, and since scripture is inerrant, the UAC must be right.

So, back to my previous post:

After how many posts we are back to the beginning.
How do you know that what you say here is true?
How do you know for sure that the Holy Spirit isn’t protecting Holy Orthodoxy?
You “know” by faith. And so do I. And where we differ in our beliefs, we must look first for forgiveness, and second pray for His continuing guidance toward unity here, now, or at Parousia.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nine_Two,

I do not quite understand your point in response to Tantum ergo’s response.

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.

If you don’t want to engage in a debate, why are you responding? Of course the entire matter is debatable - and everyone is allowed to present their position. It is hoped that the position would be logical, documents and made in charity - but, to fault someone for only presenting “one side” really misses the point of a discussion. Look at it as an implicit invitation for you to present “one side” - and, I guess, that would be your side…

The interesting thing about history is that even though it is a past time event - it has elments that are not clearly understood - and people of good will can view things differently. While actual events are considered (for the most part, at least) established fact, the motivation for certain people acting as they did and the real responses of those who agreed and disagreed with those actions is a fertile field for discussion. Let me give you an example.

Christ founded his Chruch on Petr (Matt 16:18) and if you look at a map, (the area of Caeseria-Phillippi, it is east of what is today Istanbul, Turkey - or more to the eastern side of what would later become the division of the Roman Empire. But before any of this took place, Peter moved to Rome - established his See there and was martyered there. All of the successors of Peter were the Bishop of Rome - right down to Benedict XVI. The ECF recognized the primacy of Peter. Here are references to just six of many examples: (I can supply the actual quotes if you wish, I really just wanted to save some space here…)

**Clement of Alexandria ( Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

---

Tertullian ( Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

---

Letter of Clement to James ( Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

---

Origen ( Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

---

Cyprian ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

---

Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).
________________________________________**

The Power to Bind and Lose does not exclude anything - and Peter’s moved west to Rome had profound implications for the entire Church before and after 1000AD if we want to use that as a watershed year. The real issue is that there is an unbroken line from Peter - and his successors as the Vicar of Christ on Earth - have the authority to teach and proclaim matters of Faith and Morals. Those not part of this arrangement (union with the Church founded by Christ on Peter) are really on their own.

In my reading of the previous posts, I did not detect any ‘belittling’ or demeaning of any poster or their position. There is disagreement - but, not in a disagreeable manner.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette,
No real theological differences - some small disagreements? I hear this often - usually from Catholics, but rarely from Orthodox - and it always leaves me perplexed. You mean in a 1,000 years you haven’t been able to overcome some minor disagreements, even though there are no real theological differences?
Answer me this: if this is the case, how can even someone like me, who honestly has Catholic leanings, have any confidence that converting to either Church makes sense?

One of the issues in the OP is the fact that the question itself puts each communion in the position of proving it is right by its own say-so.

The CC says it is right because it is infallible (its teaching is protected from error by the Holy Spirit), and since it is infallible, it must be right, and it is infallible because it says it is infallible. Therefore it must be right and infallible because it says so.

The LC will say it are rigtht because the Unaltered Augsburg Confession rightly reflects the truth of scripture. This is true because scripture is inerrant, and the UAC rightly reflects inerrant scripture, so therefore it is right. The UAC rightly reflects inerrant scripture, and since scripture is inerrant, the UAC must be right.

So, back to my previous post:

Jon

*Hello Jon - thank you for your response.

Although I have been back in the CC for about 20 years now I still consider myself a Kindergarten Catholic but I shall answer you the best I can from the heart. The Catholic approach is Faith and Reason and it makes a lot of sense to me.

• I know that the Catholic is right in its interpretation because it is the Church Jesus founded.
• It follows that Jesus would ensure that His Church would be protected from error;
• He immediately empowered the Apostles. Look at Peter - he was always putting both feet in his mouth and then he was transformed!
• For the Church to have a chance to succeed and be a source of truth and nourishment to people He had to protect it Jesus had to protect it in spite of the weakness of the humans he put in charge.

I firmly believe this because I trust Jesus Christ and he would not break His promise.

Cinette*

 

[JonNC]

=Cinette;6856760]*Hello Jon - thank you for your response.

Although I have been back in the CC for about 20 years now I still consider myself a Kindergarten Catholic but I shall answer you the best I can from the heart. The Catholic approach is Faith and Reason and it makes a lot of sense to me.*
And this is my point. You have answered by faith. there’s nothing wrong with that!

- I know that the Catholic is right in its interpretation because it is the Church Jesus founded.

You are depending on your communion’s self- appointed determination that this is so. Again, there’s nothing wrong with you believing this, and I believe that you are blessed by word and sacrament where you are. But outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know that the institution of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is alone and exclusively Christ’s Church?

• It follows that Jesus would ensure that His Church would be protected from error;

Holy Orthodoxy says the same thing. Outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know this is true, and Orthodoxy is not?

• He immediately empowered the Apostles. Look at Peter - he was always putting both feet in his mouth and then he was transformed!

• For the Church to have a chance to succeed and be a source of truth and nourishment to people He had to protect it Jesus had to protect it in spite of the weakness of the humans he put in charge.

I agree.

I firmly believe this because I trust Jesus Christ and he would not break His promise.

And He never will, and the proof of His promise is the Church Triumphant.

I’m not trying to talk you out of your belief in the CC. Far from it, because I truly believe that you and millions of others receive grace through the word and sacrament found in the Catholic Church. All I am saying is that it is difficult, outside of the statement of one’s own communion, to prove that one’s communion is correct.

Jon

 

[Cinette]

And this is my point. You have answered by faith. there’s nothing wrong with that!

You are depending on your communion’s self- appointed determination that this is so. Again, there’s nothing wrong with you believing this, and I believe that you are blessed by word and sacrament where you are. But outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know that the institution of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is alone and exclusively Christ’s Church?

Holy Orthodoxy says the same thing. Outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know this is true, and Orthodoxy is not?

I agree.

And He never will, and the proof of His promise is the Church Triumphant.

I’m not trying to talk you out of your belief in the CC. Far from it, because I truly believe that you and millions of others receive grace through the word and sacrament found in the Catholic Church. All I am saying is that it is difficult, outside of the statement of one’s own communion, to prove that one’s communion is correct.

Jon

*Jon - ONE question!

From which Church did the founder of your church, Martin Luther, break away?

Cinette*

 

[AwGusTeen]

Just a correction. When Martin Luther translated the Bible, he translated and included 74 books - the 73 books typically found in the Western Bible, and the Prayer of Manasses.
Luther did question the canonicity of the D-C books, as many did including St. Jerome, and Luther’s contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, but he did not remove them. In fact, even the 1611 KJV included the D-C’s. German Lutheran Bibles still contain them - I have one.

Jon

Luther removed them from the OT canon but not from his Bible. He placed them between the OT and the NT calling them (inappropriately) the apocrypha.

Peace!

 

[Cinette]

And this is my point. You have answered by faith. there’s nothing wrong with that!

You are depending on your communion’s self- appointed determination that this is so. Again, there’s nothing wrong with you believing this, and I believe that you are blessed by word and sacrament where you are. But outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know that the institution of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is alone and exclusively Christ’s Church?

Holy Orthodoxy says the same thing. Outside of your communion’s say-so, how do you know this is true, and Orthodoxy is not?
*The Orthodox Church is very complex. It has 21 different communions - 21 heads!!!

Explain why the Orthodox Churches accepted the 1st SEVEN Ecumenical Councils up to 1054 (when they broke away) whose documents were ratified by the Bishop of Rome whom the Orthodox accepted as “1st among equals with authority”.

I know that the Catholics committed excesses - the crusaders were violent towards the Eastern Church and this is a terrible stain on us.

The fact remains when you ask about which is the Church whose interpretation is correct and I say the Church Jesus founded and you then say how do I know it was not the Orthodox. For the first 1054 years we were one and all accepted the councils of the Church.

The Orthodox are close to us but the problem is more complex than one might imagine as they are always changing their minds.

Do the math.
I agree.

And He never will, and the proof of His promise is the Church Triumphant.

I’m not trying to talk you out of your belief in the CC. Far from it, because I truly believe that you and millions of others receive grace through the word and sacrament found in the Catholic Church. All I am saying is that it is difficult, outside of the statement of one’s own communion, to prove that one’s communion is correct.

Jon

*You often sound Catholic yourself in your posts!! ?

Cindette*

 

[JonNC]

*Jon - ONE question!

From which Church did the founder of your church, Martin Luther, break away?

Cinette*

Remember, he was excommunicated. Also, we do not consider him the “founder” of our Church, as we consider oursleves part of the one true catholic and apostolic Church, founded by Christ Himself.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You often sound Catholic yourself in your posts!! ?

How am I supposed to take that?
Just kidding. I consider it a compliment.

The Orthodox Church is very complex. It has 21 different communions - 21 heads!!!

Explain why the Orthodox Churches accepted the 1st SEVEN Ecumenical Councils up to 1054 (when they broke away) whose documents were ratified by the Bishop of Rome whom the Orthodox accepted as “1st among equals with authority”.

Because the Church at that time was united. They would say that we (the west) broke away from them. Those documents were ratified (don’t know if that’s the right word) by all of the patriarchates. And 1st among equals does not translate to universal jurisdiction of papal infallibility.

I know that the Catholics committed excesses - the crusaders were violent towards the Eastern Church and this is a terrible stain on us.

Goodness. “For all have sinned…” Remember, Lutherans are western Christians, with a shared history with Rome until the 1500’s. You’ll not see me point to the sin in others.
I have plenty of my own.

The fact remains when you ask about which is the Church whose interpretation is correct and I say the Church Jesus founded and you then say how do I know it was not the Orthodox. For the first 1054 years we were one and all accepted the councils of the Church.

Exactly my point.

The Orthodox are close to us but the problem is more complex than one might imagine as they are always changing their minds.

I’ll let them speak to that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Luther removed them from the OT canon but not from his Bible. He placed them between the OT and the NT calling them (inappropriately) the apocrypha.

Peace!

It is true that he considered them not canon, and that was his opinion, but not his alone.
I think it better to refer to them as the duetercanon.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Luther removed them from the OT canon but not from his Bible. He placed them between the OT and the NT calling them (inappropriately) the apocrypha.

Peace!

By removing them from the Canon, he removed them from the Bible because the Bible is the canon of scriptures. It would be like saying the appendices are part of the Bible or the prefaces and side notes are part of the Bible. Yes, they are in the Bible but we don’t say that they are part of the Bible.

When we speak of the Bible we mean the canon of the Scriptures.

That is why, a few years after him, his followers had not problem completely taking it out the binding.

 

[Cinette]

It is true that he considered them not canon, and that was his opinion, but not his alone.
I think it better to refer to them as the duetercanon.

Jon

*Once Luther started his own church the christian churches began to splinter and dilute and this has continue to the present day! Pity! I have met Lutherans who don’t sound like they belong to the same church and it confused me. At the time I was not in a position to ask too many question because I met them socially but they definitely were not the same.

Cinette*

 

[benedictus2]

Well, aside from the fact that this quote is disputed, and to my is not found in Luther’s Work, I’m finding it difficult to understand why you think that Lutherans believe that our state of sinfulness on earth is carried into heaven.

 I did a quick research on that and you are right, it has been attributed to Luther (even by Lutheran’s themselves) but they cannot pin it definitively to any of Luther’s writings.

However, there is ground for going with the analogy for as E. L. Marshall wrote, which I cited above, because of his nominalism, Luther believed that grace has no ontological status on the soul, hence when God says we are sinless but leaves us sinners.

  Also, I have asked this before, if the point of salvation is to be declared just, why do we need to be sanctified?  Can someone who dies after being declared just go to heaven? If so, what has sanctification got to do with salvation if justification is enough?

gcnuss:

We Lutherans have not done well with the concept of purgatory – generally from the point of view that once we die our earthly trappings (including our sins or the remnants of them) are no longer part of us, presuming that those sins have been forgiven through the suffering and death of Christ. From that perspective,** in Lutheran belief there is no need for a final cleansing because the forgiveness of our sins is total and nothing of that sin remains in us.**

The question is, what does this forgiveness of sin mean? Does it mean that your soul is cleansed of sin? But the thing is, justification in the Lutheran sense means that one is merely declared righteous, one is NOT made righteous.

From what you have written, it seems that sanctification has to do with making one righteous, i.e. conforming one to the image of Christ.

How do you tie in, this forgiveness of sin with the cleansing of soul if grace has no capacity to change nature?

If sanctification is to be conformed to the image of Christ, then:

• What does this being conformed to the image of Christ mean?
• Does it matter? Will you get to heaven anyway whether you get conformed to the image of Christ or not?
• Say a person is justified (that is merely declared just but remains unjust inside because sanctification has not yet taken place) and dies, does this mean that at this point all his sins are forgiven because of the mere fact that he has been declared just?
• So why is there this sort of dichotomy. If one is declared just but lives for a while, one needs to be sanctified. If one is declared just and dies, then all of a sudden he is sanctified by the mere fact that he died? Or maybe not? What does “his sins are forgiven mean”? Does it mean that once forgiven you are already sanctified?
• If sanctification is not necessary for salvation since justification is enough to get you into heaven, therefore the whole point of sanctification is just for this earth?

gcnuss:

From a Lutheran perspective, Tavard’s commentary is reasonable inasmuch as we would agree that nothing unclean can enter into the heavenly kingdom. That is the place in which sin does not exist in any form. How that final cleansing happens and how long it takes is mere speculation, although we say that one whose sins have been forgiven is no longer subject to sin once he or she leaves the kingdom of the world through death. It could be said that the moment of death is the final liberation and cleansing from the things of this world, sin and its effects included.

So let me get this straight, a man is declared just even though he remains unjust. Then he dies and at that moment all of a sudden he is sanctified? So why bother going through the process of sanctification while you are still alive if at the moment of death you are sanctified just like that?