How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Lief_Erikson]

However, when more than one institutional Church can claim its origin to Pentecost, using Tradition and the scripture, it becomes difficult. Also, when the western Church went through a time of corruption and abuses, as it did in medieval times, it led to alack of confidence in that institution, a lack of trust which simmered for 450 years, and only now is being dealt with with charity and dialogue. So, we must together explore and dialogue, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and come to a convergence, not a compromise, as to what His truth is.

I agree that corruption and abuses have led to lack of trust, and there are sins on both sides that led to the schisms and heresies. For instance, an abuse of Catholic teaching about indulgences, a failure (for the sake of financial gain) on the part of some bishops and priests to apply the Church’s teaching, led to Protestant retaliations against abuses. The Protestants lashed out at both the good and true teaching of indulgences and the false, because of seeing the doctrine of indulgences falsely applied. This was a case where there was sin and fault on both sides. The Protestants were at fault for rebelling against the authority and true teaching of the Church, while some Catholic priests and bishops were at fault for misrepresenting the Church’s teaching out of greed. For instance, saying that people could spend money to buy people out of Purgatory was never part of Church teaching, but some represented this idea to the people.

I agree that the division between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches does make seeing which one is the true Church more difficult, especially for those who haven’t carefully studied the evidence and reasoning behind the divisions between the two.

I like very much what you say about convergence, not compromise .

How can there be 2 contenders for one Truth,

There are vast numbers of contenders for one truth in the world, some with almost no similarity to Christianity at all. The Orthodox Churches have the best claim after the Catholic Church (and they would say it’s the other way around, I know). Why is it strange to you that people will mistakenly claim to represent the fullness of God’s truth?

and how can one know which is right?

Studying the Scripture and Tradition can help us to learn the truth in this, but in the end, we believe through faith, and if we make a mistake by accident, God will not hold that against us.

And why would one such as I make a change, knowing it might be to the wrong one?

Because our Churches, the Catholic and Orthodox, recognize a hierarchy of truths. The Orthodox will say that Orthodoxy is the most true, the fullness of truth, while the Catholic Church will say that Catholicism contains the fullness of truth. Each Church will say that the other is much closer to the fullness of truth than anyone else. If Orthodoxy is #1, Catholicism is #2, and if Catholicism is #1, Orthodoxy is #2. The Churches agree on this.

Protestantism, in the view of both churches, would be #3. But it is much further off than Orthodoxy, for want of the Sacraments, of the infallible Tradition (Protestants generally hold to sola scriptura, a viewpoint without any basis in either the Bible or Tradition), or of many other doctrinal and moral truths. For instance, all Protestant denominations agreed that contraception is a moral evil up to the 1930s. Now there are no big ones and very, very few small ones, that still say contraception is a moral evil. And then there’s divorce, which is acceptable in some cases in Protestantism, and infant baptism, a key doctrinal issue (as baptism is the doorway to salvation – though there is also baptism by desire and blood) where there is enormous disagreement in Protestantism. However, Protestantism maintains (generally) belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead that we might have eternal life, and varying groups of Protestants will agree to a greater or lesser extent with the doctrinal and moral teachings of traditional Christianity (Orthodoxy + Catholicism). Protestantism possesses more essential truth than the other religions. Judaism would come next, and then the others in varying degrees.

I, as a Catholic, say that your spiritual life would be more vibrant and improved, that your relationship with God would be much closer to the plan God established from the beginning, if you converted to Orthodoxy than if you remained in Protestantism. You would have the Sacraments, which are the fertile field into which us spiritual seeds are tossed. You would have almost the completeness of truth in the Orthodox Tradition.

You have reason to study the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism because they are the only two real contenders for being Christ’s Church, teaching His original message, early Christianity, the apostolic faith, and because joining either one, whether you’re right about it being the best of the two to join or not, would be better than remaining in Protestantism.

Frankly, I’m a western Christian, but there are things Rome has done that prevents me from making that move - universal jurisdiction, and the like.

Universal jurisdiction was quite clearly present in Church practice at the beginning. This is why I recommended that book to you, “Peter, Jesus and the Keys,” – it demonstrates this, along with our other Papal teachings, very clearly.

I was hoping for documentation from the early councils.

There is documentation from the Early Councils that show the great authority (as well as honor) of Rome. This documentation too is in that book.

I’ll continue to look into the issue as well.

That’s a good idea .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Continued from the last post . . .

No, as I’ve said, the Confessions claims there is no command, promise, or example of invocation.

Okay, well, I believe the scriptures I have presented do indicate the value of invocation. The Early Church practiced this, the Jews believed in it, and it’s suggested in portions of the Old and New Testaments as well. It is invocation, for instance, to call on the saints and angels to praise God with us. The Jews believed (incorrectly) that Jesus was praying to Elijah for protection, which shows that they were familiar and comfortable with the idea of praying to saints for protection. Revelation 5:8 shows that the saints in Heaven don’t only pray for us – they receive our prayers as “bowls of incense,” before they offer these prayers to God. This shows that our prayers go to the saints in Heaven and through them to God. The Scripture says that the same happens with the angels. Hebrews 12 calls on us to go to the saints and angels in Heaven. Peter and Jesus calling on the spirits of the dead to return to their bodies is direct communication as well as invocation.

But there is also no charge of necromancy, etc.

Well, that’s good to hear . You’re teaching me about Lutheranism and I appreciate it. I used to be a Protestant, but I never was a Lutheran. Though I have studied some of their beliefs and history (particularly on the Eucharist).

What we do say is that the saints pray for us, the Church Militant, but in a general way. They also say there is perhaps no harm, but then no need, either. We would say that the Blessed Virgin prays for us now and at the time of our death without our asking, just as I pray for my friends and relatives whether or not they ask.

Yes, but if they ask, you will make a point of praying. All the views you just expressed could just as easily be applied to God. Jesus prays for us whether we ask Him to or not (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25), but God particularly acts in the lives of those that pray to Him. Countless scriptures indicate the value and vital importance of intercessory prayer. Yet God doesn’t “need” our prayers in order to pray for us or exert His power. One could argue, just as Lutherans do about praying to saints, “Jesus prays for us in a general way. Asking Him for prayer does no harm, but there is no need, either. Jesus prays for us now and at the hour of our death without asking.” However, the fact is that Jesus does choose that we shall pray to Him. He chooses that things shall be done this way, that He will particularly intervene in our lives when we ask Him for His power and grace to be exerted in the world. He wants us to cooperate with Him and to become one with Him through the cooperation. He wants us to develop that personal relationship with Him through prayer, rather than Him doing everything for us without us turning to Him or asking anything of Him.

The same is true of Jesus’ one family, which is Christ’s own Body in Heaven and on Earth. It is one and united with itself, and there is value in asking holy parts of Christ’s Body to go to the Head with our intercessions, just as there was value in asking the Head directly.

Here are a couple examples of cases where this has been proven worthwhile on Earth:

Acts 9:36-40

36
Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). 10 She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.
37
Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs.
38
Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, "Please come to us without delay."
39
So Peter got up and went with them. When he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs where all the widows came to him weeping and showing him the tunics and cloaks that Dorcas had made while she was with them.
40
Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.

The disciples went to Peter (part of Christ’s Body) to go to the Head (Christ Himself) for them, for “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). God answered their prayers through Peter.

Another example is the case where the angel directed Cornelius to go to Peter, through whom he would receive the Holy Spirit. The angel sent Cornelius to the member of Christ’s Body, through whom he would be heard by the Head, Christ Himself, and Christ in turn would send the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and other Gentiles.

Jesus wills to act in unity with us, us praying to Him directly and us going to Him through His disciples, and those that are righteous are closest to God and are therefore the most powerful intercessors. The saints in Heaven are perfectly righteous and consequently are the best intercessors. As the Scripture says, they rule over the Earth (Rev. 2:26-27).

For me personally, this sticking point, other than what I’ve related, is whether or not the saints have knowledge of events on earth. It is compounded by Luke 15:7 “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”

If they rule over the Earth and sometimes “dash the nations like pottery,” as Rev. 2:26-27 and Rev. 20:4-5 say, they have to know what’s going on. You can’t very well rule over a kingdom without knowing what’s going on.

For now, I am content with the knowledge that the saints pray for us

Oh . . . well darn, if I’d known you weren’t interested in further information, I wouldn’t have taken all the trouble to give you more!

 

[JonNC]

Oh . . . well darn, if I’d known you weren’t interested in further information, I wouldn’t have taken all the trouble to give you more!

Well, I didn’t mean it *that *way! While I am content, that doesn’t mean I’m closed.

Actually, I was going to mention earlier that I truly appreciate your efforts in your responses, as well as your charitable way of dialogue.

Jon

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well, I didn’t mean it *that *way! While I am content, that doesn’t mean I’m closed.

Oh, good . Lol.

Actually, I was going to mention earlier that I truly appreciate your efforts in your responses, as well as your charitable way of dialogue.

I appreciate the same in you . I think a key reason we can dialogue openly and charitably on these matters is that we’re both praying for unity.

 

[Izdaari]

How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology. :heaven:

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure. We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

 

[Cinette]

How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology. :heaven:

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure. We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

*So you think that Jesus was bluffing when he founded His Church and said the H Spirit would guide it into all truth and that he would be with us always…??? What do you think he meant by giving Peter the Keys of the Kingdom? What did he mean by "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained? What do you think Jesus meant by all the instructions he gave to His Apostles? Just playing games??

Think!

Blessings
Cinette*

 

[shaky]

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.

Hi benedictus

I am a bit confused: Is the Apocrypha canon of scriptures? Also The Eastern orthodox bible has 88 books. Why have they Got more books?
Are these extra books Apocrypha or are they called something else?

 

[fhansen]

How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology. :heaven:

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure. We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

The notion that there is a God Who saves by grace is theology, a theology you and I have heard and which we apparently believe is 100% correct and so have responded to.

 

[DLG123]

Are you aware that the Apostles are the first members of the Catholic Church?
Are you aware that the Catholic Church began at Pentecost?
Are you aware that before the Bible was written it was only tradition?
Are you aware that the first canon of Scripture was originally called the canon of Tradition?

Sorry to disabuse you of that misconception my friend but the Bible came from Traditions of the Apostles (at least the NT). The OT were traditions of the Jews before it became written.
And yes, I challenge you to do a thorough research.
I am not sure what sort of denomination you belong to but I am taking a stab that you believe in “once saved always saved”. Tell me did Jesus talk about that in the Bible.
And the doctrine on purgatory does says the same. Only your ignorance of the doctrine is making you write this kind of post.

Look, If you are going to persist in talking about purgatory then I suggest you read about it first. It is frustrating talking to someone so ignorant of the subject he has the audacity to presume to engage in debate in.

When you know what it is about then we can talk. Till then I am not wasting keystrokes on you anymore.

Hello my fellow brother here is a post from either this thread or maybe a different thread on Traditions and personal interpretation

what is meant by
1 Corth 11-2 I praise you because you remember me & in everything & hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them to you.
2 Thess 2-15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by ORAL statement or by letter of ours.
2 Thess 3-6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way & not according to the traditions they received from us.
John 21-25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
2 Tim 1-13 Take as your norm the sound words you have heard from me, in the faith & love that are in Jesus Christ.
Tim 2-2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2Pet 1-20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation
2 Pet 3-15,16 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant & unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
1 Pet 1-25 …this is the word that has been preached to you (not written)
Romans 10-16-17 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?” Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
1 Corin 15-1,2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I Preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I Preached to you, unless you believed in vain
Mark 16-15 He said to them “Go into the whole world & proclaim the gospel to every creature” (nothing would be written for several yrs, Im guessing Jesus mean preach & do as He told them to)
Acts 20-35 In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who Himself said “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (this saying of Jesus is Not found in the Gospels, what was quoting from?)

 

[Nicea325]

How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology. :heaven:

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure. We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

Key word: Presumably. Presumably is not Truth,but exactly that…presumptions.

Last time I checked scripture,Jesus promised His Apostles and Church the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Jesus did not say: I promise every single person the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture correctly.

If that were the case,then we woud not have thousands of different churches all claiming they Holy Spirit guides them,since the HS only teaches ONE Truth. God is ONE Truth,not thousands of versions of the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

His followers? The German Lutheran Bible continues to have them. That American Lutherans do not is, I believe, a clear mistake. I don’t believe that he would approve.

Again, with 20-20 hindsight, some criticize Luther for doing exactly what many before Trent in the Catholic Church did, and were allowed to do, question the canonicity of the dueterocanon.

Jon

Luther did more than question the canonicity. He actually declared them not canonical. There is a big difference there.

 

[benedictus2]

And infusion claims we are sinless? Of course not.

Infusion claims that grace has the capacity to change our nature so that when God declares us sinless we are actually sinless and not merely declared to be so.

Infusion means grace permeates our very being such that it transforms us into the image of Christ.

This probably corresponds in some way to sanctification although I can’t be 100% certain about that since reformed theology says that grace does not have ontological status in the soul.

Sorry for taking so long to reply and doing it in bits and pieces, I am caught up in another thread on predestination.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi benedictus

I am a bit confused: Is the Apocrypha canon of scriptures? Also The Eastern orthodox bible has 88 books. Why have they Got more books?
Are these extra books Apocrypha or are they called something else?

The Apocrypha is not apocrypha. It’s proper name is deutero-canonical which Luther removed from the canon because it (2Mac in particular) supported a doctrine that he did not like - purgatory.

Luther had a predetermined slant on Christology and based on this he decided what is and is not canonical.

 

[MartinJordan]

Not sure if the pertains to the subject in hand, but wasn’t there a German bible before Luther put one together? How different was his version to that earlier version?

MJ

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure if the pertains to the subject in hand, but wasn’t there a German bible before Luther put one together? How different was his version to that earlier version?

MJ

Taken from About.Com
“Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.”

Luther is said to have translated the Bible using the people’s German. The Mentel Bible was translated using the High-German vernacular.

 

[Cinette]

How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology. :heaven:

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure. We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

*Hey Izdaari you are not thinking!

• Jesus, the son of God, came to give us Salvation through his death and ressurection.
• He established His Church (would he not safeguard it?)
• He gave us the Holy Spirit (we could not operate without the HS)
• He gave us Grace through the Sacraments (precious)

He provided resources to help us on our journey.

Think about these things. You say you don’t know if your interpretation is correct. Then seek the truth and you will find it. Pray about it. God will listen to your prayer and grant your request.

• Seek and you shall find.
• Knock and it shall be opened.
• Ask and you shall receive.

God love you
Cinette

 

[MartinJordan]

Taken from About.Com
“Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.”

Luther is said to have translated the Bible using the people’s German. The Mentel Bible was translated using the High-German vernacular.

Many thanks. I wonder how accurate was Luther if he did it all himself? (another thread perhaps).

MJ

 

[benedictus2]

Many thanks. I wonder how accurate was Luther if he did it all himself? (another thread perhaps).

MJ

Based on an article that JonNC provided a link to, Martin Luther consulted some theologians in his day when he did the translation.

 

[benedictus2]

 How I do I know, with absolute certainty, that my interpretation is correct?

I don’t, and I won’t until I meet Jesus face to face. And I thank God that my salvation depends on Grace, and not on having 100% correct theology.

But if your theology is not correct, then how do you know for sure that your salvation depends on grace, since that is a theology?

If that theology of salvation by grace is not 100% correct then my friend, how do you know that your salvation does not actually depend on something else? Furthermore, how do you know that understand correctly what this salvation by grace means? What if what this actually means is that “grace” is “works”?

Ergo, for you to think that you are saved by grace means that you truly believe that that theology is correct.

What earthly authority settles it when two Christians, both presumably guided by the Holy Spirit, have different interpretations? None. Only God knows for sure.

Here’s the rub. What if your interpretation is completely wrong? And since actions follow from the truth we hold in our heads then for all your know you could be completely wrong about your interpretation and therefore completely wrong about your salvation? Ergo, you are just deluding yourself about being saved.

We have to use our best judgment, and if we can’t be sure who’s right, be willing to live with a degree of uncertainty.

But best judgment is not enough. Everyone uses their best judgment and I am sure you don’t believe that everyone will be saved.

In a nutshell, correct theology matters because Truth matters. And Truth matters because Jesus is the Truh.

 

[benedictus2]

 And what are the commands of Christ? That we remain in our sins, that grace may abound? Of course not. Christ commands us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. He gave us the Holy Spirit, word and sacrament, that we may by further sanctified. We do this because we are commanded to.

But that is precisely my point. How do you reconcile that with a justification that is forensic? Why command us to work out our salvation when all that is needed for salvation is to be declared righteous?

When? When are we actually righteous? If infused righteousness means we are righteous, why then is there need for sanctification? If one is already righteous, then the sacraments mean little, because one is already righteous.

And there is my point. We do not make a distinction between justification and sanctification. As I mentioned before, this split between justification and sanctification is a theological novelty of the reformation.
When we talk of infusion of grace, we mean the grace acting and transforming the soul. When that transformation into the image of Christ is complete, then we can say we have been made righteous and therefore justified. The grace has worked this transformation and so we can rightly say we have been justified by grace.

When will your soul be cleansed of sin, Cory?

Hopefully before I die but I doubt it. I am a sturbborn, prideful, lazy, condescending, impatient, judgmental (you name it) person I will most likely die requiring an intensive cleansing in the soul department . However, only God knows whether I will go through purgatory or not. All I know is that if I am struck dead right now, then purgatory here I come:sad_yes:. But, I have seen some changes in me, in particular at one life changing moment during a retreat when God showed me just how tenderly He loves me and how great His Mercy truly is. Hopefully a lot of purgation will have occurred prior to me saying “bye world” ( I did bear my broken foot and the incapacitation cheerfully ). I think I am slowly (snail pace) being conformed into the image of my True Love so who knows. But purgatory or not, the only thing that matters is that His will be done with regards myself.

Who says grace has no capacity to change one’s nature? Or, are you speaking only of our lives on earth?

Well from what I have read, that is what Luther believed, at least at the point of justification. I refer back to E.L. Mascall’s assessment.
On the other hand, if justifying grace were to consist of a transformation on the observable level, the man would be simply justified by his works; for on nominalistic principles a man’s observable behaviour is neither more nor less than his total activity. What, then was there left for Luther to say, being convinced, as he rightly was by St Paul, that a man cannot be justified by his works? Only this: that there is no real change in the man at all, but God treats him as if there was. By a sheer gratuitous act of his love God imputes to the man the merits of Christ; God treats him as if he were as sinless as Christ himself, while leaving him the sinner that he was.”

Note the underlined text.

Here it seems that grace is a mere legal declaration. One is not made sinless, one is merely declared sinless but remains a sinner. That is why the Protestant view of justification is always termed “forensic”.

This is why I have said a few times before that it seems Luther’s theology is at schism with itself. It was not very well thought out, as happens, when a man comes up with a whole theology by himself.

Why do you continue to mischaracterize Lutheran teaching? Your intent seems to be to relate Lutheran teaching to Calvinism. I have presented ample evidence that Lutherans believe that we are required to live by His commands.

But the question is why? Why do you need to live by His commands if you are already declared just even before you are sanctified?

Okay, to take this slowly (correct me here if I am wrong).

Step 1: Man is justified by grace.

Step 2. After being justified sanctification follows.

Here are the questions.

What is the state of the soul at the point of justification? Is the soul blameless and already conformed to the image of Christ?

If yes, then what is sanctification for?

If no, then why is the soul declared just when it is not just because sanctification still needs to happen? Can the person go to heaven if immediately after justification he dies? If so, what is the point of sanctification.