How do you Know?

[vwtaylorii]

Last year, a thread was posted of the debate between Robert Sungenis and James White on the topic of p apal infallibly. Well, I finally got done listening to the debate (which you can listen here if you haven’t heard it), and Mr. Sungenis brought up a big point.

In the second round of the debate, the topic was about Pope Honorious (I hoped I spelled that right) and the heresy of Christ having one will (Monothelitism). During the cross examination period, Mr. Sungenis asked Mr. White where in the Bible does it say Jesus has two wills. Long story short, James White tried to use 1 Cor 2: 8, but Sungenis pointed out that he was using his own logic to interpret what that verse is saying.

At the end, I think Robert Sungenis made a good point I this part of the debate. James White did not use Scripture as his ultimate authority because he could not find a verse that taught Jesus have two wills. As a result, he had to rely on another authority, his own logic.

This begs the question that I wonder: how do you know what interpretation is correct when there two conflicting belief between two people, and they both claim the Bible as there ultimate and final authority?

 

[rovimax]

The truth will set us free! Those who interpret the Bible harmoniously is telling the truth. Those who interpret the Bible in conflicting manner can’t be correct. If we believe that the Bible is the word of God then it is the truth and God will not contradict himself. Each verse should be interpreted supporting each other and not contradict each other. we are not supposed to choose which Bible verse is suited for our own benefit but everything in the Bible should be understood in harmonious way in order to arrive in the correct doctrine.

 

[po18guy]

Many consider the bible to be the “supreme authority” Scripture itself denies this, as it teaches that the ignorant and unstable twist the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) and that the Church is the ultimate authority (1 Timothy 3:15). As well, God appointed men to interpret scripture. Have a look at Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-38.

Mr. White and others of his ilk have appointed themselves - a grievous error if one is actually searching for the truth. Bible Christians, since no two denominations agree, rely on the human ego to privately interpret scripture. Saint Peter condemns private interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20.

Go to the Church that Jesus Christ founded for our salvation. You may rely on it and live in confidence.

 

[Nita]

…question that I wonder: how do you know what interpretation is correct when there two conflicting belief between two people, and they both claim the Bible as there ultimate and final authority?

Are you asking this of non-Catholics who don’t have a final authority?
If so, I’d say they would accept/believe:
the one whose interpretation they found most persuasive,
or the one that most agreed with how they were thinking it should be interpretted,
or the one who interpretted it the way they wanted it to be interpretted (especially in areas of morality - divorce, sexuality, …).

 

[jochoa]

This begs the question that I wonder: how do you know what interpretation is correct when there two conflicting belief between two people, and they both claim the Bible as there ultimate and final authority?

Please consider two additional concepts:

1. The Pope’s ultimate and final authority is the Holy Spirit, not solely the Bible.
2. To know which interpretations are correct, given two conflicting interpretations, I search for the perspectives which validate both. Upon discovery of the perspectives, I can determine how the two work together as one.

Thank you very much for this post! I greatly appreciate you sharing the topic of the debate. It gave incredible light to a concept I have been working on developing, and it made my morning much better!

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . In the second round of the debate, the topic was about Pope Honorious (I hoped I spelled that right) and the heresy of Christ having one will (Monothelitism). During the cross examination period, Mr. Sungenis asked Mr. White where in the Bible does it say Jesus has two wills. Long story short, James White tried to use 1 Cor 2: 8, but Sungenis pointed out that he was using his own logic to interpret what that verse is saying.

At the end, I think Robert Sungenis made a good point I this part of the debate. James White did not use Scripture as his ultimate authority because he could not find a verse that taught Jesus have two wills. As a result, he had to rely on another authority, his own logic.

This begs the question that I wonder: how do you know what interpretation is correct when there two conflicting belief between two people, and they both claim the Bible as there ultimate and final authority?

First, we might consider that on this particular point there wasn’t actually any conflicting belief . They both believe the same thing, but had different approaches for arriving at that belief :

TRANSCRIBED EXCERPT

• " Now Dr. White, do you believe that Christ having one will is a heresy."
• “Yes.”
• “Do you believe that Christ having two wills is orthodox.”
• “Yes.”
• “Could you show us in Scripture where you know that to be true.”

Mr. Sungenis asked James White about Christ’s will(s) and Mr. White responded by way of saying Christ had two natures , then reasoning that from this position that He must’ve therefore have two wills.

Unfortunately that’s where they trimmed it in the debate because the larger argument was *papal infallibility * versus sola scriptura.

I think it would have been helpful to pursue that particular tract a little further. There, are I believe, other passages from scripture which, when considered together can be help us to more directly see, glean, reason, understand (call the thought process whatever one wishes) Christ’s having two wills. When we say Christ has two wills, we mean He has a *Divine will *and a human will.

There are enough passages in scripture from which we may conclude our Blessed Lord has a Divine will - several examples:

**John 10:30

“The Father and I are one.” **

**John 14:8-11

Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves." **

Where we can detect both of these wills together in sacred scripture , becomes more evident when our Blessed Lord demonstrates that it is with His human will that He obeys His Divine will - such as in :

**Luke 22:41-44

After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed,

saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.”

(And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him.

He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.) **

I think if I were going to quote St. Paul in substantiation of our Blessed Lord having two natures, I personally would have been more inclined to select the passage from **Philippians 2:5-11 **:

**Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. **

 

[MarcoPolo]

This begs the question that I wonder: how do you know what interpretation is correct when there two conflicting belief between two people, and they both claim the Bible as there ultimate and final authority?

You might want to ask over in non-Catholic religions section. But I would presume they would say that they would study and make a decision on the matter, just as a Catholic would decide that the Catholic Church has the Spirit’s authoritative guidance. We are all responsible for our free will decisions (with the help of grace sometimes ) However, I think it is a lousy decision to interpret the historical and Biblical record that authority-of-the-self is a plausible idea. For instance, just because two people disagree on whether or not murder is moral, it doesn’t mean they both have an equally reasonable claim on the belief. I happen to think the idea of the Catholic Church’s authority is rock-solid (Matt: 16 anyone? haha) based on the available evidence. If someone wants to debunk the Church’s authority or a Church dogma, they should make a good counter-presentation consistent with the totality of divine revelation, which I have not seen. Plus, the whole idea that Protestants accept the authority of the Bible that was assembled and identified as divinely inspired by a post-Biblical Church alone seems to contradict the notion of anti-Church authority.

I believe Pope John Paul II expounded on much of this in Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).