How does protestant settle issues concerning enterpretation of Scriptures when these issues arise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Carlan said:
Well Jon, I am not brightest light when it comes to a whole lot, especially the Orthodox, I understand doctrinally there is not much if any difference, that the problem is mostly political, and don’t ask me questions about that, I do not know. Perhaps some more educated than I will come forward.;):)Carlan
Click to expand...
No dimmer than mine, Carlan. 😛

Jon
 
TriuneUnity said:
No, that is not a historical fact. That is a conclusion that you have reached based upon historical facts. You have yet to provide, however, any historical (or Scriptural) facts to back up that conclusion. Jesus founded a church, that much is fact. That does not mean He founded the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today. That is an assertion.
Click to expand...
The historical writings of Early Church Fathers disagree with your historical revisionism as do the writings of the Martin Luther and some other early Protestants.

Start reading some history.
 
schaick said:
Because somewher along the line someone said there was more then one interpretation!

Man making GOD’s Word conform to our reality instead of us conforming to GOD’s TRUTH!

We are to hate the sin and love the sinner. Are people confusing accepting with loving the sinner?
Click to expand...
You mean like artificial contraception? It was universally condemned as gravely sinful by all Protestants less than one hundred yeas ago. Now it’s not.

Protestants: Using the ironically contra-Biblical man made doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” to make God’s Word conform to the zeitgeist since 1517.
 
JonNC said:
Or, is Rome in Schism with them? Wasn’t Peter also in Antioch?

Jon
Click to expand...
Christ established His Church with Peter as the head. Where Peter or his successors have lived is irrelevant. It’s not the Roman Catholic Church, it’s simply the Church or the Catholic Church.
 
1holycatholic said:
Christ established His Church with Peter as the head. Where Peter or his successors have lived is irrelevant. It’s not the Roman Catholic Church, it’s simply the Church or the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Church is found with those who are communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is found in Antioch, and Jerusalem, and in Wittenburg, and everywhere believers are. The Church is where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The Church is the communion of Saints, of which you and I are a part. Christ did not mention a single, exclusive institution or organization, though a single united one would certainly be preferable to the divisions that now wound His Church and ministry.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Exactly. The Church is found with those who are communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is found in Antioch, and Jerusalem, and in Wittenburg, and everywhere believers are. The Church is where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The Church is the communion of Saints, of which you and I are a part. Christ did not mention a single, exclusive institution or organization, though a single united one would certainly be preferable to the divisions that now wound His Church and ministry.

Jon
Click to expand...
Actually, He did. To claim otherwise is an exercise in verbal engineering.
 
1holycatholic said:
Where? :confused:

Are you going to answer where it is written that everything Jesus said or did is written in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Of course all that He said and did is not recorded in Scripture. My question is narrow and specific, in response to your stated claim that, *"Jesus established the Catholic Church and no others. " *, where did Christ identify the Catholic Church, that is, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, at the exclusion of all other institutions/ organizations, as the one True Church?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Of course all that He said and did is not recorded in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Your admission that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith denies the core of Sola Scriptura, and it’s consistent with the Early Church Fathers.
JonNC said:
My question is narrow and specific, in response to your stated claim that, *"Jesus established the Catholic Church and no others. " *, where did Christ identify the Catholic Church, that is, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, at the exclusion of all other institutions/ organizations, as the one True Church?
Click to expand...
Answered here.
 
=1holycatholic;6420152]Your admission that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith denies the core of Sola Scriptura, and it’s consistent with the Early Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
Don’t know where I admitted that the Bible is not the final norm, but you continue to avoid stating where Christ mentions any particular institution/ organization as the Church, mine or yours.

That aside, were you to tell me that you base your belief that the Catholic Church is the one True Church established by Christ Himself on the CCC or other teachings of the Catholic Church, I would accept that, though I would respectfully disagree. It cannot be proven by the ECF’s which institution/ organization is the one true Church after the Great Schism, as both Rome and Orthodoxy can use the same reasoning to claim it, over and above the other(s).

Jon
 
Christ’s Church is one, The disobedience of Father Luther began the opening of the can of worms. Had he remained in the Church and worked with the the Church to reform all the shenanigans, you would not be separated from us today and neither would there be the continuing thousands of splinters. .
Because of that disobedience 500years ago the splintered Church does not accept the true teaching authority of Christ’s Church and as a consequence they have millions of little Popes interpreting the different issues of Scripture,🤷:(Continue your prayers for unity and peace.🙂 Carlan
 
Carlan said:
Christ’s Church is one, The disobedience of Father Luther began the opening of the can of worms. Had he remained in the Church and worked with the the Church to reform all the shenanigans, you would not be separated from us today and neither would there be the continuing thousands of splinters. .
Because of that disobedience 500years ago the splintered Church does not accept the true teaching authority of Christ’s Church and as a consequence they have millions of little Popes interpreting the different issues of Scripture,🤷:(Continue your prayers for unity and peace.🙂 Carlan
Click to expand...
Carlan,
The events of 500 years ago are not so simple as you describe here. Even the CC admits there was blame on all sides. Had Luther not been excommunicated, and had there been more effort on the side of the Church to hear what Luther had to say about the corruption (the corrupt leaders would not listen)…

Alas, water long ago under the bridge. The question is what do we do now to bring unity back to His Church, and heal the wounds of division that are 500 and 1,000 years old.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Carlan,
The events of 500 years ago are not so simple as you describe here. Even the CC admits there was blame on all sides. Had Luther not been excommunicated, and had there been more effort on the side of the Church to hear what Luther had to say about the corruption (the corrupt leaders would not listen)…

Alas, water long ago under the bridge. The question is what do we do now to bring unity back to His Church, and heal the wounds of division that are 500 and 1,000 years old.

Jon
Click to expand...
yes, I know,You are right about the start of it all, from this Catholic’s standpoint, I don’t know, we seem to gain one and then lose one. All we can do is persevere in prayer and trust God in the end, after all he did say the gates of hell would not prevail.Peace and Love, Carlan
 
Carlan said:
yes, I know,You are right about the start of it all, from this Catholic’s standpoint, I don’t know, we seem to gain one and then lose one. All we can do is persevere in prayer and trust God in the end, after all he did say the gates of hell would not prevail.Peace and Love, Carlan
Click to expand...
And I still say , the Apostles and their successors the Bishops of the one Church Christ started were given all authority to teach his revelation .:)Peace, Carlan.
 
JonNC said:
Don’t know where I admitted that the Bible is not the final norm, but you continue to avoid stating where Christ mentions any particular institution/ organization as the Church, mine or yours.

That aside, were you to tell me that you base your belief that the Catholic Church is the one True Church established by Christ Himself on the CCC or other teachings of the Catholic Church, I would accept that, though I would respectfully disagree. It cannot be proven by the ECF’s which institution/ organization is the one true Church after the Great Schism, as both Rome and Orthodoxy can use the same reasoning to claim it, over and above the other(s).
Click to expand...
The Early Church Fathers are unanimous that Christ established one and only one Church and that Church is called the Catholic Church. If you’re not afraid of the truth you should read them.

All of the writings of the Early Church including the New Testament are Catholic. Not too surprising since there were only Catholics and heretical groups such as Nestorians, Arians, Gnostics etc…

The Assyrian Church of the East (not Eastern Orthodox) split from the Catholic Church in the 400’s.
 
Well it depends on how one gets to their interpretation.

First if we are talking about a serious interpretation, we have to look at the Greek text (or Hebrew if it’s the Old Testament). This is because the inerrancy of the Bible is dependent on it being the original text (or as close as we can get). I am not fluent in Koine Greek, but thankfully many modern translators have worked hard to create a good translation (ESV, NASB, NAB, NRSV).

Next we have to look at the historical background of the text, this is especially important in the Pastoral letters as not everything contained is dogmatic per se. For example the rule about women covering their heads would be the equivalent of today saying women should not come to Church topless. There is alot of history in Bible as well as Theology.

While not authoritative, looking at how the Church Fathers interpreted the text is important. It also reveals that in many passages, Church Fathers had legitimate disagreements amongst each other.

Ultimately though as priests, the Spirit within us will help us to take God’s Word and apply it so that we can be good stewards of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top