Interpreting the Bible and Determining Truth

[Maearl]

I have thought extensively about Catholic teachings for the last several years (I myself was born and raised Lutheran), and I have been able to reduce the many arguments from both Protestants and Catholics to two very compelling ones.

First, I believe that truth does not change. What would then happen if a Christian Church (it could be Protestant or Catholic) changes it’s teaching on a topic in a way so as to contradict that which was previously preached as being absolutely true? One of two things: either truth changes, or that teaching was never correct to begin with (and hopefully now is correct).

I will also say I believe that the interpretation of the Bible is more important than the text of the Bible itself.

Catholics have a compelling argument when they say that the church is the authentic interpreter of the Bible. I believe it is a good argument because Protestants are often guilty of eisegesis (putting their ideas of truth into the text) as opposed to exegesis (extracting the correct meaning from the text). Each person interprets the bible differently, and each interpretation cannot be equally true, so which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Also, with so many variations in the original manuscripts of the Bible, which codex or scroll is the correct one to use in translation? Protestants fall into the trap of worshipping a certain version of the Bible rather than following the truth which exists in all versions of the Bible but can only be determined by the correct interpretation of it.

On the other hand, with the existence church authority (the apex of which is the Pope), all interpretation is from a single source (the church) and can answer any moral question, regardless of the time period. But the problem here occurs when the church reverses itself on an important teaching once thought to be unchangeable. I see the Catholic church constantly bombarded with groups of “change agents”, those who want to change church teachings --because they think they can then change truth. How on earth can the Catholic church try to declare certain teachings infallible when a future elected pope might change that teaching?

I have read about how the Catholic church claims to have not changed one teaching, she has only “deepened her understanding of truth”, which makes sense --like having different versions of the Bible (all Bible’s being equally true, only having different wording because languages change over time).

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

 

[VociMike]

Hi and welcome,

I would just add to your comments about interpreting the bible that the Church is tasked with more than that. She is the guardian of the entire deposit of faith, of which which the scriptures are a part but not the whole.

Regarding the often-alleged changing of teaching, John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is probably the must-read on the subject.

 

[Newbie2]

Well…if you look at it this way:

The world was once flat…that was an accepted fact. Then we came to know more…and now it’s round.

Simplistic way of looking at theology, I know, but our capacity for understanding is limited. Besides, from a “practical” standpoint, the Magisterium cannot come out with a “we’re pretty sure this is an eternal truth” statement, can they?

 

[ricko]

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

You seem to have a firm grasp of the situation but your faith is still lacking. I say that because of your statement about devoting your life to teachings that might change. In 2,000 years that has not happened. Yes some things might change that are not doctrines but those will NEVER change. For example women priests. That will never happen. You will always have those who want to change things like that. I remember Pope John Paul shaking his head side to side the whole time a nun was talking to him about women priests. The Church stood fast when King Henry VIII wanted to divorce and remarry. So if 2,000 years of teaching the truth, unchanged is not convincing enough for you, would another 1,000 years do it?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have thought extensively about Catholic teachings for the last several years (I myself was born and raised Lutheran), and I have been able to reduce the many arguments from both Protestants and Catholics to two very compelling ones.

First, I believe that truth does not change. What would then happen if a Christian Church (it could be Protestant or Catholic) changes it’s teaching on a topic in a way so as to contradict that which was previously preached as being absolutely true? One of two things: either truth changes, or that teaching was never correct to begin with (and hopefully now is correct).

I will also say I believe that the interpretation of the Bible is more important than the text of the Bible itself.

Catholics have a compelling argument when they say that the church is the authentic interpreter of the Bible. I believe it is a good argument because Protestants are often guilty of eisegesis (putting their ideas of truth into the text) as opposed to exegesis (extracting the correct meaning from the text). Each person interprets the bible differently, and each interpretation cannot be equally true, so which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Also, with so many variations in the original manuscripts of the Bible, which codex or scroll is the correct one to use in translation? Protestants fall into the trap of worshipping a certain version of the Bible rather than following the truth which exists in all versions of the Bible but can only be determined by the correct interpretation of it.

On the other hand, with the existence church authority (the apex of which is the Pope), all interpretation is from a single source (the church) and can answer any moral question, regardless of the time period. But the problem here occurs when the church reverses itself on an important teaching once thought to be unchangeable. I see the Catholic church constantly bombarded with groups of “change agents”, those who want to change church teachings --because they think they can then change truth. How on earth can the Catholic church try to declare certain teachings infallible when a future elected pope might change that teaching?

I have read about how the Catholic church claims to have not changed one teaching, she has only “deepened her understanding of truth”, which makes sense --like having different versions of the Bible (all Bible’s being equally true, only having different wording because languages change over time).

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

The Truth simply is. It is revealed to us through Divine Revelation, one form of which is the Scriptures. Truth is not a product of Scriptural interpretation, it is not produced by anything, it simply is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have thought extensively about Catholic teachings for the last several years (I myself was born and raised Lutheran), and I have been able to reduce the many arguments from both Protestants and Catholics to two very compelling ones.

First, I believe that truth does not change. What would then happen if a Christian Church (it could be Protestant or Catholic) changes it’s teaching on a topic in a way so as to contradict that which was previously preached as being absolutely true? One of two things: either truth changes, or that teaching was never correct to begin with (and hopefully now is correct).

I will also say I believe that the interpretation of the Bible is more important than the text of the Bible itself.

Catholics have a compelling argument when they say that the church is the authentic interpreter of the Bible. I believe it is a good argument because Protestants are often guilty of eisegesis (putting their ideas of truth into the text) as opposed to exegesis (extracting the correct meaning from the text). Each person interprets the bible differently, and each interpretation cannot be equally true, so which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Also, with so many variations in the original manuscripts of the Bible, which codex or scroll is the correct one to use in translation? Protestants fall into the trap of worshipping a certain version of the Bible rather than following the truth which exists in all versions of the Bible but can only be determined by the correct interpretation of it.

On the other hand, with the existence church authority (the apex of which is the Pope), all interpretation is from a single source (the church) and can answer any moral question, regardless of the time period. But the problem here occurs when the church reverses itself on an important teaching once thought to be unchangeable. I see the Catholic church constantly bombarded with groups of “change agents”, those who want to change church teachings --because they think they can then change truth. How on earth can the Catholic church try to declare certain teachings infallible when a future elected pope might change that teaching?

I have read about how the Catholic church claims to have not changed one teaching, she has only “deepened her understanding of truth”, which makes sense --like having different versions of the Bible (all Bible’s being equally true, only having different wording because languages change over time).

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

by what you wrote here, i can tell you are getting close to find the Truth.

 

[JRKH]

I have thought extensively about Catholic teachings for the last several years (I myself was born and raised Lutheran), and I have been able to reduce the many arguments from both Protestants and Catholics to two very compelling ones.

First, I believe that truth does not change. What would then happen if a Christian Church (it could be Protestant or Catholic) changes it’s teaching on a topic in a way so as to contradict that which was previously preached as being absolutely true? One of two things: either truth changes, or that teaching was never correct to begin with (and hopefully now is correct).

I will also say I believe that the interpretation of the Bible is more important than the text of the Bible itself.

Catholics have a compelling argument when they say that the church is the authentic interpreter of the Bible. I believe it is a good argument because Protestants are often guilty of eisegesis (putting their ideas of truth into the text) as opposed to exegesis (extracting the correct meaning from the text). Each person interprets the bible differently, and each interpretation cannot be equally true, so which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Also, with so many variations in the original manuscripts of the Bible, which codex or scroll is the correct one to use in translation? Protestants fall into the trap of worshipping a certain version of the Bible rather than following the truth which exists in all versions of the Bible but can only be determined by the correct interpretation of it.

On the other hand, with the existence church authority (the apex of which is the Pope), all interpretation is from a single source (the church) and can answer any moral question, regardless of the time period. But the problem here occurs when the church reverses itself on an important teaching once thought to be unchangeable. I see the Catholic church constantly bombarded with groups of “change agents”, those who want to change church teachings --because they think they can then change truth. How on earth can the Catholic church try to declare certain teachings infallible when a future elected pope might change that teaching?

I have read about how the Catholic church claims to have not changed one teaching, she has only “deepened her understanding of truth”, which makes sense --like having different versions of the Bible (all Bible’s being equally true, only having different wording because languages change over time).

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

A wonderful post. Welcome aboard the Forums.
I guess everyone asks these questions at one time or another and, of course you’ve recieved some good answers here.
First it is necessary to understand what we are talking about when we discuss “Teachings”. Whether we are talking about things that are “Dogmatically” declared (unchangable) or not. there are many things taught by the Church that are not “Dogmatic” teachings. These things can evolve over time based on Changing and growing understandings of God’s revelation.

I would say suggest that you recognize that the Church rarely ever changes teaching quickly. It takes years of study and reflection by the whole of the magisterium and body of the faithful before a teaching is changed or adjusted. So the idea of “committing to a set of teachings that could Change” is really not that big of an issue.

When one considers how careful the magisterium is with the deposit of faith, how unaffected they are by changing fashon, how thorough they are in study and discussion, one can only prase God for His wisdom in setting up the Church as He did.

In addition, you should recognize that, by joining the Church, you are not joining a “Set of Beliefs”, although the deposit of faith is certainly part of it, you are joining the living Body of Christ on Earth headed by the successor of St Peter and guarded and guided by Christ. You are joining The Church where you can go every day and recieve Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist into you own body.

There is no place like it.

Peace
James

 

[SilentKnight]

I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

There are doctrines of the Church and then there are disciplines. Doctrines can never and will never change. We can grow into a deeper or better understadning of them over time, but they cannot substantively change. Disciplines can but are, by nature, of no consequence to objective theology.

So, no worries…

SK

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
I personally love the idea of a singular objective interpreter of faith and morals (the church headed by the Pope), but I cannot see devoting my life to a set of teachings that might change at a later date. Sorry for the long post, I was wondering if anyone else has thought about these issues before. God bless!

Great post. You are on the right path and headed the right direction.

Consider that a future pope CAN NOT change an infallible teaching of a prior pope. There are all kinds of checks and balances in the magisterium. No encyclical, bull, or dogma is ever published without checking it against all the prior teachings to insure there is no direct nor an implied contradiction to anything The Church holds as dogma. Further, many teachings are sealed in the blood of The Church’s martyrs who have rather died than renounce their faith or a core teaching. The Church is not about to mock the legacy of its martyrs and saints by capitulating on its teachings just to avoid persecution.

James