N
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
yankee, you said:
Jesus expected the people of His day to interpret the Scriptures.He never once said go to the synagogue and have the rabbi interpret. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26). This shows that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures.
**Old testament scriptures at this particular juncture. Agreed.
**
Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). When asked: What is Truth, Jesus said: Thy Word is Truth.
**All old testament quotes, and nowhere does Jesus say that the old testament is final source of authority. Show me in the NT where Jesus refers to the bible as the final source of authority. Paul tells us to adhere to tradition as well, only these traditions are apostolic.
**
After the church was established, the apostles required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and that’s exactly what they did. (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15).
**Not from the NT scriptures. For example: the passage, “For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ,” is a reference to the OT. just as the others are. He was showing them how Jesus fulfilled the old testament prophecies.
Private interpretation is a no-no:
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
**
When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was not the official interpreter of the Scriptures.
**Yes they did. If not the church then who?
**
They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
**You are mistake. Sola scriptura could not have worked for the first 400 years of Christianity. Not one person outside the church, had a bound codified bible; the catholic church didn’t even have a bound codified bible until 397 AD.
**
Christ never promised infallibility to any church. The infant churches already had false teachers/doctrines creeping in.
**Christ never promised infallibility to any church, just the church built by God, if in fact you believe that the holy spirit (forever guiding Jesus’ church) - is infallible!
**
Joe, let me ask you this: Why does the roman catholic church have unanimous interpretation on only a handful of Scripture passages?
**Sure, I will answer your questions even though you ignore most of mine.
**
**Please provide the passages that the CC is not unanimous on. **
There isn’t even unanimous consent among the church fathers.
**Sure, some of the church fathers differed in opinion but when they convened as a council, they always settled the matter, unlike what we see in the protestant maelstrom.
**
Jesus expected the people of His day to interpret the Scriptures.He never once said go to the synagogue and have the rabbi interpret. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26). This shows that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures.
**Old testament scriptures at this particular juncture. Agreed.
**
Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). When asked: What is Truth, Jesus said: Thy Word is Truth.
**All old testament quotes, and nowhere does Jesus say that the old testament is final source of authority. Show me in the NT where Jesus refers to the bible as the final source of authority. Paul tells us to adhere to tradition as well, only these traditions are apostolic.
**
After the church was established, the apostles required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and that’s exactly what they did. (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15).
**Not from the NT scriptures. For example: the passage, “For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ,” is a reference to the OT. just as the others are. He was showing them how Jesus fulfilled the old testament prophecies.
Private interpretation is a no-no:
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
**
When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was not the official interpreter of the Scriptures.
**Yes they did. If not the church then who?
**
They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
**You are mistake. Sola scriptura could not have worked for the first 400 years of Christianity. Not one person outside the church, had a bound codified bible; the catholic church didn’t even have a bound codified bible until 397 AD.
**
Christ never promised infallibility to any church. The infant churches already had false teachers/doctrines creeping in.
**Christ never promised infallibility to any church, just the church built by God, if in fact you believe that the holy spirit (forever guiding Jesus’ church) - is infallible!
**
Joe, let me ask you this: Why does the roman catholic church have unanimous interpretation on only a handful of Scripture passages?
**Sure, I will answer your questions even though you ignore most of mine.
**
**Please provide the passages that the CC is not unanimous on. **
There isn’t even unanimous consent among the church fathers.
**Sure, some of the church fathers differed in opinion but when they convened as a council, they always settled the matter, unlike what we see in the protestant maelstrom.
**
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Joe, I notice a certain ambiguity in your text.
(My motive is to clarify meaning in support of what you post)
The Church teaches private interpretation, as long as one follows rules:
The 2 Vatican Council indicates 3 criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it:
- Be especially attentive to content and unity of the whole Scripture;
- Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church and
- Be attentive to maintain cohesion of faith within the whole plan of Revelation.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Quoted from joe370
Where are the traditions Paul spoke about in 2 Thess chapters 2 and 3? Please read 2 Thess. 3:14. Paul said: “if any man obey not our word by this epistle…” Here we see that what Paul taught orally was eventually written down and enclosed in our NT Scriptures.
When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was now the official interpreter of the Scriptures.
Joe, the new testament is also the word of God is it not? Is not the Holy Spirit the author of it? Did not Jesus say when asked what is truth, that: They word is Truth. Where can we find absolute Truth apart from God and the very writings that are “God-breathed”? The entire Holy Scriptures is God’s word to mankind. It has unity throughout. Complete harmony. We cannot say this about early church fathers and yet, the RC relies heavily on these men for support.
Where are the traditions Paul spoke about in 2 Thess chapters 2 and 3? Please read 2 Thess. 3:14. Paul said: “if any man obey not our word by this epistle…” Here we see that what Paul taught orally was eventually written down and enclosed in our NT Scriptures.
Joe, the very words that Jesus spoke are scripture. Jesus Christ is the Word. His teachings were written down for us. You keep making a distinction between old and new testament but every jot and tittle is God’s Word. And now you’re asking for proof that Jesus believed the very Word of God has absolute authority!?
When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was now the official interpreter of the Scriptures.
Yes they did? Please provide proof Joe. If not the church, then who?! C’mon Joe are you even reading what I write? Jesus told ** individuals** to read the scriptures. If he said this about the OT, why do you believe He would do it differently concerning the NT?
Joe, again, what the apostles taught orally were later written down.
But you haven’t answered my questions Joe. Instead you just ask more questions…
The RCC is only unanimous on 7 passages.
Please show proof of this Joe. Opinions are a dome a dozen. The church fathers often contradicted one another. We find more disagreements the further we get from the apostolic age. I recommend you buy the collection of writings from the early church fathers. The book I have is over 700 pages. For every 3 that agree, we can find 3 others that do not.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
The RCC tries to persuade people that the Bible is too difficult to understand by oneself. Interpretation is not for the common people but for the wise and intelligent leaders of the Church alone. “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God…has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone…This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (Catechism, paragraph 85). With one hand the RCC gives the Bible to the people, and with the other hand, it takes it away!
It was Protestants, men like Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther, who first gave the Bible in the common language of the people, at the same time when the Roman authorities were busy burning every copy of the Bible they could lay their hands on. Read the books on christian history.
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
The verb “is” in verse 20 is the translation of the word ‘ginomai’ which according to Strong’s Lexicon means, “to cause to be, to become, come into being.” Thus the sense of this verse is this: “no prophecy of Scripture ‘came into being’ by any private interpretation.” Peter is speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being; their very origin, and ** not about the understanding of Scripture already given**.
Peter says that no scripture came into being by ‘private interpretation’ - that is by one’s own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader? Or the men who wrote the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets’ own understanding. This is confirmed when we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets’ own understanding, “For prophecy never came by the will of man.” The prophets did not invent the scriptures. They were God’s instruments to write His Word: “…holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
J
JustaServant
Guest
Getting back to the OP.
Scripture clearly has said that everything is not in the Bible, but what is not therin will be revealed by the Holy Spirit over time. It would be a very strange thing indeed for GOD to have given us an inerrant book without first giving us an infallible interpreter for it. Who has the authority to decide the one true meaning of Holy Scripture?
Also, when it comes to current modern day dilemas, the protestant sector of Christianity is all over the map of what TRUTH is. Where in Scripture is the verse which gives us moral guidance on: gay marriage, homosexual relations, abortion, women ordination, divorce, cloning, on and on and on…
If you rely on Scripture Alone you are left with the mess we currently see in the Protestant world.
Get a bird’s eye view, and you’ll see it clearly.
Scripture clearly has said that everything is not in the Bible, but what is not therin will be revealed by the Holy Spirit over time. It would be a very strange thing indeed for GOD to have given us an inerrant book without first giving us an infallible interpreter for it. Who has the authority to decide the one true meaning of Holy Scripture?
Also, when it comes to current modern day dilemas, the protestant sector of Christianity is all over the map of what TRUTH is. Where in Scripture is the verse which gives us moral guidance on: gay marriage, homosexual relations, abortion, women ordination, divorce, cloning, on and on and on…
If you rely on Scripture Alone you are left with the mess we currently see in the Protestant world.
Get a bird’s eye view, and you’ll see it clearly.
R
RedBert
Guest
Are the Hebrew Scriptures ( the Old Testament) an inerrant book
so what infallible interpreter did the Jews use for the infallible Hebrew Scriptures?
R
RedBert
Guest
you are confusing many beliefs under one roof vs many beliefs under different roofs:
survey after survey show a wide diversity of beliefs among Church going Catholics on doctrine and moral issues
L
Lampo
Guest
That doesn’t equate to the Catholic Church teaching different sets of doctrines. The Church is against contraception, yet the majority of Catholics use it.
G
guanophore
Guest
So you are saying that Catholics don’t want to do the work of Bible Study?
R
RedBert
Guest
**the SOURCE is from Catholic.com **
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
the qoutes are…
My guess is that many Catholics simply don’t want to do the work. They are content to let Mother Church spoon-feed them. (They want to remain “babes in Christ” who drink “milk,” as Paul says.)
But the “solution” of many Catholics—to not read the Bible at all so as to not be “confused” or “led astray”—is lamentable, “kindergarten Christianity” laziness. The same people who are guilty of this shortcoming usually find plenty of time to devote to the “study” of sports, politics, their latest boyfriend or girlfriend, their lawns and gardens, and so on
…
and also
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm
Only one in four Italians had read a passage from the Bible in the past year the survey revealed, compared to three out of four in the USA. Few even knew whether or not the Gospels were part of the Bible. Philosophy graduates confused Paul with Moses and thought that Jesus wrote Genesis, according to the survey.,
S
SteveGC
Guest
What sort of historical records do we have of this underground faith? What were their doctrines which revealed the simple teaching of Christ, and which helped expose Catholicism for the man-made heresy that you claim it is? In other words, how are you able to show us, other than your opinion, that all of this Christian history actually took place? You say some of these groups had names…what were some of the names? You say Baptists adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, and this opinion somehow proves they had their origins from the very beginning? Not very compelling.
yankee drifter:
Help me understand this “massive wealth” and “massive power” today. And what books on the history of Christianity would you like us to read? Can you be more specific?
yankee drifter:
This statement erroneously presupposes that private interpretation was once acceptable. It never was. But this is because you have to understand what is meant by “private”. See below.
yankee drifter:
When the Church speaks of it’s Christ-given authority to interpret the Word of God, they are speaking about 2 specific things…the ENTIRE Word of God, which consists of Christ’s authentic teaching in both written form and handed-down form…and they are speaking of interpretation regarding the deposit of faith, those specific things necessary for our faith and salvation. The Church allows for the faithful to read and interpret Scripture, just not privately. By privately, the Church means, outside of the revealed deposit of faith. We are not to define dogma or doctrine, nor contradict that which is defined as such by the Church, we are not to establish morals as revealed within this deposit. We are, rather, allowed (and encouraged) to undertake careful interpretation of Scripture with the purpose of allowing the Spirit to illuminate God’s words in a way that relates to our specific states in life (for each of us is different and on a unique journey in the faith). In this way, we interpret passages and stories or parables to allow the Spirit to convict our hearts, show us Christ and His life, guide us in our daily struggles and triumphs. So, interpretation is allowable for all, but not outside the framework of Christ’s One Church, within which He deposited the true faith.
P
Philthy
Guest
Here’s your premise in defense of Sola Scriptura not being stated in the Bible:
Blessings!
And here is your justification of that premise:
Unfortunately your argument in support of this premise is invalid. The doctrine of the Trinity, and the related doctrines which you mention, all required the authority of the Magisterium to determine and definitively proclaim them as the Truth. This is so because Scripture alone, is capable of being interpreted; has been interpreted and continues to be interpreted in a manner that denies these truths. In short: contradictory “truths” are “derived from biblical references” - some are true some are not. The fact of the matter is that apart from the authority of the Church to recognize and proclaim these particular truths we would not know them to be true. This reality invalidates your having derived the following conclusion based upon that invalid premise:
In order to validate this conclusion you will need to find another reason for us to accept your original premise. Best go back to the drawing board. Your foundational argument is invalid. I wont be holding my breath!
Blessings!
N
nuntym
Guest
See what I mean in my previous post? For if you just completed what you quoted previously:
Only one in four Italians had read a passage from the Bible in the past year, the survey revealed, compared to three out of four in the USA. Few even knew whether or not the Gospels were part of the Bible. Philosophy graduates confused Paul with Moses and thought that Jesus wrote Genesis, according to the survey. This despite the encouragement of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) for the faithful to rediscover Scripture as the primary source of spiritual life.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Can you explain which church today best fulfills Christ’s intention in founding His Church and which church today is closest to holding to the doctrines found in the Early Church of the first few centuries?
If the the Catholic Church is wrong, then who is right? Rather than a Christianity that defines itself by what it is not, what are the things that make your Protestant group sufficient in itself?
R
RedBert
Guest
We no longer have True churches with ALL True doctrines
We do have True Churches with some false docrines and
we have false Churches with some true docrtines.
N
ncgolf
Guest
So much for Matthew 16:18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
And you are bible only?
G
guanophore
Guest
Which brings one to wonder…why are you here?
R
RedBert
Guest
I wonder how the Jews managed with their scripture before the Catholic Church ?
- Status