Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[St_Aloysius_1]

Those are incredibly basic tenets of Christianity that can’t be argued with, per se. The issue is much deeper than that because the Faith is much deeper than that, touching on all aspects of our lives. Saying I believe in God and this is who He is, well, that’s a good start.

The problem comes in where people use Scripture to put forth carious ideas about what Jesus taught. The basics are agreed upon, but then beliefs begin to splinter where you have one group of Christians claiming other Christians are erroneous or worse. And they all have Bible verses to back them up. Well, if two groups of Christians disagree, one of them has to be wrong or not have the Truth.

Who decides these things if everyone is allowed individual interpretation? It’s chaos. You can’t get two Fellowship churches to agree on baptism, some churches don’t celebrate the Eucharist and others ignore half of early church writings as though they didn’t exist. There must be uniformity, consensus, agreement on what Christ taught. You don’t have that with scattershot personal interpretation.

That’s why Christ entrusted that to His Church. Read the Gospels and the Epistles and you’ll see warnings about individual intyerpretation. Read the early Christian writers like Ignatius, Iranaes, Hippo, Polycarp and others who knew the Apostles and you see the same warning. Later writers like Aquinas and Augustine are of the same mind. The Church interprets and the non-canonical writings of the Church fathers are essential to understanding the roots of Christianity and therfore, Scripture.

 

[erikd]

Now, vegetarians can disagree on whether by-products from live animals can or cannot be eaten without changing his/her status as a vegetarian. One vegetarian may say eating unfertilized chicken eggs is acceptable while another says it is not. Each is still a vegetarian, despite this difference among some. (however, if you said your a vegan, you can’t eat any animal by-products!)

The same is true for Christianity. We may disagree on things that are not clearly spelled out in Scriptures and still be Christian, but we cannot deny any of the basis fundamental doctrines that define Christianity.

Ginger

54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
John 6:54-56

This is clearly spelled out yet some Christians believe Jesus is talking about His real Body and some believe He is talking about His symbolic Body. This seems to be one of those “basic fundamental doctrines” as you said above, yet people disagree with it throughout Christendom. How do you account for that?

 

[estesbob]

(Nice dodge! )

I have said from the start of this thread that i had no authorioty to intperpret Dcripture for anyone.

I am asserting to be Christian, one must believe in, agree with and adhere to the basic principles of Christianity, just the same way a vegetarian is only a vegetarian if he/she believes in and agrees with and adheres to the basic principles of vegetarianism.

Who decides what are basic principles of Christianity?

I’ll repeat, if someone claims to be a vegetarian, but eats red meat and thinks eating red meat is a good and natural thing, then that person is not a vegetarian because he/she does not believe in and agree with and adhere to the basic principles of vegetarianism.

And if someone claims to be a Christian, but does not believe in, agree with and adhere to the basic principles of Christianity, then that person is not a Christian.

Who decides what are basic principles of Christianity?

Now, vegetarians can disagree on whether by-products from live animals can or cannot be eaten without changing his/her status as a vegetarian. One vegetarian may say eating unfertilized chicken eggs is acceptable while another says it is not. Each is still a vegetarian, despite this difference among some. (however, if you said your a vegan, you can’t eat any animal by-products!)

The same is true for Christianity. We may disagree on things that are not clearly spelled out in Scriptures and still be Christian, but we cannot deny any of the basis fundamental doctrines that define Christianity.

Ginger

Bur Protestants do disagree on fundamental Doctines. How do we resolve that?

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Ginger;

From Saint Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”, written in the 2nd century:

“… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church [at Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric… To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) (accessed 4/ 27/ 09)

 

[MarkInOregon]

IThere are basic fundamental doctrines which identify Christianity. If a church, or an entire denomination does not adhere to these doctrines, then by definition, they are not Christian.

Can you list out these fundamental doctrines for us–as you see them? I am guessing there are things many on these forums would regard as fundamental doctrines that might not show up on your list. And from what I read I see some pretty big disagreements over what are fundamental doctrines.

Thanks,
Mark

 

[benedictus2]

Not my view, but what is written in the Scriptures. How can one claim to be a Christian if he/she doesn’t believe in Christian doctrines, the very beliefs that identify us as Christians?

But how do you know that what you believe IS indeed Christian doctrine.

Many people have read the Bible and came up with very non Christian doctrines…

Simply reading the Bible will not tell you what is TRULY Christian and what is not. And Jesus knew this in advance that is why instead of writing Scripture He established a Church. A fact that many so called Christians conveniently overlook.

That is like eating red meat and saying you are a vegetarian!!!

Not really. Some people pass something purely vegetarian as meat. Like the chicken like vegie burgers. This is the same thing that happens with some “Christian” doctrines.

Or saying you are Swedish when you were born in Japan to full-blooded Japanese parents. Depends on how you define Swedishness. A lot of people call themselves American when their parents are full blooded something else.

 

[Des]

Those are incredibly basic tenets of Christianity that can’t be argued with, per se. The issue is much deeper than that because the Faith is much deeper than that, touching on all aspects of our lives. Saying I believe in God and this is who He is, well, that’s a good start.

Agreed. Take for instance the doctrine of divorce for the protestants whether they have a specific denomination or not. Is it allowed, is it not allowed. Sure seems like Christ said it isn’t yet all we ever see are Christians time and time again divorcing one another and backing it up with Scripture like a friend of mine at work.
His answer to me is Divorce is a sin. Then he attempts to rationalize it and tell me his wife divorced him giving me the impression his wife is the only human in history who has the power to separate what God has joined together. When I confront him with that, he then attempts to rationalize it even more by suggesting to me that since God forgives, he can move on, forgetting that this union cannot be broken. It’s quite amazing to see. He even had the audacity to give a verse about God divorcing Israel and saying if He did it, so can he.

Then I have another protestant friend who says divorce is once and for all. This is a pretty big doctrine to be confused over but that’s to be expected when you have no visible infallible authority to keep you in line regarding the faith along with your only source being a 2000 year old book that is self interpretated while ‘hoping’ the Holy Spirit is teaching you through it.

 

[Tomb54]

But how do you know that what you believe IS indeed Christian doctrine.

Many people have read the Bible and came up with very non Christian doctrines…

Simply reading the Bible will not tell you what is TRULY Christian and what is not. And Jesus knew this in advance that is why instead of writing Scripture He established a Church. A fact that many so called Christians conveniently overlook.

Not really. Some people pass something purely vegetarian as meat. Like the chicken like vegie burgers. This is the same thing that happens with some “Christian” doctrines.

Depends on how you define Swedishness. A lot of people call themselves American when their parents are full blooded something else.

The Bible even tells us to obey the leaders of the Church and what they tell us as they watch over our souls. As catholic all we have to do is look to what the Vatican teaches when someone tells us what scriptures says by their interpretation. This way we have a Double check of what is truly Christan.
BTW Catholic pray the Apostle Creed (which Ginger stated earlier that she believes) and the Nicene Creed every week if not everyday. They also Composed the Nicene if not the Apostles (there is some disagreement here as some say the Apostles Peter and Paul gave it to the Bishop of Rome before their death) also

17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13

 

[twb1621]

Show us the proof.

The RC shows a list of unbroken succession from Peter til today, but there is no historical evidence, nor Biblical evidence to support this doctrine existed from the beginning. Much of it is assumed.

Show us your evidence - not assumptions, but recorded proof - not “300 years later someone said this is how it happened”, but the historical documents from the first century that prove Peter appointed Linus.

and really, if there was true succession, how could an anti-pope hold office?

Ginger

This is typical but very sad. Why is it when scripture doesn’t agree with non-Catholic beliefs, the only way to respond is avoid the scripture and ask a question of diversion? You ask a question to answer a question and you respond to scripture by ignoring the very word you claim to believe in as a “Christian”. You want proof? Read the verses I posted in the post you are responding to and answer how they relate to your beliefs and appose the Catholic Faith recognizing they are the inspired word of God. Do you not recognize scripture as valid history aside from that recorded by man without the inspired word of God? Then answer the question I asked as to what faith fills all the principles to be the one true faith founded by Jesus. Then you will have your historically Biblical evidence. If you want non-biased evidence also, incase you do not accept the Biblical in itself, start researching Christianity throughout history including Roman artifacts and ancient documents, Roman ancient historians, archeology and the finding of artifacts, the origination of all Christian faiths and ancient geography of the Old and New Testament. Its far to much for me to post but you will have your fill of man’s version of History if you can’t accept biblical alone. It only took me 6 years so far to learn and I see no end to the wonders of Christ and His Bride, the Catholic Church.

---

As far as the anti-pope holding office? Never. An anti-pope is someone who claims on his own to be the pope and sets up his own office outside the papacy. Like some other cases, he will usually have a following. Based on history, an anti-pope would set up office usually in another country but was never recognized by the Catholic Faith as the legitimate pope and never was voted to or held the legitimate seat of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Yes, according to recorded history including non-biased sources. An anti-pope is no different than an apostle or successor after taking the seat of Bishop who claimed independantly to be the pope. Judas also betrayed Jesus while serving as Jesus’ messenger. Peter was the Bishop of rome and that is the seat of the Christian Faith. Here’s a smiley for ya…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, several of us keep bringing up John 6 and the fact that a sizable number of Christians disagree over whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively. Because there is an example of something that is a true difference.

Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants claim it is literal. . .and this is a 2000 year old claim.

The remaining Christians are mostly Protestant (I just know somebody will tell me that ‘some’ Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. . .of course, if so those Catholics are ignoring their own faith teaching but that’s another thread). Be that as it may. . .

Can Ginger tell us how Basil Q. Orthodox and John. P. Catholic and Martin. Y. Lutheran all find the passages to be clearly ‘literal’. . .

But Billy-Bob Baptist, Galen non-Denom, and Ursula Unitarian all find it ‘figurative’?

WHO is then interpreting correctly and HOW do you know?

 

[Ginger2]

I have said from the start of this thread that i had no authorioty to intperpret Dcripture for anyone.

And no one asked you to. But I have been accused of misinterpreting so asked showed you a list of things I believe based on the Scriptures and asked which ones you believe I misinterpreted.

Who decides what are basic principles of Christianity?
Who decides what are basic principles of Christianity?

God. These basic doctrines are in the Holy Bible.

Bur Protestants do disagree on fundamental Doctines. How do we resolve that?

A good start would be to stop lumping together all non-catholics as tho they are all Protestant Christians.

Many of the cults you lump under the reformation existed in Apostolic times.

Ginger

 

[twb1621]

(Nice dodge! )

I am asserting to be Christian, one must believe in, agree with and adhere to the basic principles of Christianity,

Ginger

Don’t think I am trying to target you because I am not and you are far from alone in this, but where did this “believing in basic principles” theory come from? A Christian MUST accept and have faith in the Word of God which is not flexible for us to choose to adapt to what we can accept or can believe. There is nothing even close in scripture that gives even the slightest inkling that as long as we follow the basic principles, its all good. This is the thought process we have lived with for the last 50 years and look at where it has lead. Jesus is the Word and His word is our salvation, there are no basics.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Many of the cults you lump under the reformation existed in Apostolic times.

REALLY???

You ARE going to show us proof of your statement, right?

How about a list of those ‘cults’ and the proof of their existence in Apostolic times?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But of course I don’t want to deter you from answering the first question, Ginger. So before you tell us which of the ‘cults’ of the Reformation had managed to evade the evil Catlicks from the time of the apostles on,

Please answer the question about John 6.

Scripturally speaking. . .Christians disagree over whether the scripture is meant to be Jesus speaking in a LITERAL or figurative sense regarding his flesh as food.

So please tell us, whose interpretation is correct, and why. And remember, some Protestant Christians believe it’s literal and some believe it’s figurative, so it isn’t just a ‘Catholic/Protestant’ question.

 

[twb1621]

You know, several of us keep bringing up John 6 and the fact that a sizable number of Christians disagree over whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively.

John CH6
Jesus was teaching and striving to convert the doubtful as many allude to. In these writings it shows Jesus seeking to strengthen the consideration of those weak in belief and of the necessity to have faith and accept Him and the Word He proclaims. As He goes deeper in this written gospel it is evident that He becomes more deliberate and assertive in referencing the bread and wine until He finally makes the definitive proclamation that it is His Flesh and Blood. This was the proclamation that finally drove the doubtful or weak in faith to walk away. Did Jesus consecrate the bread and wine at this time? Of course not. Perhaps because of the size of the crowd but more likely because the most important investment we make is in accepting Him through Faith. Had He consecrated bread and wine into His Body and Blood at that time they would have immediately considered He was speaking symbolically and accepted it at that without the faith it took for those who remained with such faith alone. But in taking this writing and relating it with the others it is evident that His proclamation was deliberate and His intended meaning firm. John 6 is the foundation for what was to become the consecration of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood supported in later verses.

***John 6: “***27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, 15 which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal." 28 So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” 30 So they said to him, “What sign can we do, that we may see and believe in you? What can we do? 31 16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to you, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.”

Continued next post

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post…

---

***Matthew 26: “***26 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

***Mark 14: *****22 7 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many. 25 Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” **

***Luke 22:*****14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. 15 He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover 5 with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." 17 Then he took a cup, 6 gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” **

Luke 24:*** “******30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. 32 Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” 33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them 34 who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!” ***

***1 Corinthians 10:*****16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 of what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, 8 not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. 21 We cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. We cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he? **

***1 Corinthians 11:***22 Do we not have houses in which we can eat and drink? Or do we show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you. 23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.”

 

[benedictus2]

The Bible even tells us to obey the leaders of the Church and what they tell us as they watch over our souls. As catholic all we have to do is look to what the Vatican teaches when someone tells us what scriptures says by their interpretation. This way we have a Double check of what is truly Christan.
BTW Catholic pray the Apostle Creed (which Ginger stated earlier that she believes) and the Nicene Creed every week if not everyday. They also Composed the Nicene if not the Apostles (there is some disagreement here as some say the Apostles Peter and Paul gave it to the Bishop of Rome before their death) also

17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13

The problem is when they get to the part of "I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Chruch "

 

[Des]

God. These basic doctrines are in the Holy Bible.

Ah yes, “God says it”, or “the Holy Spirit tells me what it means etc”. Protestants love this ‘get out of jail free’ card when caught in a corner with no escape.

 

[benedictus2]

This is what the Scriptures say about OSAS.

Second: A person can choose to turn away from God, losing his/her salvation. But a no one can take their salvation from them, (OSAS) a person cannot lose his/her salvation.

Problem is, when you say one can lose salvation then it is no longer a case of “Once Saved Always Saved”. If ONCE saved, one is ALWAYS saved, then there IS NO POSSIBILITY OF LOSING SALVATION.

No amount of scriptural quoting will get you out of that one.

Forth,
OSAS is not a free pass to sin as Catholics mistakenly believe.

Therefore as it stands, OSAS IS INDEED A FREE-PASS TO SIN. It is not a Catholic misconception but an ill-thought out doctrine.

The only way it does not become a free pass to sin is if you posit that ONCE SAVED, ONE CANNOT COMMIT SIN AGAIN. And this everyone knows is a complete untruth.

 

[benedictus2]

I am not denying there are non-Catholic churches that teach obviously heresies. However, sometimes I run in to a Catholic church that has a priest teaching un-Catholic ideas, also.

Also, Catholics like to lump all cults and all Catholic splits together under the “Luther” umbrella.

The Catholic Church has experienced splits before and after Luther. Yet Catholics seem to think Luther was the only dissenter.

So, every church that has a pastor preaching his own views apart from the Bible, does not qualify as “all Protestants belief”

There are basic fundamental doctrines which identify Christianity. If a church, or an entire denomination does not adhere to these doctrines, then by definition, they are not Christian.

All true. But Luther did the most damage by proposing the 2 Solas. Once that doctrine was in place it became a free for all. In big or little ways, protestants are separated from Christ’s church. Christ did not intend it this way. He founded only one Church.

At the very root of the Protestant revolt is the I/Me/Myself mentality. Northing more than pride.