Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[Ginger2]

Who’s reasoning?

“manifest reasoning”

Manifest

1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest

In-other-words, Luther said if it is not in the Holy Scriptures, it was still possible to convince him by other means.

So, it is obvious Martin Luther did not believe in Sola Scriptura. If he did he would have simply said, “Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture” and stopped short, but Luther added " by manifest reasoning,"

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I understand what you are saying, but show me where a diverse belief system, which is what this implies, is supported by any Biblical verse.

I assume by diverse you mean a wide range of diverse opinions. **That is not what I said. **There is only one truth. That truth has been preserved for all generations in the Holy Bible ans states plainly that one must believe. Believing is only the first step, but you can take a second step until you take the first. And what we must believe are the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. How do I know this? Because the Bible says plainly all that one must believe and do according to God’s will.

So, what does the Bible say we must believe?

Jhn 8:24 — I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for **if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. **
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This is not to say that there is nothing more to being a Christian, but unless you believe that Jesus is who he said he is, you cannot by definition be a Christian.

 

[Ginger2]

N
…you tell us that you ‘accept’ the literal meaning. But many of your fellow Protestants would oppose your understanding of Scripture.

And some Catholics deny the real presence. Why would you think it wouldn’t be an issue for Protestants?

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

“manifest reasoning”

Manifest

1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest

In-other-words, Luther said if it is not in the Holy Scriptures, it was still possible to convince him by other means.

So, it is obvious Martin Luther did not believe in Sola Scriptura. If he did he would have simply said, “Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture” and stopped short, but Luther added " by manifest reasoning,"

Ginger

Who’s manifest reasoning?

 

[Ginger2]

I found something interesting after clicking LionHeart777’s link:

(newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

1. …Clement was allotted the bishopric… the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. … and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.

Notice all the traditions passed down by the Apostles in this document are straight out of the Bible! And it mentions an epistle as evidence to dispel false doctrines.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ginger, we aren’t discussing why the Protestants might have an issue.

Take any two opposing Scriptural interpretations or understandings. Obviously you (and your fellow Protestants. . .and we are setting aside non-Protestants right now, because Catholics and Orthodox know why they accept a given interpretation even though Protestants will not acknowledge such reasons as valid). . .Protestants make a choice of those Scriptures, choosing to accept one interpretation over another. How do you explain that thousands and thousands of Protestants will accept one interpretation, and thousands and thousands another?

 

[Ginger2]

Who’s manifest reasoning?

You claim Luther created the doctrine of Sola Scripture which means the Bible is the only authority.

Luther said he was willing to listen to extra-biblical evidence to prove him wrong and then he would recant.

This proves you are wrong about the SS and Luther theory.

So Luther rejecting the bishops claims because he no longer trusted them is irrelevant.

 

[erikd]

And finally, Luther did not remove the seven books. He appended them as Jerome did. Luther acknowledged the same canon the church claims to have used for over 1000 years.

Ginger

The Canon was set in 382 AD, that is a historical fact.

*“Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”

“The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.”*
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The Council of Carthage in 419 AD states the following:

*"Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

•Genesis.
•Exodus.
•Leviticus.
•Numbers.
•Deuteronomy.
•Joshua the Son of Nun.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books.
◦The New Testament.
■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book. "*
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

One point of clarification on the above mentioned canon: It lists 71 Books not 73. The reason for this discrepancy is due to the fact that Baruch and Lamentations were, at that time, considered to be part of the Book of Jeremiah. Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary, and Lamentations is credited to Jeremiah, therefore all three were then combined. We see evidence of this as all these Books are present in the original Latin Vulgate.

In regards to St. Jerome, please remember that although he may not have agreed with the reasoning of the Church, he defended it:

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.”
Against Rufinus, Book II Paragraph 33 [AD 402].
newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm

 

[Ginger2]

How do you explain that thousands and thousands of Protestants will accept one interpretation, and thousands and thousands another?

The same way I explain the thousands of Catholics who secretly use birth control because they don’t believe the RC is correct on this issue.

All Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, believe the same tenets of Scriptures. These are the fundamental doctrines which identify us as Christian. These tenets come straight from the Holy Scriptures, and are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

As for other beliefs that may vary from church to church I would merely remind you that the Catholic church leaves its members free to speculate and disagree on anything that has not been stated ex-cathedral.

Ginger

 

[erikd]

I found something interesting after clicking LionHeart777’s link:

(newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

1. …Clement was allotted the bishopric… the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. … and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.

Notice all the traditions passed down by the Apostles in this document are straight out of the Bible! And it mentions an epistle as evidence to dispel false doctrines.

Ginger:

St. Irenaeus is showing the history of the Bishops of Rome. He is defending in 180 AD what we as Catholics are still forced to defend today, 1830 years later. Irenaeus is not only showing the authority of the Papacy, but the succession of it as well. In your original quote, several key sentences were missing thereby making your point out of an incomplete quote. I will show you the sentences which were left out, which will make more sense of this paragraph:

*"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. **This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have *the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. 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. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth"
St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

The Epistle you are referring to, as it states was written “In the time of Clement” was Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians:
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[Ginger2]

The Canon was set in 382 AD, that is a historical fact.

This thread is not about the canon of Scripture. I think we have spread out far enough without bringing another topic in.

 

[LionHeart777]

Notice all the traditions passed down by the Apostles in this document are straight out of the Bible! And it mentions an epistle as evidence to dispel false doctrines.
Reply With Quote

Hi Ginger, I do believe the epistle that is being referenced to by St. Irenaeus is St. Clement’s “Letter to the Corinthians”, as Erik D stated. Now I do believe you have a valid point in that from what I can tell, the tradition being spoken of is of the “One God”; as James White referred to in his debate w/ Jimmy Akin on “The Bible Answer Man.” From what I can tell, I tend to agree w/ White on that point, at least if he was specifically referring to this or similar passages in “Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus.

That being said, I believe that that is specifically what St. Irenaeus is defending there, I haven’t read the whole work…it’s long…and he takes on different heretics. But, as Akin pointed out in the same debate, he is doing it by referring to Apostolic Succession, since both the heretics and the Christians (I would argue Catholics) were both utilizing Scripture to defend their own positions (my paraphrase.) I’m not certain what exact work or even passage they were referring to as they were referring to the ECF’s and Irenaeus, but I think it might be this one. Anyway, I believe that their comments apply to the passage (s) you cited from “Against Heresies.”

Nick

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

St. Irenaeus is showing the history of the Bishops of Rome. …

I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the traditions passed on by the Apostles in this document are all written in the Scriptures.

I thought I had already addresses the supposed line of succession.

1. **it doesn’t say Peter **passed on the chair to Linus. it says the Apostles, (probably referring to Peter and Paul in context) gave Linus a territory to head, not to be head over the whole church. It also says Polycarp was given a specific territory, too.

There is more, but that’s a start.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ginger, you’re talking apples and oranges.

Once again I remind you we are speaking of Protestants, even though you insisted on dragging in Catholics. But in a way you’ve actually helped to illustrate the difference.

You see, those Catholics who ‘secretly use birth control’ do so knowing that they are not following Church teaching. (and often they’ll try to rationalize it, and even more often later they’ll realize their error and repent).

But the Protestants who pick a ‘different’ interpretation from their fellow Protestants don’t look at those fellow Protestants as having an ‘authoritative’ interpretation which they choose to disagree with. (which is what the Catholics are doing).

No, those Protestants don’t recognize the interpretation they disagree with as being authoritative at all. And they don’t, if they are say Baptist, cheerfully say, “I’m Baptist but I think the Baptist teaching about Mary is all wrong. I think the Catholics are right.”

Now, please let’s stick to the Protestants. What gives Billy Bob Baptist the authority to claim that by God, it’s adult baptism or it’s NOTHING and Scripture says so. . .and Leslie Lutheran the authority to claim, “infant baptism is perfectly legitimate and Scriptural”. . .and how does the individual Dudley Denom choose between the two positions?

 

[Ginger2]

You see, those Catholics who ‘secretly use birth control’ do so knowing that they are not following Church teaching. (and often they’ll try to rationalize it, and even more often later they’ll realize their error and repent).

But the Protestants who pick a ‘different’ interpretation from their fellow Protestants don’t look at those fellow Protestants as having an ‘authoritative’ interpretation which they choose to disagree with. (which is what the Catholics are doing).

Since Protestants use the Bible as God’s Word, what is written is directly related to the authority of God Himself. So Protestants also "do so knowing that they are not following God’s Word. (and often they’ll try to rationalize it, and even more often later they’ll realize their error and repent). "

 

[Des]

Hi Tanturn ergo, Thanks for your reply. Your question concerning John 6, was Jesus speaking about eating His flesh literally or figuratively? If one stops to read John 6 at verse 59, like twb1621 does on post 965, the question isn’t answered. However, if you continue to read past verse 59 to verse 63, Jesus states" The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." To me, It seems very clear that the words that Jesus had just spoken are SPIRIT and are NOT to be taken LITERALLY. I see no reason for any question do you? ED O

Christ knew the thoughts of His listeners. They seriously were perverting this teaching with thoughts of canabalsm in nature and I think the Douay-Rheims sums it up perfectly regarding that verse.

“The flesh profiteth nothing”… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

The same way I explain the thousands of Catholics who secretly use birth control because they don’t believe the RC is correct on this issue.

There is a big difference here. Catholics ‘Know’ what the Church is teaching yet they say, I personally, don’t want to agree to it.

Protestants who disagree with one another are pretty much saying “I want to believe this way because God’s word is saying it”. It would be pretty silly to suggest that any protestant who doesn’t believe your way has drifted away from God’s ‘True’ doctrines even though they know what it is. No, they seriously think what they believe is God’s Word spoken out of their only infallible source…the Written Word.

There is no misunderstanding in what a Catholic’s Infallible guide is saying regarding the Doctrines of the Church. If they disagree on the ‘Real Presence’ for example, it’s not because they think the Church is saying it’s only a symbol. It’s because they personally just don’t want to believe in it even though they know they are supposed to.

As for other beliefs that may vary from church to church I would merely remind you that the Catholic church leaves its members free to speculate and disagree on anything that has not been stated ex-cathedral.

Ginger

Again, Catholics know what their most important doctrines are. Protestants don’t. To sit back and say the teachings of marriage and divorce is merely up for your own given interpretation is your take on how important it is to you and not other protestants. SDA’s love their Sabbath. Who are you to say it shouldn’t be that important to other Christians? Many non denominational christians do not believe in once saved always saved. You do not have the authority to say your interpretation is greater than theirs nor can you say “I’m not interpetating, God is saying it” either since they can say it right back at you then you’re both in a bit of a pickle.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Since Protestants use the Bible as God’s Word, what is written is directly related to the authority of God Himself. So Protestants also "do so knowing that they are not following God’s Word. (and often they’ll try to rationalize it, and even more often later they’ll realize their error and repent). "

OK, this is interesting. So you’re saying that the Protestants who are epousing the interpretation that is 'wrong" (whichever it is) know that the other passage’s interpretation, or the other group of Protestants, is right but they go against it? But you still haven’t answered me. . .obviously one of the two 'opposite" interpretations is correct, and you’re saying that all the Protestants “know” which one is correct but that some deliberately choose the wrong one and hold it up as right. Can you explain why?

 

[twb1621]

I assume by diverse you mean a wide range of diverse opinions. **That is not what I said. **There is only one truth. That truth has been preserved for all generations in the Holy Bible ans states plainly that one must believe. Believing is only the first step, but you can take a second step until you take the first. And what we must believe are the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. How do I know this? Because the Bible says plainly all that one must believe and do according to God’s will.

So, what does the Bible say we must believe?

Jhn 8:24 — I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for **if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. **
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him:

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This is not to say that there is nothing more to being a Christian, but unless you believe that Jesus is who he said he is, you cannot by definition be a Christian.

Thank you for your response. We know however (and I know you know as well), that “believing” in itself is fruitless as it has been said many times even satan believes in God. Respectfully, You also referred to there being more than just believing to being a Christian so I ask, what for you constitutes the fullness of Christianity rather than the “basic Principles” you referred to earlier?

 

[holy_moly]

The same way I explain the thousands of Catholics who secretly use birth control because they don’t believe the RC is correct on this issue.

All Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, believe the same tenets of Scriptures. These are the fundamental doctrines which identify us as Christian. These tenets come straight from the Holy Scriptures, and are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed.

As for other beliefs that may vary from church to church I would merely remind you that the Catholic church leaves its members free to speculate and disagree on anything that has not been stated ex-cathedral.

Ginger

There’s a big difference between member’s of a church not following its teachings, & thousands of protestant denominations splitting & splitting & splitting & becoming more & more heretical on MAJOR issues, such as promoting gay marriage (including clergy) & pro choice . They have all but abandoned the Apostle’s Creed AND the 10 Commandments.

 

[twb1621]

I found something interesting after clicking LionHeart777’s link:

(newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

1. …Clement was allotted the bishopric… the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. … and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.

Notice all the traditions passed down by the Apostles in this document are straight out of the Bible! And it mentions an epistle as evidence to dispel false doctrines.

Ginger, you are misunderstanding the reference here. The epistle that is being referred to here is the 1st letter of Clement to the Corinthians in chastisement of their behavior. It is written by him as the duly elected pope over the Church and although it refers to the teachings of Christ through the Church, it does not provide details of Sacred Traditions in written form. You are correct in one sense however, that every Sacred Tradition of the Church is supported by scripture although not written in scripture but then scripture tells us that in many ways.