Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[benedictus2]

In-other-words, you want to make me responsible for every single human being who has ever disagreed with you???

And where from any of my post can you deduce that conclusion from? Please cite post number.

There was a claim in this thread (and probably ever other thread I have participated on in this forum) that I misunderstand the Scriptures and adhere to false doctrines.

I don’t care what others claimed in this thread about you. I never made the claim. All I have focused on is your logic and your interpretation of scripture.

The you misunderstand some parts of Scripture is clear from the wayyou did your exegesis on Matthew 16:16-19.

That is my focus. If you want to talk about other people, I cannot answer for those I do not even know - just as you cannot answer for those Catholics who misunderstand Catholicism, except to say they misunderstand.

And I never talked about other people or you for that matter. I only want to discuss points in Scripture which you REFUSE TO DO BY YOUR CONSISTENT AVOIDANCE OF THE PASSAGES I HAVE OUT ENUMERATED.

I realize my list was not a complete teaching and said so repeatedly. I have added a few more and will continue to do so until we get to the bottom of this false accusation.

AND IN THE MEANTIME YOU COMPLETELY AVOID THE REAL, TRUE BLUE LIST. IF YOU ARE AS GOOD WITH SCRIPTURE AS YOU CLAIM, YOU WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED MY LIST SOME TIME AGO.

I think you are afraid to address them because you just might find that the Catholic Church is right about all these after all and it will challenge your intellectual honesty to still call yourself protestant when the truth is staring you in the face. It will be hard to accept that the Catholic Church is right after all when at the bottom of your dissent is probably a moral issue because you cannot accept a moral teaching of the church. And if the Church is correct on the above points, then the Church is most likely right about the moral issue as well and that will just not do for you at all.

---

This is my last post to you on this thread. I am finding it very frustrating to debate with you because all you have done is dodge the real issues.

 

[twb1621]

…

This is the third request for your response;

Ginger, I asked previously if you would review the scripture verses in the posts linked below and I did not find any response so would you please respond how you reconcile the fact that it is but one faith, one set of teachings and beliefs but so many “Christian Faiths” have different beliefs all believing they are the right one? This is in direct contradiction to many verses within scripture. What I was asking for was your interpretation to each verse in relation to the many faiths in contrast to the history and longevity of the Catholic Church.

938 939

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh wait, everybody–the fact that some Protestants differ from Ginger in her scriptural interpretations is a MYSTERY.

I suppose it is because Catholics don’t understand it, either. That’s why the RC calls it a “mystery”

Funny how Catholics can criticize others for not having perfect understand, when they admit they themselves can’t understand.

No, Ginger dear, the mystery of the Eucharist is that Christ gives us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Real Presence.

The mystery **is not **that some Protestants do not understand that He does so literally and think it’s symbolic.

Again, again, and again you have evaded plain and simple questions, attempted to misdirect, to change the topic, and at last resort to either whine that you’re mistreated or misunderstood, or to make snide remarks about those who are asking you to ‘put up or shut up’.

I notice particularly that you have evaded my post which gave John 6:58-64, that is, the specific Scripture give by the Protestant ‘figurativists" which is directly following Jesus’ words of being the Bread of life, whose flesh we must eat, in which Jesus announces that His words are spirit and life while the flesh avails nothing.
c
Surely, surely, Ginger, since your literal interpretation is correct, you can give us the reason why Protestants reading this scripture interpret it differently from you. The reasons you give of COURSE must be Scriptural, and ONLY Scriptural, by definition as that is the CRITERION you use to judge whether something is true or not.

Well, we are waiting. Anxiously.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I suppose it is because Catholics don’t understand it, either. That’s why the RC calls it a “mystery”

Funny how Catholics can criticize others for not having perfect understand, when they admit they themselves can’t understand.

I do not see the words, “the angels were deceived by satan” in the Book of Jude.

Where did demons come from then? If they are not fallen angels, then what are they? Surely God would not make creatures that would intentionally hate Him.

It is a good thing that the Catholic Church gave you the New Testament canon you have today!

 

[shoewindow3000]

Wanna know something interesting about the Eucharist?

In the early years of the Church, pagans thought that the Christians were cannibals, because they would overhear the Christians talk about “eating flesh,” and “drinking blood.”

That’s interesting…

 

[Ginger2]

Where did demons come from then? If they are not fallen angels, then what are they?

You seem to be reading a lot more into my post then what I said.

Of course they are fallen angels - the Bible tells us so.
"Ginger2:

I do not see the words, “the angels were deceived by satan” …

Where did demons come from then?..Surely God would not make creatures that would intentionally hate Him.

Ok, Who then, deceived satan?

 

[Ginger2]

Furthermore, this is exactly what goes to the heart of Sola Scriptura.

But, I’ve told you I don’t believe in Sola Scripture as defined by Catholics.
benedictus2;5652308:

If people can get the interpretations so completely wrong, then that means only two things:

1) They are not being guided by the Holy Spirit (

TRUE. Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth.

If people can get the interpretations so completely wrong, then that means only two things:

2) They are being guided by the Holy Spirit but that means the Holy Spirit does not really know what the truth is either.

False. Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth.

There has to be a body that says the buck stops here.

---

The Catholic who got it wrong has the Church to go back to for reference so their erroneous perception can be corrected. You, do not.

I have the Holy Word of God which is protected from error. Not that someone can’t write an erroneous version of Holy Scriptures, but in that the Word of God is living and God Himself via His Holy Spirit can speak to us through our reading of the Holy Scriptures.

The reason for different interpretations is that some don’t listen to the Voice of God, BUT Jesus promised:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. John 10:27

And some don’t recognize His voice:
I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], **and am known of mine. **Jhn 10:14

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

No, Ginger dear, the mystery of the Eucharist is that Christ gives us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Real Presence.

The Catholic Church admits the Eucharist is a “mystery” that cannot be fully understood by the human mind. The Bible says no one can fully understand the ways of God.

For example, how can something come from nothing? It is impossible for the human mind to understand, but we who are children of God accept that it is true, because we know God can do anything: What is impossible for man is possible for God.

Same is true of the Eucharist. The elements still appear to be wine and bread. If examined by a scientist , they would still have the physical characteristics of bread and wine. Or do you believe the scientist would discover the elements are human tissue?

Again, again, and again you have evaded plain and simple questions,

I have answered these questions, but you don’t like my answers. You appear to want me to admit to things I don’t believe.

Furthermore, I am not required to talk to everyone who joins this thread. If I choose to ignore someone, that is my business.

However, I believe I have responded to everyone who has directed a question to me. Repeating myself is a waste of time.

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

TRUE. Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth.

False. Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth.

There has to be a body that says the buck stops here.

The Catholic who got it wrong has the Church to go back to for reference so their erroneous perception can be corrected. You, do not.

I have the Holy Word of God which is protected from error. Not that someone can’t write an erroneous version of Holy Scriptures, but in that the Word of God is living and God Himself via His Holy Spirit can speak to us through our reading of the Holy Scriptures.

The reason for different interpretations is that some don’t listen to the Voice of God, BUT Jesus promised:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. John 10:27

And some don’t recognize His voice:
I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], **and am known of mine. **Jhn 10:14

Ginger

How do we determine who has heard his voice and who has been deceived?

It appears that you are emabracing gnoscism-salvation via knowledge. Only those wise enough to cipher Scripture correctly can be saved.

 

[Ginger2]

How do we determine who has heard his voice and who has been deceived?

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record.

Go back and read what I’ve already written in response to this question.

**The Bible says we (that includes Catholics) are not aware of all that God is doing.
The Bible says we cannot tell the saved from the unsaved by outward appearances.
The Bible says we are to test what people say for truth against the Scriptures.
The Bible says we are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God or not. **
These next two are tricky:
The Bible says those who are saved know they have the Spirit of God
The Bible says those who are perishing don’t know they are perishing.

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record.

Go back and read what I’ve already written in response to this question.

The Bible says we (that includes Catholics) are not aware of all that God is doing.
The Bible says we cannot tell the saved from the unsaved by outward appearances.
The Bible says we are to test what people say for truth against the Scriptures.
**The Bible says we are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God or not. **
These next two are tricky:
The Bible says those who are saved know they have the Spirit of God
The Bible says those who are perishing don’t know they are perishing.

Ginger

Per your personal interepation-how do we resolve that fact that many who read Scripture interpret it diffetent than you do?

One thing positive-no one can accuse you of embracing doctrines that did not exist prior to the so called reformation. Gnosticism predates christianity.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

“I have the Holy Word of God which is protected from error. Not that someone can’t write an erroneous version of Holy Scriptures,”

The Word may be protected from error, but the danger isn’t just in a bad translator misreading Scripture, but also, a bad interpreter misreading Scripture. Again, as has been stated a few times here, that is why the Church has the final authority on interpretation, given to it by Christ when he bestowed on the Church the Keys to the Kingdom.

 

[Ginger2]

…the Church has the final authority on interpretation…

Your argument is not very convincing:

Tertullian wrote: “What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.” . (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

“I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.” (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)

Athanasius wrote: "[T]he tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.’ (Nicene Definition 32).

St. Ambrose: “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

Cyril of Alexandria wrote: ’Not all that the Lord did was written down, but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.’ (Comm. John 12).

Origen of Alexandria wrote: ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

If the RC is protected from error, how is it that anti-popes were ever allowed to hold “Peter’s chair”? Why didn’t anyone know the anti-popes were false until years after they died? How can a real pope consecrate an anti-pope? How can an anti-pope consecrate a true pope?

Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). Why did it take over forty years to discover he was an heretic?

“It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics.” --Pope Adrian VI, 1523 If Adrian VI is supposedly a true pope, how can he error or whether a pope can error?

 

[Ginger2]

Tertullian wrote: “What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention;…” . (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

“I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.” (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)

St. Ambrose: “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

“The Assumption of Mary”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
**"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite…

The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious."**

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake. The earliest mention is from the 4th or 5th centuries based on false documents.

 

[shoewindow3000]

to Ginger2:

When the Church fathers say Scripture, they refer to the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t called Scripture until some time later.
But if you accept Early Church writings, read the Didache, or Polycarp or Ignatius of Antioch…both were disciples of John the Apostle, and both are very Catholic in their writings!​

Protestantism, by its very nature, is a contradiction. Consider this…

You see that New Testament that you have? **The Church **decided which books to put in it in the fourth century. And when they did, every church around accepted it without arguing about it. If you do not accept Church authority, *then why do you have the books that the Church tells you to have? *

By accepting the New Testament Canon as is, you accept Church authority. But, if it is true what you say, that you DON’T believe in the Church’s authority, then that means that the book of the New Testament are no more sacred then other first century writings Church writings.

It is either:

Church DOES have authority on earth
or
There is no official New Testament

 

[Ginger2]

to Ginger2:

When the Church fathers say Scripture, they refer to the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t called Scripture until some time later.

You are mistaken. Scripture as we are discussing it, refers to inspired writings.

The Apostle’s knew yet while they were alive they were writing Scriptures.

Peter considered Paul’s writings as Scripture: 2 Peter 3:15-16 "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
This says hard to understand, not impossible.

Paul himself declared his teachings to be inspired from God:
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

**The Church **decided which books to put in it in the fourth century. And when they did, every church around accepted it without arguing about it. If you do not accept Church authority, then why do you have the books that the Church tells you to have?

Again you are mistaken as has been shown in the above verses. Forth century Christians did not suddenly figure out Apostolic writings were Inspired. Christians in the first century knew the Apostle’s were given authority and what they wrote came from God, not their personal interpretations and opinions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So Ginger, your whole argument is that people who read Scripture “properly” do so knowing that the Holy Spirit is with them. . .and that those who do not read it properly only THINK the Holy Spirit is with them. They don’t realize that they are ‘perishing’.

So tell us again, since both Protestants who are ‘Scripture alone’ like you are reading John 6, and one Protestant hears the Spirit say, “these words are literal”, and the other Protestant hears the Spirit say, “These words are figurative”. . .

Tell me how the one who hears ‘literal’ and is assured by Scripture and the Spirit that he/she knows correctly, and will be saved, differs from the one who hears ‘literal’ and is equally assured by Scripture and the Spirit that he/she knows correctly, but doesn’t realize he/she is damned.

And especially (you do keep shying away from this), since Scripture is so ‘clear’, how do you explain that so many Protestant churches teach opposing doctrine?

Now here’s another little thing that you may have not wanted to consider as you immediately jumped to ‘things NECESSARY for salvation’, all those ‘essential Christian truths’ that you pride yourself on. . .

Just how do you know for sure that some of those ‘opposing doctrines’ aren’t necessary for salvation? If these are ‘in the Bible’, then aren’t they necessary? If they aren’t, why are they in there? If they are, why don’t all the Protestant churches teach them consistently?

I’m with the other poster in thinking that you definitely have fallen a victim to the gnostic influence.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Paul himself declared his teachings to be inspired from God:
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul was referring to his conversion. He was saying that, instead of having heard the Gospel from a person, he saw Jesus Himself.

 

[shoewindow3000]

May I recommend a website?

There is one I found, called Protestanterrors.com

 

[Ginger2]

May I recommend…

Protestanterrors.com

Finally, an unbiased, objective source of information!!! :extrahappy:

Can’t wait to read that one.