Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[benedictus2]

How many years will it take before all you christians can get along, let alone agree on any thing. ? How many more years will it take?

I can not understand all this contention.

It all seems so beside the very point.

Believers in God should get along I tell myself. But, why is that such an odd thought today?

Why?

The sad fact is that Christians will not get along because of the simple fact that differences in belief exist and all becausse so many so called Christians refuse to bow to the wisdom and authority of the Church that Christ founded on earth.

Division will always exists. The only thing we can do is to shed light and add our humle efforts in trying to lead people to the Truth. At tleast those who are truly seeking Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And this is where supreme arrogance took hold of Luther. He believes he knows way better than the saints and bishops. Pride goes before a fall and the only sad thing is he took so many with him and (continues to do so) when he plummeted.

This kind of reasoning is so evident in the ever increasing number of protestant churches. One person does not agree with his pastor so sets up shop and starts his own church. Everyone has the conceit to think that they are always better than the one before them.

 

[erikd]

I see. Yes, I was responding to someone else, also. I did not bring up the issue of when or who determined the canon, but was to responding to claims Luther changed doctrines, SS, SF & the canon.

However, you are wrong. Luther did translate the Scriptures in the same manner as Jerome. He included all the same books as Jerome. He appended the Apocrypha just like Jerome. He included comments as to the authority of the books just like Jerome.

The seven apocryphal books were removed hundreds of years later due to high printing costs.

Ginger:

I’m really sorry but I have to correct your historic facts again. St. Jerome included 73 Book in his BIble, Luther and his followers originally included 59 or 63 depending on which Lutheran sect produced a copy of the German Luther Bible:

"As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament. But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles. "
Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the New Testament
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Hope this helps.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

But thousands of Catholics who secretly use birth control IS NOT the Catholic Church. They can dissent as much as they like (mostly due to ignorance and pride) but they remain just that, dissenting members. Once they set up shop and decide to form their own congreation, then they CEASE to be members of the Church. At the present moment, they are sinning members.

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.

And the apostles creed say “We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” which is a mockery for a protestant to recite.

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.

True. We can speculate on something that has not be dooctrinally promulgated. But Protestants believe in different doctrines altogether. And this is what is lacking, a clear pronouncement on doctrine from these Churches which really is nothing more than spiritual relativism.

There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. To believe otherwise is to delude onesself.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Aaah, but it bears heavily on the topic. If we are going to establish who has the right to interpret the Scripture then it stands to reason that we have to establish who has the right to set the canon that forms part of that Scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

:clapping::clapping: Very well said.

 

[benedictus2]

Tantum ergo:

Ginger, I’m still waiting patiently for an answer to post 1007. …

This question had already been addressed:

If you are going to ignore my answers and ask the same questions in new ways, I see no point in repeating myself in vain.

Actually no you haven’t addressed Tantum’s post 1007 You completely missed the point he was making when you replied.

I have shown that the essential doctrines of Christianity are spelled out clearly in the Holy Scriptures.

I have shown that the essential doctrines of Christianity are spelled out clearly in the Holy Scriptures.

And the point that Tantum Ergo was trying to make is exactly just that.
Protestants do not agree on WHAT IS ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE as based on the Scriptures. And this is because every denomination puts a certain slant on the Scripture, preferring this books and verse to that and concentrating wholly on one aspect of Christian doctrine to another to the neglect of another.

Case in point: Some believe in the Real Presence, some do not. Some believe in priesthood, some do not. Some believe divorce is okay. Other’s do not.

What most people fail to comprehend is that what they think is non-essential is actually as integral to the faith as the big ticket items such as Salvation by Grace, the Trinity etc.

If some want to deny the Bible is the inerrant Word of God so they can make believe, that is there freewill choice given them by God.

It may be a free will choice but is it right? We are not talking about free will choices here but on the rightness of the choice.

If I am in error on these Scriptures please point out the error:

The scripture verses you quoted are all spot on but they are only a PART of the WHOLE STORY. They do not form the ENTIRE STORY.

What you leave out is just as important as what you let in.

 

[benedictus2]

(Nice dodge! )

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.

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.

You cannot compare this to vegetarianism for the simple reason that whether you get that definition right or wrong makes no difference to the life of the person at all.

But with regards Christianity, believing in something erroneous has tremendous repercussions on your soul because right practice follows right doctrine.

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.

Depends on what you consider the basic principles of Christianity. What you may consider NOT BASIC, is actually BASIC.

So here again, it all comes down to individual (YOUR) interpretation of what is basic and what is not.

You mentioned the Apostles Creed but you do not believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. And perhaps you start redefining Church to suit yourself.

As another poster once said, there are NO UN-ESSENTIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINES because the Catholic Church does not concern itself with the non-essential.

Your limited understanding of the why and how of salvation is the reason why you think some doctrines are not essential.

 

[benedictus2]

ginger:

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

Tantum ergo:

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? *

Here are a few:

Arianism denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Docetism* says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body.* He only seemed to be human to us.
Gnosticism … Bel…, Ba’al…, the unamed god Paul used to teach about Jesus in Athens…, etc. etc.

All these heresies and more, have their roots in the early days of the Christian Church and some before. Their counter-parts are found in the false churches of today often with new variables.

Christian, Protestant churches do not adhere to any of these falsehoods, but Catholics like to lump them all together and refer to ML as the source.

Ginger

Okay, maybe I’ve missed his/her post with those claims but I don’t think Tantum ergo referred to these heretical groups as part of the protestant cults.

And no sensible Catholic have ever lumped these groups with the Protestant Reformation so I don’t know which Catholics you are referring to. And I think Catholics who are debating you here know that the heresies you mentioned predate Luther.

However there is one tack that someone has taken in this thread which is very much Nestorian. Someone claimed that Mary is the mother of Jesus’s humanity only. As if you can split Jesus’s divinity and humanity. That kind of reasoning is Nestorian.

 

[Ginger2]

Well, I do thank you for your posts Ginger even though you really have not answered the question

The question has been answered, but you don’t understand. I will try one more time…

It is not the Pope who gives perfect understanding of the Scriptures. Even the pope admits not to understand everything. It is the Holy Spirit who gives understanding to whom He desires, when He desires.

Catholics believe the pope because they choose to believe Tradition. But the Bible says:

Luke 16:31 “…, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This clearly demonstrates people make a freewill choice to accept or reject God and perfect interpretation does not play a role in the outcome.

Catholics also believe anti-popes because of Tradition. “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

Once the anti-pope is discovered, all his writings are destroyed, but what about the Catholics who preceded them in death? They went to their graves believing these lies.

Whether it be a pope or any other Christian, the success of their witness is dependent upon God speaking to the listener’s heart - then our words will make a difference.

The early Church originally taught it is best to trust God, whose perfect Word is written in the Holy Scriptures as a guide.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

’eing most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.’ Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 140-ca. A.D. 202) (Against Heresies 2,28:2).

’[T]he tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.’ Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria (Nicene Definition 32).

’If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.’ Tertullian of Carthage (Against Hermogenes 22)

Do we need any extra-Biblical information from human beings who presume to know more than what God has revealed in His Holy Word? No!

’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.’ Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444) (Comm. John 12).

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I am not digging dirt on Luther. So are you saying that Luther and the other fathers of the Protestant rebellion did not come up with Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? These are doctrines not held to by the Church prior to Luther.

Unless of course you do not consider these two solas as doctrines.

Yes, that is what I’m saying.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

I’m really sorry but I have to correct your historic facts again. St. Jerome included 73 Book in his BIble, Luther and his followers originally included 59 or 63 depending on which Lutheran sect produced a copy of the German Luther Bible:

I suggest you study the history - not commentaries from people who misquote, and misrepresent to support their personal views.

Luther included all the same books in the same manner as Jerome. The Apocrypha were removed later due to high printing costs. This is a fact.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

And the apostles creed say “We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” which is a mockery for a protestant to recite.

Two things:

1. Protestants do recite “We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” when saying the Creed. “catholic” means universal.
2. The original Creed did not have the words, " one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". It merely said, “The Holy Church”. Catholics added this phrase.

 

[Ginger2]

… Protestants do not agree on WHAT IS ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE as based on the Scriptures.

I listed the essential doctrines and asked which ones Catholics and Protestants disagree with.

No one has challenge my “personal interpretation” of these Scriptures.

I didn’t leave out anything, I merely started with a partial list to show all Christians - even protestants - agree on the basic fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That is what identifies us as Christian.

 

[benedictus2]

Two things:

1. Protestants do recite “We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” when saying the Creed. “catholic” means universal.
2. The original Creed did not have the words, " one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". It merely said, “The Holy Church”. Catholics added this phrase.

Catholics phrased the “original creed” in 325, Catholics added the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ in 381. From 325 to 381 there was only one Holy Catholic Church so Catholics can very well add to the original creed as the Holy Spirit dictates.

Protestants came over a thousand years later if you remember.

 

[benedictus2]

I listed the essential doctrines and asked which ones Catholics and Protestants disagree with.

No one has challenge my “personal interpretation” of these Scriptures.

I didn’t leave out anything, I merely started with a partial list to show all Christians - even protestants - agree on the basic fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That is what identifies us as Christian.

But the Real Presence is a basic Fundamental belief of Christianity until 1500 (as a matter of fact even Luther continued to maintain this) and yet you cannot say that all protestants believe this. For Catholic’s this is One of the most FUNDAMENTAL OF DOCTRINES. The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of Christian life.

So where does that leave your “basic, fundamental” in agreement argument?

Also, remember that it is not just YOUR personal interpretation that is in question here. It is personal interpretation itself (i.e. by every Tom Dirk and Harry).

 

[benedictus2]

Two things:

1. Protestants do recite “We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” when saying the Creed. “catholic” means universal.

Answer no 2.

How can they recite that and mean it when frist of all, their churches are not apostolic, second of all , their churches are not universal?

Also, not all protestants hold to the creed.

 

[Ginger2]

Catholics phrased the “original creed” in 325, Catholics added the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ in 381. From 325 to 381 there was only one Holy Catholic Church so Catholics can very well add to the original creed as the Holy Spirit dictates.

Protestants came over a thousand years later if you remember.

Wrong again. The Apostle’s Creed came out of the Roman Creed. The Roman Creed, believed to be the first, was originally written around 200 A.D.

Furthermore, I didn’t say the church had no right to add the words. I said Protestants do recite the words. You are wrong.

BTW, it was the Nicene Creed that was formulated in 325 A.D. Not the Apostle’s Creed which is the successor or the original Roman Creed.

 

[Ginger2]

But the Real Presence is a basic Fundamental belief of Christianity until 1500 (as a matter of fact even Luther continued to maintain this) …

Well now… you seem to have just contradicted yourself.

 

[benedictus2]

Catholics believe the pope because they choose to believe Tradition. But the Bible says:

Luke 16:31 “…, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Aaah but there is one thing you overlook. The books that were to form the Bible were measured against Tradition. The books that conformed to Apostolic tradition are those that made the cut. That is why when the Bible was first compiled, it was referred to as “THE CANON OF TRADITIONS” by Pope Clement.