Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[Ginger2]

The Word of God is not a Thing- The Word of God is a SOMEBODY!

                                 -Fr. John Corapi

Exactly Father. The Word is Christ Jesus and we can hear Him speak to us from within as we have His Holy Spirit.

Yes, I know what you said.

I still want you to tell me how a person can** know** his/her interpretation is correct.

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[estesbob]

GottaGo12345678,

I am saying the Catholic Church’s definition of SS is a false doctrine.

Catholics have expressed they believe SS means all knowledge is contained in the Bible.
Someone even refused to answer a question I asked because he claimed the answer is in historical documents but not in the Bible, therefore he said I wouldn’t believe it anyway (how ridiculous )

Not everything is written in the Holy Scriptures. I’m sure you agree with that. But everything thing that God deemed necessary for humans to know about Him and our eternal salvation is indeed found within the Divine Word of God. And I’ll bet you agree with that, also.

Tanner and GOTOGO disgareee with you defintion of Sola Scriptura as they likewise disagree with you personal interpretation of some of scriputre. Thats three different Proteatnts holding three different views on the sufficiency of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. how does that reconcile with your assertion that the Spirit will lead all who study Scripture the truth?

 

[Ginger2]

Tanner and GOTOGO disgareee with you defintion of Sola Scriptura as they likewise disagree with you personal interpretation of some of scriputre. Thats three different Proteatnts holding three different views on the sufficiency of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. how does that reconcile with your assertion that the Spirit will lead all who study Scripture the truth?

In my response to GottaGod I said, "…I’m sure you agree with that. … And I’ll bet you agree with that, also. "

I was clarifying I don’t believe in SS as defined by Cathlics, but do as defined in Scriptures.

GottaGo asked for me to clarify my belief - he/she did not claim he/she disagreed. I’ll bet GottaGo and I agree on what the Bible says.
**
Let’s wait and see if GottaGo agrees or disagrees with me, before you jump to conclusions that asking a question for clarification is a statement of disagreement.**
I think I agree with him/her. But we will know for sure when the two of us clarify our beliefs and see whether they match up or not.

As for Tanner, can you cite the post stating his understanding, or lack there of?

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

In my response to GottaGod I said, "…I’m sure you agree with that. … And I’ll bet you agree with that, also. "

I was clarifying I don’t believe in SS as defined by Cathlics, but do as defined in Scriptures.

GottaGo asked for me to clarify my belief - he/she did not claim he/she disagreed. I’ll bet GottaGo and I agree on what the Bible says.

Let’s wait and see if GottaGo agrees or disagrees with me, before you jump to conclusions that asking a question for clarification is a statement of disagreement.
I think I agree with him/her. But we will know for sure when the two of us clarify our beliefs and see whether they match up or not.

As for Tanner, can you cite the post stating his understanding, or lack there of?

Ginger

You all dont agree on what sola sciptura means and you dont agree with how to interpret scripture(john 6, for instance) but you just KNOW the Spirit is guiding you. I believe that the spirt that is leading you is Puck.

 

[Ginger2]

You all dont agree on what sola sciptura means and you dont agree with how to interpret scripture(john 6, for instance) but you just KNOW the Spirit is guiding you. I believe that the spirt that is leading you is Puck.

Let’s wait to see until GottaGo has a chance to review my view of what Biblical Sufficiency means, before you assume we disagree.

I have often found even Catholics agree with me when they are able to let go of their preconceived notions to actually listen to what I say.

However, whether I agree with what every non-Catholic says, is irrelevant to this thread.

1. God has told us in the Holy Scriptures that some people will twist His Word to suit their own desires.
2. Some people don’t realize the Catholic definition of SS was invented by Catholics to discredit Martin Luther. Since this false claim of SS has been repeated so many times, most people just accept it as fact without understanding the RC definition is not supported by Scriptures. Instead, they point to what the Bible really says about faith, thereby giving a false impression they believe the RC definition of this non-existent doctrine:

Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Gal.3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”​

James 2:18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

Ginger

 

[Des]

Since this seems to be your strongest argument, please name one thing directly related to our salvation that was omitted from the Scriptures and is necessary for us to know to be saved. Then prove that an Apostle really taught this doctrine as true and it is not simply a late invention of the RC.

Um, I’m talking about their oral preaching going into a bit more detail about the written at that time. I want you to prove to me the Bible is our only direct source to the Word of God. And I don’t want verses where certain epistles or letters are given to a Church here and there either. I want a verse saying in explicit detail so as there can be no more arguments, telling us that every written word that the Apostles penned along with the Old Testament, is ALL that we need when knowing God’s Word but for this to work, we’d have to assume His Apostles had nothing more to say in a greater detail when preaching them other than what they wrote. State the chapter and verse please as to stop all this bickering. Remember, I want it in it’s well detailed explicit form.

I know a SS who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seem to me it isn’t so clear to them. Seems to me if Jesus believed in SS to his faithful He’d have made it juuuuust a tad bit more understandable don’t you think. And if He were to td do this, He’d be using more words than what he had used used there telling us there was much more to say on this. But guess what, He left that up to His Apostles and their successors.

Thanks, I’ll be very interested to hear your answer. If you can prove your assertions, I will convert - seriously!

Ginger

You need to be moved by the Spirit of truth for that to happen and so far I’m seeing zero evidence of this change even in it’s earliest stages. Judging by everything you have said in this thread, you’ve already closed the doors imo.

 

[Ginger2]

…I want you to prove to me the Bible is our only direct source to the Word of God.

Why would I try to do that when it is not true???

I know a SS who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seem to me it isn’t so clear to them.

**I know a Catholic who thinks divorce is acceptable. I know another who says it’s not. Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them. **

The RC says divorce is not permitted, but then allows for some and denies it for others - often when the request is made for the exact same reason.
Seems to me it isn’t so clear to them.

Ginger

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some people don’t realize the Catholic definition of SS was invented by Catholics to discredit Martin Luther. Since this false claim of SS has been repeated so many times, most people just accept it as fact without understanding the RC definition is not supported by Scriptures. Instead, they point to what the Bible really says about faith, thereby giving a false impression they believe the RC definition of this non-existent doctrine:

Really, Ginger? Let’s hear the Protestant definition of SS then–the one you all agree with because of course if you’re claiming a Catholic definition was ‘invented’ to discredit Luther you’re claiming a Protestant definition already existed or was understood by all Protestants–and then please do show us the documentation that this ONE ‘correct’ definition existed as you understand it, along with the documentation that a “Catholic” invention was made, with the dates and the proof that it was made to 'discredit Martin Luther."

You’re real danged quick with your charges of ‘falsity’, your assertions of ‘invention’, etc.

Anybody who wants to read the “Catholic definition” of Sola Scriptura is welcome to do so. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Protestant”, three key principles, one being Sola Scriptura. It’s a long article, don’t just stop, read the whole thing. Here, I’ll post the link: newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

 

[Tantum_ergo]

uote: Originally Posted by Tantum ergo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Why should I–or other Christians–listen to your claim that the Spirit gave you the ‘correct’ understanding?
I’m not asking you to. I’m showing you what the Scriptures clearly state and you are making your decision whether or not to believe the Scriptures when they disagree with the CCC.

Oh, this was a nice try, Ginger. Really, did you think this would pass???

Scripture does not disagree with the CCC.

You’ll really have to do better than make false statements about Catholics disagreeing with Scripture in favor of “the Church”. Scripture and the Church are never in opposition.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, Ginger, when a Catholic disagrees with your personal interpretation of what you think Scripture says, we are ‘willfully disobedient’ because according to you, Scripture says one thing and the Church another.

Well, as I said above, you’re all wet theologically speaking because Scripture and the Church do not disagree. Ever.

Therefore, it is you who are disagreeing with both Scripture and the Church (who are in unity) in insisting on taking a different interpretation of Scripture than that of the Church which has the authority, by Scripture, in being the pillar and foundation of Truth, and the means through which the Holy Spirit guides us to truth.

 

[Ginger2]

Let’s hear the Protestant definition of SS then–…

SS ios not a Protestant doctrine. Protestant use the term SS because there is no doctrine as defined by Catholics

Protestant adhere to the “Sufficiency of Scripture”, which is definitely a Scriptural truth, as can be seen by the fact that Catholics can not name one thing left out of the Holy Scriptures that is essential fto one’s salvation or even to our relationship with God.

“…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians )

’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).

’**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)

2 TIMOTHY 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. 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Isaiah said, "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

What Paul taught was according to Scripture.

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.**

No one claims all knowledge and truth are in the Bible.

Only that we should not claim absolute proof apart from Scriptures.

What we know for certain and all we need to know, is in the Scriptures.

If it is not written in Scriptures I am not required to believe it, but as long as it does not contradict Scriptures it’s OK to think it might be. true.

We refer to the Sufficiency of Scripture as Sola Scripture because we can’t seem to get it across that there is no such doctrine. So, instead we explain what we mean/believe adapting the RC flawed terminology.

A claim has been made that GottaGo and I disagree. Why can’t you wait until GottaGod replies to see if you are correct, and save yourself from possible embarrassment?

Ginger

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I wasn’t the one who made the remark about Gottago. Did you check out the link from the New Advent Encyclopedia on Protestantism which I provided? After all, you charged Catholics with “inventing the doctrine to discredit Luther”. I don’t see any evidence of that. . .

 

[Ginger2]

…if you’re claiming a Catholic definition was ‘invented’ to discredit Luther you’re claiming a Protestant definition already existed or was understood by all Protestants

-…

No, I’m claiming Catholics invented the doctrine by misinterpreting something ML said. This false doctrine did not exist until the RC claimed ML taught it. But historical documents prove ML taught no such thing.

What Protestants do teach and believe is the sufficiency of Scriptures.

Jhn 20:30 ¶ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

2 TIMOTHY 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.

1 Cor 4:6 …, “Do not go beyond what is written.” …

’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 (160 - 225) (Against Hermogenes 22)

’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).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Again I ask you if you have followed the link I gave you to the “Catholic definition” of Protestantism. . .

Because you keep on saying, “Catholics invented this.” And I don’t see any proof of Catholics 'inventing" a false doctrine of SS OR of them doing so, as you CLAIM, to ‘refute Luther’ by falsely claiming that he taught something he did not.

Kindly show some documentation for your assertion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also, Ginger, it would be nice if you would address your false statement earlier in which you claim that Catholics read ‘clear Scripture’ which contradicts Catholic teaching and then ‘choose the Catholic teaching’ instead.

Scripture and Catholic teachings never contradict each other. Your assertion that Catholics 'depart from Scripture" each time they embrace a Catholic teaching which you yourself ‘privately interpret’ to contradict Scripture is itself a false assertion. If the Holy Spirit is leading you to this ‘conviction’ about Catholics it does not sound like a truly holy spirit to me.

 

[Ginger2]

A. . … I don’t see any proof of Catholics 'inventing" a false doctrine of SS OR of them doing so, as you CLAIM, to ‘refute Luther’ by falsely claiming that he taught something he did not.

Kindly show some documentation for your assertion.

Already done. The first mention of this false doctrine is when Catholics accuse Luther of inventing it. Luther denies their accusations. After calling the bishops who have falsely accused him, “asses”, Luther explains to his followers the bishops misunderstanding.

Since

1. the RC brought it up first,
   and
2. Luther denied SS

It is obvious this false doctrine stems from the RC continuing to say it is a doctrine of the reformation.

Also, Ginger, it would be nice if you would address your false statement earlier in which you claim that Catholics read ‘clear Scripture’ which contradicts Catholic teaching and then ‘choose the Catholic teaching’ instead.

Oh, where do I begin…

Compare the Biblical view of Jesus to RC view of Mary:

Jesus: Virgin born (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Immaculately conceived (imposed on 2 unrelated verses)

Jesus: Lived a sinsless life (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Lived a sinless life (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Rose from the dead bodily (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Rose from the dead bodily (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Bodily ascended into heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Bodily Assumed into heaven: (no eyewitness; **not **Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Seated at right hand of God (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Seated at right hand of Jesus (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Advocate and Intercessor for the saints (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Advocate and intercessor for the saints (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Redeemer (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Co-Redemtrix (not Scripturally documented)

Jesus: Mediator (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Mediatrix (**not **Scripturally documented)

Not only are these comparisons to Mary not supported by any evidence, but they contradict Scriptures that say "Only Jesus is sinless, our redeemer, our savior, our mediator, our intercessor,

The Catholic Church applies these words to the Virgin Mary: “I came out of the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures” (Ecclus. xxiv., 5).

The Bible says Jesus is “the firstborn of every creature:” (Col 1:15)

Catholics see nothing amiss with the psalters of Mary.
Compare the Psalms of David 148 &The Psalters of Mary 148:

1
Hallelujah! 1 Praise the LORD from the heavens; give praise in the heights.
**Let us praise Our Lady **in the heavens: glorify her in the highest.

2
Praise him, all you angels; give praise, all you hosts.
Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea.

3
Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars.
Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets.

4
Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens.
Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers.

5
Let them all praise the LORD’S name; for the LORD
Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly
dwellers.

The Bible says, “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.” Isaiah 42:8

And
A CANTICLE ON THE MODEL OF ISAIAS (XII) by St. Bonaventure

Behold, Lady, thou art my savior: I will deal confidently in thee, and will
not be confounded.

Isa 43:11 "I am God, and besides me there is no savior".
Hosea 13:4 "….you shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me."

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Ginger, I see you’re bound and determined to ignore repeated requests to answer questions and would rather pose your own (to which you’ve already predetermined the answers).

You have not given any source to back up your claims. “Historical documents?” Name them.
Tell us exactly what the 'false" RC doctrine on SS is. You know, the one they supposedly ‘made up’ to discredit Luther. Show exactly where this is ‘taught’ by the RCs. You should be able to find it in the Catholic dictionary if it’s taught, right?

 

[Ginger2]

Show exactly where this is ‘taught’ by the RCs. You should be able to find it in the Catholic dictionary if it’s taught, right?

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther’s theological attitude at this time, … was as follows:

* **The Bible is the only source of faith**;.....

I rest my case!

However, I did confuse the details between the two false doctrines made up by the RC to discredit Luther. It was over the accusation of Sola Fide that ML called the bishops “asses”.

SF is also a false doctrine which Luther rejected, but the RC claims he invented.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now Ginger, SURELY you did not mean to create a false impression by neglecting to give the complete CONTEXT, did you?

Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther’s theological attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced, was as follows:

• The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
• Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God’s.
• Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
• The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
• All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
• The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
• There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.

Hardly nothing but “Bible alone”, now is it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also, where is the proof that this was ‘made up’ to discredit Luther?