Personal interpretation

[Doggg]

You are avoiding my question, Doggg. Who are you to say that their interpretation of scripture is wrong, if they claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I don’t automatically believe that a personal interpretation is correct merely because the person claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. It is possible for a person (myself included) to believe that they are being led by the Holy Spirit even though they perhaps are not. So, to answer your question, I’m just a regular guy. I’m very fallible. You should interpret the bible with caution, and if the Holy Spirit is guiding you, there is no fear.

The Supreme Court is actually a good analogy. It is the final authority for interpreting the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were infallible, they would be very similar to the Magesterium of the Church. (Sadly, the Supreme Court is *very *fallible, as Roe v. Wade aptly proves.)

What would life be like in the U.S. if all citizens could live by their own interpretation of the Constitution?

It is my opinion that the vast majority of U.S. citizens DO live by their own interpretation of the Constitution.

How do you know that? By what authority do you tell Christians that they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit when they think that they are? How can you tell?

I don’t tell people that I have any authority to know whether or not they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I can’t generally tell if they are or aren’t.

 

[Shannon9791]

No, my personal interpretations are all fallible.

So you agree that you could be wrong, and the 2,000+ years of Catholic teaching could be right?

 

[Shannon9791]

I don’t tell people that I have any authority to know whether or not they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I can’t generally tell if they are or aren’t.

So how do you know where the Truth lies? Do you think we can’t know the Truth?

 

[tandrew]

So how do you know where the Truth lies? Do you think we can’t know the Truth?

The Truth is self-evident, so that a child can see. Love God with all your heart, mind and soul. And your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Shannon9791]

Why the need for evangelization then? If the Truth is so self-evident, everyone would be Christian.

 

[atmmgraves]

Greetings!

I know where the truth is, and I know where confusion is. There is, and has been since the time of Christ, one holy Catholic Church. There began, in the 16th century, a revolt against the truth, and it continues to this day and grows more and more distant from the Church which Christ founded, splintering geometrically as we speak.

Whose truth are we talking about here? Yours? The 7th Day Adventists? The Methodists? The Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Church of Christs? Mormons? Non-denominational? In all seriousness, I ask you, which of the 30k plus protestant denominations hold the true truth of which you speak? If a child can see it, why are there so many protestant denominations that obviously are not seeing the same thing. So…which is it?

God bless.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t automatically believe that a personal interpretation is correct merely because the person claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. It is possible for a person (myself included) to believe that they are being led by the Holy Spirit even though they perhaps are not. So, to answer your question, I’m just a regular guy. I’m very fallible. You should interpret the bible with caution, and if the Holy Spirit is guiding you, there is no fear.

So, in your opinion, Katherine Ragsdale, who identifies as Christian, is absolutely correct when she says that abortion is a “blessing” and a “sacrament”? After all, she is interpreting her Bible and feels she is led by the Holy Spirit. By your criteria, she is correct that abortion is not a sin.

However, my interpretation of the Bible differs from hers, and I feel I have been led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that abortion is a grave sin.

What are we to do in this instance? How do we, as a unified body of Christ, resolve these differences? Do you believe God is telling her that abortion is not a sin, but that He’s telling me that it is?

It is my opinion that the vast majority of U.S. citizens DO live by their own interpretation of the Constitution.

There are grave repercussions, however, if one does not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation. For example, if I yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire because I believe that it is my First Amendment right to do so, I can be arrested, charged, and punished by the civil justice system because the Supreme Court has ruled that such speech is not protected under the first amendment.

I don’t tell people that I have any authority to know whether or not they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I can’t generally tell if they are or aren’t.

Then I don’t understand how you can tell any Catholics that our beliefs are wrong. We are interpreting Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and you can’t prove that the guidance we are receiving is not genuine.

 

[Ben_F]

We are fighting 500 years of bigotry here. Minds have been closed to the truth of the One Church for centuries. Once a soul habitually practices private interpretation, scripture is made subservient to the ego, which is the opposite of what our Lord teaches (Luke 9:23). The opinions of our separated brothers in Christ are deeply set. We must pray daily for Christian unity. May the Holy Spirit, Who always unites, inspire them to seek the truth, wherever it leads them.

As to the thread title, private interpretation of scripture is the sole reason for the many denominations that exist. Once Church authority was rejected, the disintegration of Christian unity progressed exponentially. 500 years back, it took not long at all for the reformers’ communities to begin disintegrating after they bickered amongst themselves.

Christ founded a visible, unified Church. The human ego, which caused the fall at Eden, then set to work causing the disintegration of Christ’s Body on earth. Christ’s visible, unified Church became increasingly invisible. The state of our world bears witness to this invisibility.

Sola scriptura and its fruit, private interpretation, is the source of this disintegration, and the cause of the theological entropy that is so observable within Christianity.

You said it all Jim. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[tandrew]

Is it? Why the need for evangelization then? If the Truth is so self-evident, everyone would be Christian.

Because we all hold a false image of God, that defiles our conscience.

 

[tandrew]

Greetings!

I know where the truth is, and I know where confusion is. There is, and has been since the time of Christ, one holy Catholic Church. There began, in the 16th century, a revolt against the truth, and it continues to this day and grows more and more distant from the Church which Christ founded, splintering geometrically as we speak.

Whose truth are we talking about here? Yours? The 7th Day Adventists? The Methodists? The Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Church of Christs? Mormons? Non-denominationals? In all seriousness, I ask you, which of the 30k plus protestant denominations hold the true truth of which you speak? If a child can see it, why are there so many protestant denominations that obviously are not seeing the same thing. So…which is it?

God bless.

The only Truth, God’s Truth. The Truth is so simple, no one sees it.

 

[Doggg]

I’m going to insert many of my own words into your “evidence” of a papal office. The reason why I’m doing this is only to demonstrate that you are reading into the texts of Scripture what you have been told it means. To put it another way, you are interpreting certain verses in a way that makes perfect sense to you because of what you want to believe it says.

Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list and Peter was, therefore, not just a man who was often named first, he must have been named first because he was the pope. (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32), which also means that Peter was their pope. Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28) Only the pope could speak for the other apostles regardless of what Acts chapter 15 says. On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds as their first pope (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first papal healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s (papal) faith that will strengthen his brethren, since obviously only popes can strengthen other apostles. (Luke 22:32) and Peter, unlike any of the other apostles, is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). When the other apostles began to feed the sheep and tend to the flock, they were acting against the clear instructions of Jesus, who never gave that role to the others. An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter because Peter was the pope (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter because Peter was the pope (Luke 24:34). As the first pope, he headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and, as the pope, he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). As the first pope, Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and as the first pope, he excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). As co pope with the apostle James, Peter co-led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and through the mouth of co-pope James, announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-19). It was to pope Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

If you look at Acts chapter 15, in the dispute about Gentile circumcision, it appears that James must have been a co-pope with Peter! See how easy it is to read into the texts what isn’t there?

 

[Doggg]

So you agree that you could be wrong, and the 2,000+ years of Catholic teaching could be right?

You got me there! And I could be wrong in my disbelief in Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

[Ben_F]

I’m going to insert many of my own words into your “evidence” of a papal office. The reason why I’m doing this is only to demonstrate that you are reading into the texts of Scripture what you have been told it means. To put it another way, you are interpreting certain verses in a way that makes perfect sense to you because of what you want to believe it says.

If you look at Acts chapter 15, in the dispute about Gentile circumcision, it appears that James must have been a co-pope with Peter! See how easy it is to read into the texts what isn’t there?

I´m a little confused. When I read those scriptures I read that an angel sent Mary Magdalene to tell Peter. Nevertheless, an angel via Mary sent Peter the message. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Doggg]

You are judging the teachings of the Catholic Church by those who are supposed to adhere to it.

Actually, I was responding to something that PR said about how Catholics who do what Catholics are forbidden by the CC to do, are really Protestants. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood her.

Does your church teach that somethings are sins?

Yes.

If you committ those sins, are you no longer a member of that church?

Not necessarily. My church will excommunicate a member for a serious sin that is ongoing, but my church doesn’t claim that we are not part of the church because we are divorced and then remarried, had an abortion, or because we uhmm, self gratify… at times.

If someone disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, no, they are not Catholic. Your silly argument holds no water.

Which CC teachings MUST every Catholic agree with? What is the test for their agreement if it isn’t about WHAT THEY DO?

 

[PRmerger]

Which interpretation are you referring to?

How 'bout this one:

Where do you find this teaching, that Peter was to be the stand-in vicar?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

So, if I understand you, Catholics are in complete UNITY on all of the things I mentioned: divorce, artificial forms of birth control, masterbation, abortion. It is really great to know that Catholics all agree on everything that the RCC teaches! And as PRmerger says, those Catholics who get abortions, use artificial forms of BC, and who masterbate, etc, are actually not Catholics; they are called Protestants! According to PR, a Protestant is apparently any Catholic who does things that are not supposed to be done by Catholics!

Ummm… If I understand PRMerger, he meant that Catholics who believe in the freedom of their use are not Catholics. That is, that they believe that it is not wrong to perform those actions. But, actually those who commit those are definitely in a state of mortal sin. Catholics sin? What a surprise! This is why we have the Sacrament of Confession.

Abortion is a different story though. I do not know the full teaching of the logistics of one who has that nasty stain on their soul. I just know that abortion is taught to be wrong.

In any case, is this the best argument you can come up with? I just gave you a BIG proof of the Catholic Church which you conveniently ignored. No surprise there.

 

[Doggg]

So, in your opinion, Katherine Ragsdale, who identifies as Christian, is absolutely correct when she says that abortion is a “blessing” and a “sacrament”?

There is nothing unusual about a self-professing “Christian” asserting things that are, by all appearance, completely at odds with Scripture. What reason do you have for thinking that Katherine Ragsdale is a Christian? Is it because she says she is? Does her view on abortion make you any less likely to accept her claim that she is a Christian? It certainly makes me question her alleged Christianity. Of course I could be wrong about her, but I would certainly be skeptical about her Christianity based on her position on abortion.

After all, she is interpreting her Bible and feels she is led by the Holy Spirit. By your criteria, she is correct that abortion is not a sin.

Which criteria are you referring to?

However, my interpretation of the Bible differs from hers, and I feel I have been led by the Holy Spirit to the truth that abortion is a grave sin.

I agree. In the vast majority of cases, abortion is the unjust taking of a human life.

What are we to do in this instance? How do we, as a unified body of Christ, resolve these differences? Do you believe God is telling her that abortion is not a sin, but that He’s telling me that it is?

No, what we ought to do is to follow our conscience. We almost always know when we are doing wrong. God has written His law on our hearts.

Then I don’t understand how you can tell any Catholics that our beliefs are wrong. We are interpreting Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and you can’t prove that the guidance we are receiving is not genuine.

I disagree. It is one thing to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and something very different to pridefully assert that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one with an infallible teaching authority. That is what nearly every false religion asserts about itself. God has described Himself as a jealous God. He alone is to be worshiped. All the rest is sin.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If you look at Acts chapter 15, in the dispute about Gentile circumcision, it appears that James must have been a co-pope with Peter! See how easy it is to read into the texts what isn’t there?

This “argument” can go both ways and hence, not be a good argument at all.

By the same token, one can purposely NOT read into the text what IS there.

John 20:21-23
21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

I can say, “Jesus did not mean that the Apostles ACTUALLY forgive and that we are supposed to confess our sins to them. He did not give them that authority.”

Seems like non-Catholics are the one reading into the texts what is not there and then NOT read into the text what IS there.

Kind of like “This is my body”. Non-Catholics read “This is my body, but not really.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

There is nothing unusual about a self-professing “Christian” asserting things that are, by all appearance, completely at odds with Scripture. What reason do you have for thinking that Katherine Ragsdale is a Christian? Is it because she says she is? Does her view on abortion make you any less likely to accept her claim that she is a Christian? It certainly makes me question her alleged Christianity. Of course I could be wrong about her, but I would certainly be skeptical about her Christianity based on her position on abortion.

If she professes abortion as a blessing and sacrament, that is legitimate grounds for being skeptical of her Christian faith. Killing a completely innocent person is a blessing and sacrament? That is unacceptable

I agree. In the vast majority of cases, abortion is the unjust taking of a human life.

Abortion is not just “unjust taking of a human life.” Abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent/silent human life. When is it just to take away an innocent human life? Never.

No, what we ought to do is to follow our conscience. We almost always know when we are doing wrong. God has written His law on our hearts.

Agreed.

I disagree. It is one thing to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and something very different to pridefully assert that your religion (whatever it may be) is the one with an infallible teaching authority. That is what nearly every false religion asserts about itself.

It would be pridefully if there were not evidence that the Catholic Church was given infallibility by God Himself. How about this? I know this will be hard. But, you should try arguing our proofs instead of just saying that same thing over and over and over again without ANY evidence at all. Look at our proofs. Do not just say, “Well, you are wrong to claim that.”

You are pridefully asserting that you have authority over us to tell us that the Church has no authority. Yet, you have not even seen what they say. Go tell that to Pope Benedict XVI. Go read his encyclicals. And John Paul II’s. And Paul VI… Go ahead. Go read them. You will learn that there is something more than a mere human writing. You can see that they are guided by the Holly Spirit.

The Catholic Church is not a false religion. I have proved that many times and you have yet to give a legitimate objection.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Office of the Papacy Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson.

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

This is an amazing and novel theory! Only Peter was given instructions to feed the sheep. The other apostles were never given any such instructions from Jesus, so when the other apostles went around feeding the sheep and doing other tasks to care for the rapidly growing flock, they were doing what was only supposed to be done by Peter!

Certainly they were empowered to feed Jesus sheep also but the charge given to Peter is unique in that Jesus tells Peter, and Peter alone, to rule or govern His flock. None of th eother Apostles receive this command. Now you will find this command to Peter in John 21:16. If you look at the Greek words used in verses 15,16 and 17 of John 21 you will see a different word used in verse 16. That word is poimaino an it means to rule or to govern. Here is Jesus, the Good Shepherd telling Peter that he, Peter, is to shepherd Jesus’ flock.

Quote:
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension.

Where do you find this teaching, that Peter was to be the stand-in vicar?

You find it in the Bible, that’s where. You will find in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. The Davidic kings of the Old Testament appointed assistants which were called stewards, to help them in administering the kingdom. Usually there were twelve, one for every tribe. Of these one was chosen to be the Chief Steward and he was empowered to act on behalf of the king and he was given the keys to the Kings house. Scripture says of this Chief Steward, “…he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” You can read about it in Isaiah 22:22. Now compare that OT scenario with the New testament. Jesus is a king of the line of David. Thus he is a Davidic king. He appoints 12 assistants now called Apostles one of these [Peter] is made the chief steward and given the keys to the kingdom [heaven] and of this
chief steward Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:19]. Peter as the Chief Steward acts in the name of the King just as the OT chief steward did. That is why he and his successors are called the Vicars of Christ.