Personal interpretation

[benedictus2]

There is nothing unusual about a self-professing “Christian” asserting things that are, by all appearance, completely at odds with Scripture.

No nothng unusual about that. So many protestants do that all the time. And they claim to be “Bible Christians”???

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?

Those who believe that abortion is okay may call themselves Christians but they are not. It is one thing to say that abortion is wrong and then do it It is another thing to say that abortion is okay. That would be to turn Christianity on its head because we are actually saying that abomination in the sight of God called sin is actually good and not sin at all.

She is worse than a hypocrite, she is a heretic, one who teaches error and one who’s mind has been given over to the prince of the world.

 

[benedictus2]

I understand what you are trying to show but I still don’t understand what it is you see.

Can you explain further?

Okay. Here it is.

In the last part his analysis Ben wrote :
***In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. ***

This is not quite correct. When Peter said : "No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation," he was therefore referring to the prophecy that was already committed to writing, that is why it is already Scripture.

So it is the prophecy that is already part of Scripture that one cannot interpret personally.

For that matter, it would be wise for someone to have a holy spiritual director before one interprets “private revelations” because the devil masquerades as an angel of light.

It is true that no prophet made up his own prohecy but not all prophecies are part of Scripture. It was still up to someone to determine whether such a prophecy should be part of Scripture.

Further on Ben wrote: The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority. 2 Peter 1:20-21 perhaps admits of a legitimate secondary application against private judgment, but this will not be convincing to an astute Protestant.

But even if a prophet were to claim divine authority, someone else decides whether what the prophet speaks of is true. That is why even Jesus said that there will be false prophets.

So it is the Church that determines what is truly of divine origin or whether it’s origin is merely human and of worse of the evil spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

No, my personal interpretations are all fallible.

So why do you go by your interpretation considering they are fallible. You like following erroneous interpretation? Hmmm

 

[benedictus2]

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 why do you believe them at all? If you do not know if they are inspired or not, then to you they must just be the equivalent of any story book.

You said you are not Catholic but I am assume you sort of label yourself Christian. Since you obviously would not go by tradition, then you’ve practically jettisoned the only thing that could be the basis of your claim to Christianity - The Bible.

 

[wanner47]

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.

Doggg, you do the the exact same thing.

So how are we to know who is right?

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?

Peter spoke first, in a leadership capacity. James was his second-in-command, essentially. It’s fairly clear from the passage.

Who are you to say that my interpretation is incorrect? I feel that I am led by the Holy Spirit. My interpretation is no less valid than yours.

 

[wanner47]

There is nothing unusual about a self-professing “Christian” asserting things that are, by all appearance, completely at odds with Scripture.

I agree, sadly. As you have pointed out, many who claim to be Catholic assert things that are completely at odds with Catholic teaching.

What reason do you have for thinking that Katherine Ragsdale is a Christian?

The woman is a bishop in the Episcopal Church. I don’t see why a non-Christian would want to hold such an office.

Is it because she says she is?

The Episcopalian Church says she is. They made her a bishop.

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.

I agree with you, but that’s not the point I was making. By what authority do you tell her that her interpretation of Scripture is wrong, and that she is not being led by the Holy Spirit? Do you have any way of knowing outside of your personal opinion?

Which criteria are you referring to?

According to you, one has to (1) carefully consider the Scriptures, and (2) be led by the Holy Spirit. Many Christians who claim both (1) & (2) hold conflicting viewpoints.

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

In **all **cases, abortion is the direct murder of an innocent human being. However, many Christians disagree, and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit.

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.

I agree, but Katherine Ragsdale is following her conscience, and what God has written on her heart. So, given that, can you fault her beliefs?

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.

Does this mean that you believe that neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, nor the Bible are infallible teaching authorities?

If you don’t believe that your religion is the Truth, why believe in it? I wouldn’t be a part of the Catholic Church if I didn’t think She had the fullness of Truth. That’s why I left the ELCA – I became convinced that the ELCA, while containing *elements *of the Truth, did not possess the *fullness *of Truth.

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.

I agree. I don’t worship my Church, I worship God, who established my Church.

 

[Doggg]

So why do you go by your interpretation considering they are fallible. You like following erroneous interpretation? Hmmm

What do you follow to obtain the truth and avoid error?

 

[Doggg]

So why do you believe them at all? If you do not know if they are inspired or not, then to you they must just be the equivalent of any story book.

I’m not saying that I always have to reject every possible claim that anyone might make that they are led by the Holy Spirit on some issue. I’m only pointing out that certain of these claims should be rejected if the person making the claim doesn’t show any particular signs of being led by the Holy Spirit, but does show signs of being led by another kind of spirit.

You said you are not Catholic but I am assume you sort of label yourself Christian.

Yes, I label myself Christian.

Since you obviously would not go by tradition, then you’ve practically jettisoned the only thing that could be the basis of your claim to Christianity - The Bible.

I love church tradition when it serves and honors God. I reject church traditions when they are unscriptural, man-centered, and basically exist to serve a religion.

 

[benedictus2]

What do you follow to obtain the truth and avoid error?

The Church whom Christ established on earth because Christ promised that she will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL truth.

Because Christ is God I know He kept that promise.

 

[PRmerger]

No, my personal interpretations are all fallible.

Exactly, Doggg, exactly.

And fallible, means,* by definition,* they’re going to be wrong.

Going.

To.

Be.

Wrong.

Just like your pastor’s interpretations. He’s fallible, too, eh?

So each and every time he preaches you must be wondering, “Hmmm…I wonder if this is one of those times when my pastor is going to be wrong.”

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not saying that I always have to reject every possible claim that anyone might make that they are led by the Holy Spirit on some issue. I’m only pointing out that certain of these claims should be rejected if the person making the claim doesn’t show any particular signs of being led by the Holy Spirit, but does show signs of being led by another kind of spirit.

But who interprets what is and is not a sign of the Holy Spirit?

You see, even that statement is back to being subjective again.

I love church tradition when it serves and honors God. I reject church traditions when they are unscriptural, man-centered, and basically exist to serve a religion.

But, before we had Scripture we only had tradition. The benchmark by which books that were to make it to the Bible were assessed was Tradition.

For the early Christians, it was not so much assessing something by Scripture but by tradition. The NT which every Christian accepts was tradition first before they became Scripture.

 

[Doggg]

The woman is a bishop in the Episcopal Church. I don’t see why a non-Christian would want to hold such an office.

One possible reason why a non-Christian would want to hold such an office is to teach the sheep error and then drag them away. False teachers will indeed enter the church!

I agree with you, but that’s not the point I was making. By what authority do you tell her that her interpretation of Scripture is wrong, and that she is not being led by the Holy Spirit? Do you have any way of knowing outside of your personal opinion?

If I could meet with her, I wouldn’t tell her that my own personal “authority” is any greater than hers. I would ask her why she believes that abortion is a sacrament, and by who’s authority she teaches this. If she were to explain to me that her church (whatever “church” it is) teaches infallibly through its magisterium, and that a simple study of history ought to be sufficient to prove that her “church’s” popes can trace their apostolic roots all the way back to the apostle Peter, I would then ask her if she believes that her personal interpretation of history could be fallible. From that point, I’m guessing that you can tell that she would obviously have a bit of explaining to do.

According to you, one has to (1) carefully consider the Scriptures, and (2) be led by the Holy Spirit. Many Christians who claim both (1) & (2) hold conflicting viewpoints.

True.

I agree, but Katherine Ragsdale is following her conscience, and what God has written on her heart. So, given that, can you fault her beliefs?

One thing that I would NOT assume about her is that she is following her conscience. She knows very well that killing a baby for personal convenience is wrong.

Does this mean that you believe that neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, nor the Bible are infallible teaching authorities?

No, I believe that God can, and often does, use the bible and the Holy Spirit to teach His truths to those that He has chosen.

If you don’t believe that your religion is the Truth, why believe in it? I wouldn’t be a part of the Catholic Church if I didn’t think She had the fullness of Truth. That’s why I left the ELCA – I became convinced that the ELCA, while containing *elements *of the Truth, did not possess the *fullness *of Truth.

I do indeed believe that my religion contains the truth, even if I wrongly interpret parts of it.

I agree. I don’t worship my Church, I worship God, who established my Church.

I like to hear that. I don’t hear it too often from RC’s! Praise God, that you worship Him only!

 

[PRmerger]

What do you follow to obtain the truth and avoid error?

Well, what does Scripture say to do?

It would seem that one must obtain the truth from the Church.
(See 1 Tim 3:15)

 

[PRmerger]

I like to hear that. I don’t hear it too often from RC’s! Praise God, that you worship Him only!

I challenge you to provide any post from an orthodox Catholic here on the CAFs that has stated that he/she worships the Church.

And I challenge you to provide any document from the Magisterium that proclaims that we worship the Church.

:coffeeread:

 

[PRmerger]

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

Your image of God may be false, but the image I have is that which He has revealed through His Word, and it is most definitely NOT false.

 

[PRmerger]

Ummm… If I understand PRMerger, he meant that Catholics who believe in the freedom of their use are not Catholics.

Hey, friend, come visit my Profile Page and see my personal albums… Then you will see that I am a she, not a he. (It’s nice to be able to put a face to a screenname, IMHO.)

At any rate, to the degree that one divorces himself from the faith as proclaimed by the apostles, is the degree that he separates himself from Christ.

That’s all I was saying. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

 

[PRmerger]

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!

Actually, what I was professing is that to the degree that one separates himself from the faith of the apostles is the degree that he divorces himself from Christ.

You believe that, too.

You would say that any person who proclaims to be a Christian yet says that Jesus did not die on the cross for his sins has divorced himself from the Christian faith, no?

 

[Doggg]

But who interprets what is and is not a sign of the Holy Spirit?

You see, even that statement is back to being subjective again.

Your point is well taken. You are looking for objective facts and not subjective interpretations. We have come full-circle in our discussion.

I started this topic mainly to demonstrate that in spite of RC claims to infallible knowledge obtained from the alleged infallible magisterium, the whole “chain” cannot be any stronger than the weakest link in that chain, which is the personal interpretation link. It is as though many RC’s demand infallible non-subjective truth…which, if we had such a thing, would make faith completely unnecessary. My conclusion is that the whole of Christian life can be summed up by FAITH in Jesus, not FAITH in some alleged infallible religious institution by which genuine faith (in Jesus) is mocked as if it were a silly and useless thing.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s too bad that you weren’t there to stop all the other apostles from feeding and tending the sheep. They must not have heard that only Peter was supposed to feed and tend to the sheep.

Please cite a verse in Scripture where Jesus appoints the other apostles with this same command to feed his sheep.

Chapter and verse, please.

And, just to make sure we’re on the same page, you’re going to have to use the chapters and verses from the books that the Catholic Church declared to be inspired. You cannot use the Shepherd of Hermes, because it’s not inspired. (And,*** the only way you know it’s not inspired is because the CC discerned it was not. *** Thus *each and every time *you quote Scripture you are giving tacit approval to the authority–the infallible authority–of the CC)

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t merely trying to say that the words “pope” and “papacy” were apparently unknown by the apostles, I meant that the concept of a papal office was apparently unknown to the apostles.

Oh. Here’s some more about the “concept of papal office” in Scripture.

The primacy of Peter in the leadership of the Church was:

1. foreshadowed in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-24.
2. promised by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:15-19.
3. prayed for by Jesus Christ in Luke 22:31-32.
4. counseled by Jesus Christ in Luke 12:41-46.
5. confirmed by Jesus Christ in John 21:15-17.
6. lived out by Peter in the chapters 1 thru 12 and 15 in the Acts of the Apostles.
7. pointed out in the list of apostles in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, and Act 1:13, where Peter’s name is listed first among the apostles.
   Originally posted by Todd Easton