Personal interpretation

[Cinette]

*I woke up and started reading the postings and answered a few before I realised that Doggg was banned.

I am disappointed. I have come across people like Doggg before who do not debate but just speak to themselves most of the time. Still, I have seen people worse than Doggg carry on without being banned.

Can we ask the Moderator to un-ban Doggg? Do we not have a vote?

Ah well! Maybe he will come back as cattt!:*D

 

[gtrenewed]

This is a non-sequitor. And again, there is no such thing as a “modern protestant” view.

Indeed I do. However, in this discussion with you, you are proferring a nebulous “them” yet presenting them as a unified “them.” Doesn’t exist. Impossible to refute.

I am speaking from my experience in protestantism and collegially studying the church history from a protestant view.

There is unity on what they, (the orthodox major denominations), consider essential as summarized in the Apostles Creed. However there is much disunity on about everything else.

Of course it’s nebulous since they have their own separate organizations but they jointly speak out at times. Why would you say there is no modern protestant view?

The only thing you need to refute is what a protestant poster says that is not truth according to the catechism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Thank you for sharing some of your experiences and insights into this matter - and, welcome home!

While PRmerger is correct in everything stated - I would be interested in seeing how the Protestant view of ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture addresses these two topics:

1.) John 6:53 “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” - and all of John 6 identifies how Christ is able to control nature: feeding the 5,000 men, calming the storm, and then, telling all those listening to Him that He was requiring them to eat His Flesh. The Jews understood this and thought it nonsense - and, walked away. They did not walk away with any other metaphor (Christ calling Himself a Vine, or a Door or a Sheep Gate or a Good Shepherd. It seems to me that Protestants read all of this and claim it is metaphor - using the same argument the Jews used.

2.) 2Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” appears to be an outright condemnation of private interpretation. While the verse identifies this prohibition on the prophet doing this - it certainly does not give license for his listeners to go off making their own personal interpretation.

To my way of thnking, ‘personal interpretation’ is one of the foundatins for there being 30,000+ different Protestant groups all claiming to be following Christ while all are creating their own religions built on the traditions of men.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom

Different groups have different theories.

To most protestants there is not a single organization. Jesus is the head of the Body with the Holy Spirit guiding them. The Body is comprised of believers sprinkled in many Christian groups. That is what makes the reformation work, there is the believer submitted to Jesus. They submit to an earthly group as far as they are in agreement. Most protestant groups require belief in the essential Christian doctrines as in the Apostles Creed except for belief in the Catholic Church. they see a small ‘c’ meaning universal.

The bible forms their doctrine as they understand it or as their group understands it and they agree. This is why there is so many circular debates on this forum but if they stay on it is worth it to keep going in circles.

They fellowship with Jesus in the Word. We fellowship with Jesus in the mass, the sacramenrts and in the Word.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I would be the last one to comment on someone else’s phrasing of a question … from time to time I have come up with some ‘winners’ on my own…

But, let me encourage you to look beyond what may be less than diplomatic wording to get to the heart of the question: how we got the Bible we have today… and, to stay within the context of this thread - how can there be personal interpretation in such a matter?

For example, for about 1,100 years (from the 393 Council of Hippo to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Bible existed. Luther knew full well the teaching of the Catholic Church on the development of the Canon of Scripture - but, this did not stop him from removing books that did not appear to agree with his SF and SS view of the Word of God. How he was not successful in removing the Letter of St. James (’…a gospel of straw…’) which directly rebukes ‘SF’ (and its implied basis on personal interpretation) is beyond me!

God bless

OK repeat away; however, your statement “Did He magically deliver the Bible, leather bound and in KJV, to Martin Luther?” seems condescending. How does that help bring about a fruitful dialogue?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I do not agree with on this post, Gtrenewed. The quote from Malachi you have identifed as both ‘curious’ and ‘ridiculous’ is:

“My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty."

That God will be praised at all times certainly seems essential if humans are to show our devotion to God. But, maybe that is a matter of ‘personal interpretation’…

So, where did this ‘red ink’ come from? This is a modern printing technique ("…the Words of Christ in red…") - I am not familiar with the asterisk version… Look at the Tennessee group that handles deadly serpants as they dance around with them because they think Acts 28:1-6 is essential doctrine. Make no mistake - left to our own devices (all insprired by ‘persnal interpretation’) we would focus on the splinter in our neighbor’s eye and miss the beam.

I submit that ‘know what is essential doctrine’ - not from our own selves (although we may claim special inspiration from the Holy Spirit) but from the authorative source identified by Christ - the Church He founded on Peter. Want to know what is essential - just look at what the Catholic Church teaches. So, while we are required to believe that after the Consecration at Mass, that Jesus Christ (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) are Really Present, (Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19) we are not to be plucking out our eyes and cutting off our hands (Mark 9:43) - we are, however to avoid sin without self-mutilation.

Hope this helps

On the contrary, essential doctrine is quite scriptural. Read the words in red for example. Your chioice of Malachi 1:11 is as curious as it is a ridiculous example but you tend to do that I have noticed.

Not having an asterisk denoting essential doctrine next to a verse, does not mean we cannot know it is essential, that is why we have the Holy Spirit. Since we can error, Jesus provided a vessel to deliver His words to us faithfully.

This is the mistake of the protestant, understanding the essentials but not seeing all of the essentials in scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

Ok.

But that is like saying “God created babies.” While that is a true statement, God uses people to accomplish this. Babies don’t just magically appear in a bassinet, all cute and cuddly and swaddled.

Really? So that stork thing must not be true either

 

[benedictus2]

Having been a bible school trained protestant pastor before reverting, this is not entirely true.

Hi GT, I was going to reply in detail to this post then I took note of the above highlighted bit. Do you mean by this that you have reverted to the Catholic Church? If this is correct, then what argument would you put forth to counter the rest of your post which went:

They look at the early church as small ‘c’ catholic/universal church. They see it as God delivering scripture through the apostles and then guiding the councils to protect what was given. The CC as an organization in their view betrayed the Apostles at some point in time. While they believe there are some Christians in the CC, it is in spite of, not because of.

They see Jesus as protecting His people who ‘follow’ Him. For instance, let’s say that a blessing comes to you from God but through a less than Godly person. God made sure you were blessed like the OT prophet, Balam, who was stopped by his donkey from being slain by the angel. In their understanding, scripture came to them in spite of the CC not because of it.

 

[PRmerger]

*Perhaps I should have said “Praise of God” is the highest form of worship.

Praise you Jesus, you are our Redeemer!
Praise you Jesus, you are our Saviour!
Praise you Jesus, you are the Word made Flesh!

As I see it, it is “higher” than intercessory prayer because we are not asking for anything, we are just praising God.

*

Ah, very good then! So true. So true. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

On the contrary, essential doctrine is quite scriptural. Read the words in red for example.

So you’re saying the words of Jesus are the essentials? Who says that? What Scripture verse says that “Jesus’ words are the essentials”?

[SIGN1]In truth, is not the entire Scripture the words of Jesus? [/SIGN1]

You are following a man-made tradition regarding “essentials”. Again, of course, you can make your own list of essentials, but it would be based on something *not *Scriptural.

Your chioice of Malachi 1:11 is as curious as it is a ridiculous example

Perhaps you’re not familiar with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? It is offered from the rising of the sun even to its setting, everywhere, at all times, in all places, the sacrifice to His name is being offered.

but you tend to do that I have noticed.

Many say the same things about Christ and His Church, no? So I am good company!

Not having an asterisk denoting essential doctrine next to a verse, does not mean we cannot know it is essential, that is why we have the Holy Spirit. Since we can error, Jesus provided a vessel to deliver His words to us faithfully.

Exactly!

This is the mistake of the protestant, understanding the essentials but not seeing all of the essentials in scripture.

No. The mistake of the protestant is that he claims he bases all of his doctrine on Scripture, when in reality he bases his “essentials” on something *other *than Scripture–either the Catholic Church, or his pastor, or his own fallible determination.

 

[PRmerger]

*I woke up and started reading the postings and answered a few before I realised that Doggg was banned.

I am disappointed. I have come across people like Doggg before who do not debate but just speak to themselves most of the time. Still, I have seen people worse than Doggg carry on without being banned.

Can we ask the Moderator to un-ban Doggg? Do we not have a vote?

Ah well! Maybe he will come back as cattt!:*D

Some banned posters may still come to the CAFs and read the posts (they simply cannot post anymore.) So perhaps all is not lost!

To be sure there have been many worse posters that have been allowed to remain! But, in my experience, they end up getting banned in the end anyway. They simply cannot contain their uncharity which, while always on the surface of their posts, must froth out at times. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

I am speaking from my experience in protestantism and collegially studying the church history from a protestant view.

Then, perhaps, it would be best to speak only of your own opinions.

There is unity on what they, (the orthodox major denominations), consider essential as summarized in the Apostles Creed. However there is much disunity on about everything else.

Then their unity is based on the authority of the Catholic Church, which discerned those “essentials as summarized in the Apostles Creed.”

Of course it’s nebulous since they have their own separate organizations but they jointly speak out at times.

Why would you say there is no modern protestant view?

Well, can you cite the “modern protestant view” on Baptism of infants? Please provide references.

The only thing you need to refute is what a protestant poster says that is not truth according to the catechism.

This is clearly not the boundaries limned by the CAFs, gt. If you want to limit your posts to the above, knock yourself out.

As for me, well, I will continue to post within my own boundaries, and those set by the CAFs.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? So that stork thing must not be true either

 

[inkaneer]

I am speaking from my experience in protestantism and collegially studying the church history from a protestant view.

There is unity on what they, (the orthodox major denominations), consider essential as summarized in the Apostles Creed. However there is much disunity on about everything else.

Of course it’s nebulous since they have their own separate organizations but they jointly speak out at times. Why would you say there is no modern protestant view?

The only thing you need to refute is what a protestant poster says that is not truth according to the catechism.

So you admit that your studies are biased towards protestantism. Why not study church history as a search for truth with no bias. By using a pretext as you are you are effectively wasting your time. As for your second statement how can you rationalize what is essential in God’s word. By saying what is essential you are automatically saying what is not essential. I really don’t think God would provide us something that was not essential. In any event how does your statement line up with Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one. How can they be one when even you freely admit that in protestantism there is much disunity? There is no modern protestant view because there is no one who speaks for protestantism. Wherever there are three protestants who disagree on something the chances are good that a new denomination will emerge. You guys criticize us for having one pope yet every protestant is their own pope. You got too many popes!

 

[grannymh]

One RC deposit, numerous RC personal interpretations. That sounds just like the alleged 30,000 denominations of the Protestants!

One Catholic Deposit of Faith. One official interpretation.
Numerous personal interpretations by loads of people, including Catholics, Protestants, and my oldest kid.

 

[gtrenewed]

So you admit that your studies are biased towards protestantism. Why not study church history as a search for truth with no bias. By using a pretext as you are you are effectively wasting your time. As for your second statement how can you rationalize what is essential in God’s word. By saying what is essential you are automatically saying what is not essential. I really don’t think God would provide us something that was not essential. In any event how does your statement line up with Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one. How can they be one when even you freely admit that in protestantism there is much disunity? There is no modern protestant view because there is no one who speaks for protestantism. Wherever there are three protestants who disagree on something the chances are good that a new denomination will emerge. You guys criticize us for having one pope yet every protestant is their own pope. You got too many popes!

You missed my post that says I have returned to the Catholic Church. I studied the church fathers to help in that decision. We all have biases and I had mine but Jesus said that if we diligently seek Him, He will be found and that He will complete the good work started in us and the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth and He will reward those that diligently seek Him. So I had confidence that the Holy Spirit could overcome my bias; that confidence was rewarded and I have returned.

Our faith is a journey so saying what is essential at this time does not say that all else is non essential. My walk is a perfect example. Jesus told us not to judge too soon.

Most denominations have a central leadership organization usually with a chairman of the board type of person. Having a pope though is not the issue with many protestants. It is a question of primacy versus supremecy. Look, I am just relaying my past experience, not defending it. My intention is to help those who have never been a protestant in order to better dialogue. When a protestant, I used my past experience as a Catholic to help protestants better understand in order to dialogue respectfully.

The posts on this thread mostly have been good but I felt there were some insulting posts even though they were relaying truth. It was more about the attitude not the content.

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Thank you for sharing some of your experiences and insights into this matter - and, welcome home!

While PRmerger is correct in everything stated - I would be interested in seeing how the Protestant view of ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture addresses these two topics:

1.) John 6:53 “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” - and all of John 6 identifies how Christ is able to control nature: feeding the 5,000 men, calming the storm, and then, telling all those listening to Him that He was requiring them to eat His Flesh. The Jews understood this and thought it nonsense - and, walked away. They did not walk away with any other metaphor (Christ calling Himself a Vine, or a Door or a Sheep Gate or a Good Shepherd. It seems to me that Protestants read all of this and claim it is metaphor - using the same argument the Jews used.

2.) 2Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” appears to be an outright condemnation of private interpretation. While the verse identifies this prohibition on the prophet doing this - it certainly does not give license for his listeners to go off making their own personal interpretation.

To my way of thnking, ‘personal interpretation’ is one of the foundatins for there being 30,000+ different Protestant groups all claiming to be following Christ while all are creating their own religions built on the traditions of men.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom

Thanks Tom, I think? Let’s be clear, I am not defending my time in protestantism; I am just relaying what I experienced in hopes of better understanding. It seems that was a mistake judging by the response.

Your first question is explained several different ways. Some believe in the real presence and most others see it metaphorically. I could never really shake the idea that Jesus said exactly what He meant. It was one doctrine that helped lead me back. I justified not having a priest, by believing it became His flesh and blood by faith as it entered my mouth because the just shall live by faith.

What broke that was that the church fathers saw it differently and they filled in the gaps that scripture leaves out. While protestants see scripture as binding but the writings of the church fathers are not. To me, they directly followed the Apostles so they should be living the faith that was delivered by those who walked with Jesus so they should be accurate.

It is more than just the Eucharist, it has to do with a sacrificial priestly system. It is misunderstood and hard to accept since Jesus died once as our sacrificial lamb. This is a very in depth doctrine and not easily debated. A big stumbling block is Eucharistic Adoration. It seems that Catholics are worshipping a man made created thing if you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit has transubstantiated it into Jesus. To me it is a wonderful mystery to be meditated on for deeper understanding.

Your second question would seem to be right on but to a protestant it only means that Scripture can be trusted to be from God and not from any man even though a man was involved. Like the OT prophets, God used willing men to speak what He wanted them to. The Word had immediate impact but also futuristic impact so the prophet could not be adding anything.

They are blinded to the apparant hypocrisy because they see themselves as good people sincerely following Jesus. When pressed to explain it the only thing they fall back to is ‘that is how we believe’. As a protestant I held to the real presence and the necessity of baptism and debated this many times with different types of protestants to no gain. When I deftly debated them into a corner where they had to admit to my view, they would fall back to ‘well we don’t believe it that way’. No where to go with that.

I went door to door many times preaching Jesus( not Jehovah Witness or Mormon), so I got into many discussions. The difference between me and say a Jehovah Witness or Mormon, is they deny His Divinty among other false tachings and I held to the Apostles Creed which most other protestants do as well, except for the Catholic Church part.

Yeah, private interpretation is also interpreted differently. As a protestant you are encouraged to be part of a group that believes a certain way so you are not personally interpreting Scripture, there is safety in a multitude of couselors is one scripture that is used. The ‘essentials’ as represented by the Apostles Creed must be believed but all else is open to be followed as one sees fit, a non essential.

So many of the 30,000+ groups are seen as a smaller number because many agree on the ‘essentials’ but split for non essential reasons. I would offer this on the risk of persecution; some Catholics in areas where there are multiple parishes, choose one that is not the closest for personal needs. This would be one kind of split in protestantism, a group feels the current church is not meeting their needs so they start a church to fulfill those needs. Both churches would agree on the essentials but differ in a non essential area. While the Catholic truely retains the essentials, they still prefer one parish over the other in a non essential matter.

I hope this helps to understand my postings. God Bless you as well Tom, thanks for asking.

 

[PRmerger]

That God will be praised at all times certainly seems essential if humans are to show our devotion to God. But, maybe that is a matter of ‘personal interpretation’…

 

[PRmerger]

So many of the 30,000+ groups are seen as a smaller number because many agree on the ‘essentials’ but split for non essential reasons.

Quite true. Except they do not realize, peculiarly, that these “essentials” are not mentioned as being “essential” in Scripture.

I would offer this on the risk of persecution;

some Catholics in areas where there are multiple parishes, choose one that is not the closest for personal needs. This would be one kind of split in protestantism, a group feels the current church is not meeting their needs so they start a church to fulfill those needs. Both churches would agree on the essentials but differ in a non essential area.

I suspect that if you ask them what the “essentials” are, they could not even agree on what doctrines constitute these “essentials”.

Heck, even in this small sampling of non-Catholics represented on the CAFs, they can’t even agree on what’s an essential.

Here’s what I learned from another Protestant in another thread just a few months ago about what’s considered “essential” by Protestants.

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (1 John 5:7)
7. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)
8. Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6)."

But, wait!! Here’s another completely different list of essentials!

Those essentials were written by Matt Slick of CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. The CARM web site states that CARM exists to defend the Christian faith by analyzing religions such as Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and comparing them to the Bible. They give (at least) these scriptural references. Certainly these essentials are lacking per Catholic dogma.

Primary Essentials:

Diety of Christ – John 8:24, John 8:58 + Exodus 3:14.
Salvation by Grace – Gal 5:4, Eph 2:8-9
Resurrection of Christ – 1 Cor 15:14, 1 Cor 15:17
Gospel – Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 15:1-4
Monotheism – Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, Exodus 20:3-6

Secondary Essentials:

Salvation – John 14:6
Trinity – John 3:16, John 5:26, 1 John 4:10, John 14:26, 15:26, Isaiah 44:24, Gal 3:13, Rom 15:16
Incarnation through Virgin Birth – Matt 1:23, John 8:24

It seems clear to me that non-Catholic Christians cannot come to an agreement about what’s an “essential” doctrine, because
Scripture does not state that there are essential doctrines.

That’s a man-made tradition.

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I would be the last one to comment on someone else’s phrasing of a question … from time to time I have come up with some ‘winners’ on my own…

Yeah me too but I was grateful to have it pointed out to me or to have the chance to say it a different way.

But, let me encourage you to look beyond what may be less than diplomatic wording to get to the heart of the question: how we got the Bible we have today… and, to stay within the context of this thread - how can there be personal interpretation in such a matter?

For example, for about 1,100 years (from the 393 Council of Hippo to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Bible existed. Luther knew full well the teaching of the Catholic Church on the development of the Canon of Scripture - but, this did not stop him from removing books that did not appear to agree with his SF and SS view of the Word of God. How he was not successful in removing the Letter of St. James (’…a gospel of straw…’) which directly rebukes ‘SF’ (and its implied basis on personal interpretation) is beyond me!

God bless

I didn’t have a problem with the content just the attitude of one particular poster. I was trying to explain the protestant thought behind it from personal experience; not trying to defend it or to speak for all protestants. I thought that if it was better understood, a less condenscending response could be made. I failed but I tried to help, not intending to derail a thread.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t have a problem with the content just the attitude of one particular poster. I was trying to explain the protestant thought behind it from personal experience; not trying to defend it or to speak for all protestants. I thought that if it was better understood, a less condenscending response could be made. I failed but I tried to help, not intending to derail a thread.

Oh, the irony of being called “condescending” in a post such as the above.