Personal interpretation

[gtrenewed]

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

Not with that wording but then again I can see the Trinity in scripture without that word being used. If you weigh out scripture some are weightier than others. The examples you use below can be summed up in the Apostles Creed, that is why I kept it simple with using that example.

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.

Both lists are very similar and summed up in the Apostles Creed. However it is true that some we consider essential, such as the Eucharist and Baptism, many protestants do not. So yes there is disagreement.

Even though you highlight it, I still disagree with you. One can know what is the weightiest in scripture; just because two may come up with different lists does not mean that it cannot be known. I believe that God builds in that protection but that it must be sought after and not just checked off of a list. Many of the parables of Jesus reflect this. In fact, love God and your neighbor as yourself sums up the essential and that is stated in scripture.

Protestants have traditions in doctrine so yes it is true that tradition plays a part in that. The true essentials of course are found in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Not with that wording but then again I can see the Trinity in scripture without that word being used. If you weigh out scripture some are weightier than others. The examples you use below can be summed up in the Apostles Creed, that is why I kept it simple with using that example.

That there are essential doctrines, I proclaim quite loudly and proudly. That Scripture tells us what they are, I demur.

One needs an extra-biblical source, that is, the Church, to discern what these essential doctrines are.

For Scripture does not tell us.

Which is why you reject Malachi 1:11 as being an essential.

If you use Scripture alone, you and I will simply go round and round about whether it’s essential or not.

Thankfully, there is the Catholic Church to proclaim that which is essential.

 

[PRmerger]

Both lists are very similar and summed up in the Apostles Creed.

In fact, they are not very similar at all.

Regardless, there is no Scriptural basis for their list of essentials. To be clear–there are Scripture verses referenced, but no verses which tell us how they discerned these to be essentials.

Not to mention, do they not consider these beliefs essential:

• creatio ex nihilo
• forgiveness of sins
• that Jesus had 2 wills and 2 natures
• that Scripture is inspired and God’s revelation?

And here’s the biggie that seems to be missing from the 2 lists: God is love.

Love was not mentioned even once in those lists.

Even though you highlight it, I still disagree with you. One can know what is the weightiest in scripture;

Yes, of course. No one is denying that. Only that one does not and cannot use Scripture to discern what’s the weightiest. One uses other sources–either the authority of the Catholic Church, the self-imposed authority of himself, or the fallible man-made authority of a pastor.

In fact, love God and your neighbor as yourself sums up the essential and that is stated in scripture.

Yet, curiously, that also was not on those 2 lists.

Protestants have traditions in doctrine so yes it is true that tradition plays a part in that. The true essentials of course are found in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

Exactly. Not in Scripture. One needs something outside of Scripture to determine these essentials.

 

[benedictus2]

*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

I think his bark is worse than his meow.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi GTRenewed,

When you get the chance, can you give a reply to my post 535.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7575110&postcount=535

Thanks,

Cory

 

[haroldcrews]

It has been explained on this forum that it is wrong to interpret the bible on our own. Why is that wrong? What is the correct way to interpret the bible?

Well yes, no and maybe. Let us consider a parallel. Should a man always obey his own conscience? It depends on the man. Only the man whose conscience has been properly formed is free to obey his own conscience. If all are to follow their own conscience whether well formed or not then a great many evils will come to be. Additionally there would be little incentive to reconcile your conscience to truth. Right and wrong would become relative.

Likewise with interpretation of Scripture we are called to first learn and understand Scripture. Those with the properly formed understanding may then be called to teach. Due to the authourity given the Church; the desire the Lord has that His Bride be united to Him; and His assurances that the Church will not be overcome by error then the properly formed understanding of Scripture will conform to the Church’s. What is the other option? The other option is that the meaning of Scripture becomes relative.

 

[benedictus2]

Well yes, no and maybe. Let us consider a parallel. Should a man always obey his own conscience? It depends on the man. Only the man whose conscience has been properly formed is free to obey his own conscience. If all are to follow their own conscience whether well formed or not then a great many evils will come to be. Additionally there would be little incentive to reconcile your conscience to truth. Right and wrong would become relative.

Likewise with interpretation of Scripture we are called to first learn and understand Scripture. Those with the properly formed understanding may then be called to teach. Due to the authourity given the Church; the desire the Lord has that His Bride be united to Him; and His assurances that the Church will not be overcome by error then the properly formed understanding of Scripture will conform to the Church’s. What is the other option? The other option is that the meaning of Scripture becomes relative.

That is an excellent post!!! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[TobyLue]

gtrenewed

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.

Uh, “work”? You actually believe the deformation, I mean the reformation worked? Is it any wonder that many use the figure 30,000 + different denominations. I stay away from that using that figure but there is no denying that there are hundreds if not thousands of different denominations all claiming to have the truth.

As when you say “…as far as they are in agreement…”, that is exactly the point that Catholics make. If I go to the church at the corner with the catchy name and I am not in agreement with what Pastor Bob is preaching, then I go to the next corner and build my own church and I preach what “Me, Myself, and I” agree with. I then make the claim that “I am lead the by Spirit, and not by men. I am following the bible and not man’s interpretation. I have the truth.” I, I, I,. Ayy, yayayyyy. See where this personal interpretation is leading to?

 

[TobyLue]

gtrenewed

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 truly retains the essentials, they still prefer one parish over the other in a non essential matter.

I tend to somewhat agree with you on the bold part but with a major difference. While many protestants, (as I mentioned before and you so correctly state )will start their own church, using themselves as authority, which is what happened in the early years of the reformation, the Catholic who chooses a different parish, is still attending a Catholic Church who has the same Catechism, and is under the same authority, i.e. Bishop, Pope; whereas the protestants have no central authority and they can do as they please. This is where some cults have formed and gone off the deep end to their own destruction as we read in scripture. They have nobody who can rightfully claim the splinter group as been in heresy. By whose authority were the Donatist, Montanist, Gnostics declared a heresy with no bible around? All Catholic parishes are under the same authority. I cant leave the parish of St. Elmo and start my own parish of Santa Cachucha. The different parishes are all approved by the local bishop and be loyal to the Bishop and Pope, albeit some priests to their own thing. These are called abuses and we have a right to go to the Bishop and lodge our complain. When protestants churches split who do they go to?

As far as the essentials, many split on these same “essentials”. Is Baptism essential or not? Is OSAS essential or not?

 

[gtrenewed]

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’…

Unfortunately I did not complete my thought and left it at the hyperbole, oops

Their point was you cannot know what is essential from scripture but you seemed to pick up on it. I don’t understand why you took the opportunity to mock me then ending with “”, does this make it all better? I am not

The posters use of the verse seemed curious and ridiculous in that situation obviously not the verse itself.

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

You are not grasping what I am saying. I am not saying complete doctrine, which the Church teaches, I am saying essential. If scripture does not contain essential docrtine why do we even have it? We have it because it reinforces the essentials.

How can there be ‘separated brethren’ if the basic essentials are not contained in the bible which they solely use? It is the mercy of God. How can Paul tell Timothy that the sacred writings gave him wisdom leading to salvation? He is told that because it prepared Timothy to hear the preaching of the Apostles and to be completed in their doctrine.

Of course there are many private interpretations. That is in part what led me back; so, I am not defending protestantism but re-telling what I experienced when I was. I said before that the Church teaches the complete doctrine so I don’t understand why you felt it necessary to give examples about private interpretation as if you were teaching me something

Also it is not Acts but Mark 16:18 they use as the basis for handling snakes. Acts shows to them that scripture was not just hyperbole but was applied in life of the Apostles. Oh by the way, most protestants call them cultish and misapplying scripture as do I.

As a post script,
“Follow the words in red;
from rising until bed;
and you will be led;
safely home”

We are supposed to follow the words of Jesus, aren’t we? While someone may not understand all of them correctly, if they are seeking God that is a good place to start. That is why we pray for our separated brethren. Can you claim to follow all of Christs’ words? No one can, that is why there is confession.

Oh I almost forgot,** hope this helps**; this means you can’t be offended, right?

 

[gtrenewed]

gtrenewedUh, “work”? You actually believe the deformation, I mean the reformation worked? Is it any wonder that many use the figure 30,000 + different denominations. I stay away from that using that figure but there is no denying that there are hundreds if not thousands of different denominations all claiming to have the truth.

As when you say “…as far as they are in agreement…”, that is exactly the point that Catholics make. If I go to the church at the corner with the catchy name and I am not in agreement with what Pastor Bob is preaching, then I go to the next corner and build my own church and I preach what “Me, Myself, and I” agree with. I then make the claim that “I am lead the by Spirit, and not by men. I am following the bible and not man’s interpretation. I have the truth.” I, I, I,. Ayy, yayayyyy. See where this personal interpretation is leading to?

Again, did you not read my post that said I returned to the Catholic Church because of the various interpretations?

I said to make the reformation work in the mind of a protestant… not that it worked in the bigger picture.

You are stating here what I lived so you are saying nothing new.

I started this by giving an example of how a protestant views things from having been in that world. I stated I was not defending them just giving a point of view so that a lifelong Catholic might better understand. I did this because I felt some posters were starting mock and deride others instead of just sticking with the facts.

To me, the charitable apologists had more impact on me coming back. They would give me facts, they would counter my points but they never used sarcasm, or mocking my point of view even when I made outlandish statements. If I thought they did they apologized even if they didn’t think they were being that way.

I have seen much derision on this thread from a few posters. Granted, the OP seems to want to debate more than learn but you can’t assume anything. Be patient, keep repeating truth charitably even if they are not and maybe they will be thanking you in the future.

 

[gtrenewed]

gtrenewedI tend to somewhat agree with you on the bold part but with a major difference. While many protestants, (as I mentioned before and you so correctly state )will start their own church, using themselves as authority, which is what happened in the early years of the reformation, the Catholic who chooses a different parish, is still attending a Catholic Church who has the same Catechism, and is under the same authority

Yea, like I said, I lived it, I am not defending it.

If you would have bolded one more line I said the same thing, a Catholic retains the true essentials. So why did you miss that? Why wasn’t that line bolded?

 

[gtrenewed]

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:

Yes the Catholic Church.

I was explaining the view from a protestant point of view, not defending it. Since I went to bible school, and was a pastor who studied and dialogued with different denominations, I thought I would share to give a better understanding for lifelong Catholics. I felt some on this thread were not being charitable. My experience here when I was searching and defending various views was the patient charitable posters using truth had a bigger impact than the derisive, mocking posters using cute smiley faces even though they may be speaking truth.

It appears my statement about essential doctrine has created the impression that I support personal interpretation, which I don’t, since that is one area that led me back.

 

[gtrenewed]

That there are essential doctrines, I proclaim quite loudly and proudly. That Scripture tells us what they are, I demur.

One needs an extra-biblical source, that is, the Church, to discern what these essential doctrines are.

For Scripture does not tell us.

Which is why you reject Malachi 1:11 as being an essential.

If you use Scripture alone, you and I will simply go round and round about whether it’s essential or not.

Thankfully, there is the Catholic Church to proclaim that which is essential.

I do not reject Malachi 1:11 what I found curious is why you used it to deny essential when it is?

True two protestants will agree on essentials in scripture up to a point and then will diverge; that is one reason I returned.

However, by the mercy and grace of God we can know esentials from scripture for that is what our separated brethren use solely. To know the complete essentials we need the Church. You have called them non-catholic christians. To become a christian, one must know some essential doctrine. To know complete essential doctrine, one needs the Catholic Church.

 

[TobyLue]

gtrenewed

If you would have bolded one more line I said the same thing, a Catholic retains the true essentials. So why did you miss that? Why wasn’t that line bolded?

Sorry, but it seems we keep misunderstanding each other - I was not arguing the points you made. As I said “I agree with you”. I was just restating in a different manner. I guess I didnt bold it as I was in a rush to go to Mass this morning - I think the best thing to do for me at least is just go bow out of this thread before there are anymore understandings and BTW, welcome back; glad to have you back.

Now, I ask you to please say a prayer For the relatives of TobyLue who have left the Church-- (to become their own popes and other to join the JW cult.) One brother and his wife form their own “We are not Catholics but Christians” Church.

A nephew on my wife side and his wife had a debate with me concerning JW’s. I posed several questions that they were not able to answer and said they would have to check on them and get back to me. That happened on a Saturday Evening. Next day, after my family was coming back from Mass, we saw them leaving in a hurry from our house as they came to say hi to my Mother in law, who was staying with us. They rushed to their car and have not set foot in our house ever since. I would say that they were probably told to stay away from us.

Thanks and God Bless…

 

[gtrenewed]

gtrenewedSorry, but it seems we keep misunderstanding each other - I was not arguing the points you made. As I said “I agree with you”. I was just restating in a different manner. I guess I didnt bold it as I was in a rush to go to Mass this morning - I think the best thing to do for me at least is just go bow out of this thread before there are anymore understandings and BTW, welcome back; glad to have you back.

Now, I ask you to please say a prayer For the relatives of TobyLue who have left the Church-- (to become their own popes and other to join the JW cult.) One brother and his wife form their own “We are not Catholics but Christians” Church.

A nephew on my wife side and his wife had a debate with me concerning JW’s. I posed several questions that they were not able to answer and said they would have to check on them and get back to me. That happened on a Saturday Evening. Next day, after my family was coming back from Mass, we saw them leaving in a hurry from our house as they came to say hi to my Mother in law, who was staying with us. They rushed to their car and have not set foot in our house ever since. I would say that they were probably told to stay away from us.

Thanks and God Bless…

Thanks for your apology. I’m sorry for my part as well. When we dialogue humbly and charitably much can be accomplished. Even with stubborn opponents. I try, I don’t always succceed.

I’m sorry to hear about some of your family. I will pray. Since it is off thread you can send me a private message if you want to talk more; otherwise, I’ll will pray.

God Bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

You present an interesting case here…

Even though you highlight it, I still disagree with you. One can know what is the weightiest in scripture; just because two may come up with different lists does not mean that it cannot be known. I believe that God builds in that protection but that it must be sought after and not just checked off of a list. Many of the parables of Jesus reflect this. In fact, love God and your neighbor as yourself sums up the essential and that is stated in scripture.

While we are free to agree or disagree with any and all posters, we need to have a basis for discussing our position. To say, “One can know…” appears to put the argument in the realm of intuition - and that realm is beyond debate… Our knowledge must be based on something that others can objectively ‘weigh’.

While this works out very neatly in the various fields of science - e.g., given two different pieces of metal with an unknown weights - we can have a dozen people weight them and record their results - and then compare the findings. We can graph the results, average the results, discuss the scale used to make these measurements - and even the qualifications of the people doing the weighing. All well and good - BECAUSE - this is a doable deed in a science class. Scripture is not like this.

Unlike the science example above that is only looking at one reality (weight) , Scripture is looking at multiple realities - all directed by God. While we may ASSUME that the different metals have different weights - and then weight then to find out if this is the case - we simply can not do this with Scripture. Note: Scripture does not identify what is essential - so, how is a person to make such a determination?

In the lists provided by PRmeger - there is NO MENTION of the Real Presence and the necessity Christ placed on us actaully eating His Flesh ("…Real Food…") and drinking His Blood (…Real Drink…") In fact, failing to follow Christ’s command here - we won’t have any life in us! Well, that sounds pretty serious to me - yet these Protest lists of so-essential beliefs excludes them. In my opinion, these list of ‘essential’ truths is simply an effort to develop a set of common denomenators - to try and limit the amout of ‘personal interpretation’ available so that 30,000+ doesn’t expand further.

You are quite right in searching the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the answers as opposed to a list. But, I think that when you say, “One can know…” you have started down a slippery slope - because there really are things that one can not just know on their own.

God bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

You present an interesting case here…

However, by the mercy and grace of God we can know esentials from scripture for that is what our separated brethren use solely. To know the complete essentials we need the Church. You have called them non-catholic christians. To become a christian, one must know some essential doctrine. To know complete essential doctrine, one needs the Catholic Church.

I missed this when I posted my response…

As I understand this post - what you are saying is that our knowledge does not come from self or our ability to weigh items - but, rather, from the teachings of the Catholic Church,.

I am in total agreement with you there…

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Yes the Catholic Church.

I was explaining the view from a protestant point of view, not defending it. Since I went to bible school, and was a pastor who studied and dialogued with different denominations, I thought I would share to give a better understanding for lifelong Catholics. I felt some on this thread were not being charitable. My experience here when I was searching and defending various views was the patient charitable posters using truth had a bigger impact than the derisive, mocking posters using cute smiley faces even though they may be speaking truth.

It appears my statement about essential doctrine has created the impression that I support personal interpretation, which I don’t, since that is one area that led me back.

Hi GT,

I think you misunderstood my point.

I really AM INTERESTED on how you would refute your own presentation of the Protestant view.

Because you are a revert, how did you sort out in your mind the objections you presented as against the position of the Catholic church.

To clarify my point.

You said that according to Protestants X=Y and gives reasoning for this.

Now that you are a Catholic, how did you refute the reasoning given for X=Y such that you came to the conclusion that X is not equal to Y.

I think that in your mind, you would have had some pretty good answers to this Protestant position that you have put forward.

Peace!

Cory

 

[PRmerger]

You are not grasping what I am saying. I am not saying complete doctrine, which the Church teaches, I am saying essential.** If scripture does not contain essential docrtine why do we even have it**?

This in bold is conspicuous in its lack of understanding the point.

No one here is stating that “Scripture does not contain essential doctrine.”

It is a straw man.

What is being maintained is that one needs something **outside of Scripture **to declare what these esential doctrines (which, of course, can be found either implicitly or explicitly in Scripture) are.

That non-Catholic Christians declare “essentials” yet do not acknowledge extra-biblical tradition is where their error lies.