Personal interpretation

[PRmerger]

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

It is an essential because the Catholic Church has discerned it is.

[SIGN1]There is nothing in Scripture which tells us what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not essential.
[/SIGN1]

One needs an outside authority to declare this.

Thus, when Protestants declare that they agree on the “essentials”, I always ask what verses tell them what’s essential and what’s not.

Inevitably, they always provide a list of their own perceptions of essential Scripture verses. This is not helpful, because, of course, they cannot provide any chapter or verse which indicates why verse A is essential but verse B is not.

However, by the mercy and grace of God we can know esentials from scripture for that is what our separated brethren use solely.

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”, but* only from an outside tradition*–either a man-made, personal one in the case of Protestants, or a sacred one, in the case of Catholicism.

To know the complete essentials we need the Church.

Yes.

You have called them non-catholic christians. To become a christian, one must know some essential doctrine.

Indeed.

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Maybe it is my imagination, but you appear to be rather sensitive to the posts. I do not mock anyone - but, I will take the time to tell you where I think you have run off the road. And, believe me, your emphasis on ‘essential doctrine’ is moving your position further and further out on a limb.

Ultimately, if we want to talke about the ‘success’ of the so-called ‘reformation’ in wounding the Body of Christ - the same Christ Who prayed for unity - that may be an interesting thread. However, 30,000+ different groups all leading souls AWAY from what Christ actually taught by claiming to have faith in Christ is all that is needed - looks like a disaster or an on-going train wreck if you ask me. I say, so-called ‘reformation’ because what took place was a total break from virtually everything the Catholic Church teaches. What developed was a totally different group of ideas - that continue to change before our very eyes. Christ did not say, “Watch me change - over and over and over again!” No, He said, “Follow me!” and we do this through the Church He gave us - the Catholic Church.

I realize that you have spent a lot of time being true to the Protestant causse - and have now reverted to the Catholic Church. I really and truly want to be welcomed and embraced - I also would encourage you to look at the Church’s teaching about particular topics (the CCC is an excellent source) rather than your old and familiar texts that more often than not do not uphold Catholic teaching.

While trying to be diplomatic, I think this is topic for some straight from the shoulder conversation. ‘Personal interpretation’ really has been the root cause for all of these splinter groups and provided active encouragement for those who have left the commands of Christ to follow the traditions of men. This is serious matter.

God bless

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.

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?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

I think you are totally correct:thumbsup:

And, honestly, I have not found anything that would lead me to believe your posts have been negative, condescending or mocking. I really believe that there is a need for straight forward identification of the truths given by the Catholic Church. There is no reason to be offensive in doing this - but, a bashfulness that essentially hides what is the Light of Christ benefits no one.

God bless

It is an essential because the Catholic Church has discerned it is.

[SIGN1]There is nothing in Scripture which tells us what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not essential.
[/SIGN1]

One needs an outside authority to declare this.

Thus, when Protestants declare that they agree on the “essentials”, I always ask what verses tell them what’s essential and what’s not.

Inevitably, they always provide a list of their own perceptions of essential Scripture verses. This is not helpful, because, of course, they cannot provide any chapter or verse which indicates why verse A is essential but verse B is not.

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”, but* only from an outside tradition*–either a man-made, personal one in the case of Protestants, or a sacred one, in the case of Catholicism.

Yes.

Indeed.

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

I think you are totally correct

And, honestly, I have not found anything that would lead me to believe your posts have been negative, condescending or mocking.

Thanks, Tom.

I know you’ve got my back!

Incidentally, while I have been accused of lots of things in my posts from posters who disagree with me, I have never received a single warning from a mod that my posts are rude, condescending, etc.

Not to toot my own horn, I bring this forth only to show a more objective fact about how my posts are perceived.

It seems that when folks cannot disagree with the truth that is presented, they resort to straw men. Or to attacking the imagine tone of my posts.

 

[Cinette]

It is an essential because the Catholic Church has discerned it is.

[SIGN1]There is nothing in Scripture which tells us what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not essential.
[/SIGN1]

One needs an outside authority to declare this.

Thus, when Protestants declare that they agree on the “essentials”, I always ask what verses tell them what’s essential and what’s not.

Inevitably, they always provide a list of their own perceptions of essential Scripture verses. This is not helpful, because, of course, they cannot provide any chapter or verse which indicates why verse A is essential but verse B is not.

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”, but* only from an outside tradition*–either a man-made, personal one in the case of Protestants, or a sacred one, in the case of Catholicism.

Yes.

Indeed.

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

*I am a revert and consider myself a kindergarten Catholic Christian. I have never come across this subject of “essentials” before and can only imagine that our friend G (can’t remember his num de plume here) who is also a revert and was Protestant for a time has not yet rid himself of the Protestant mindset.

When one talks of essentials the first thing that comes to mind is John 6 - the Eucharist, source and summit of our Catholic faith - which, sadly, is interpreted as a mere symbol by non-Catholics. Other than that I would say that the 4 gospels are essentials and then when one considers Acts and the epistles…they also are excellent and essential.

I shall continue to read and learn.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

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.

*Hello G! I bet you are sorry you ever mentioned “essentials”.:bigyikes: Don’t be. I am glad you did because it got the debate hotted up. And I am learning.

Yes, we sometimes get a little aggressive and hot under the collar but it is because some posters who come to this forum do so just to irk Catholics. They do not debate honestly and say the most ghastly things and we get hot under the collar. I hope it does not happen to you.

I have been reflecting about this recently and prayed that I might be more gracious and charitable. The people you are thinking of are truly the nicest people but they have been debating on other threads with people who only talk to themselves! Then they come to this thread still heated up. Forgive them.

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

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.

*Essentials! Essentials! Thank God for essentials! They brought gtrenewed back home!
:extrahappy:

Cinette*

 

[PRmerger]

When one talks of essentials the first thing that comes to mind is John 6 - the Eucharist, source and summit of our Catholic faith - which, sadly, is interpreted as a mere symbol by non-Catholics. Other than that I would say that the 4 gospels are essentials and then when one considers Acts and the epistles…they also are excellent and essential.

All excellent and essentially essential, these.

And, of course the NT could not exist without the OT, thus one cannot forgot that the OT is also essential.

 

[gtrenewed]

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

Sorry Cory, I totally misunderstood your post.

For my journey, I came to two realizations from Scripture that I considered essential:
1 - that baptism is a necessary part of salvation;
2 - that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus;

This realization led me to seek out how the first believers acted out their faith. After this I looked at the Orthodox faith who is separated from Rome but traces itself to the Apostles. Their liturgy pretty much mirrors the Catholic so that confirmed to me that from ancient times the liturgy was passed down from the Apostles. I thought that if the Orthodox are is schism yet the liturgy looks essenbtially the same, this must have been what was taught by the Apostles.

Once you acknowledge that the mass is what the Apostles taught, there are basically two organizations that have this: Catholic and Orthodox. Since I was born in a Catholic family, I felt I should submit to the Catholic Church Catechism.

That is why I contend one can know what is essential from scripture. By this statement I do not mean that one can pick and choose what is essential over the teaching of the Apostles. The Bereans searched scripture to verify in their own mind that what Paul was teaching about Jesus was true.

I could never convince very many other protestants about baptism and communion when I was a protestant. But I did have success in convincing many of them that Catholics could be born again christians as they understood being born again. I considered that a huge step in presenting the church as the first church with the mass as the first liturgy. To Catholics who have left the church, I may have more effect because I have lived both sides of the debate.

Ultimately since none of us have experienced the fruit of salvation in heaven, it is all done by faith. I decided that for me the faith that Jesus taught is expressed by the Catholic Church. When I was pastoring we occupied a church that used to be a Brethren Church. On the wall they left a plague that said “unless God builds the house, they labor in vain”. Through the years I meditated on that scripture and it turned out to be essential in my journey.

God Bless and thanks for asking.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I enjoyed reading your response. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us.

God bless

Sorry Cory, I totally misunderstood your post.

For my journey, I came to two realizations from Scripture that I considered essential:
1 - that baptism is a necessary part of salvation;
2 - that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus;

This realization led me to seek out how the first believers acted out their faith. After this I looked at the Orthodox faith who is separated from Rome but traces itself to the Apostles. Their liturgy pretty much mirrors the Catholic so that confirmed to me that from ancient times the liturgy was passed down from the Apostles. I thought that if the Orthodox are is schism yet the liturgy looks essenbtially the same, this must have been what was taught by the Apostles.

Once you acknowledge that the mass is what the Apostles taught, there are basically two organizations that have this: Catholic and Orthodox. Since I was born in a Catholic family, I felt I should submit to the Catholic Church Catechism.

That is why I contend one can know what is essential from scripture. By this statement I do not mean that one can pick and choose what is essential over the teaching of the Apostles. The Bereans searched scripture to verify in their own mind that what Paul was teaching about Jesus was true.

I could never convince very many other protestants about baptism and communion when I was a protestant. But I did have success in convincing many of them that Catholics could be born again christians as they understood being born again. I considered that a huge step in presenting the church as the first church with the mass as the first liturgy. To Catholics who have left the church, I may have more effect because I have lived both sides of the debate.

Ultimately since none of us have experienced the fruit of salvation in heaven, it is all done by faith. I decided that for me the faith that Jesus taught is expressed by the Catholic Church. When I was pastoring we occupied a church that used to be a Brethren Church. On the wall they left a plague that said “unless God builds the house, they labor in vain”. Through the years I meditated on that scripture and it turned out to be essential in my journey.

God Bless and thanks for asking.

 

[gtrenewed]

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

I see you are evolving from “we cannot know essentials” to “they know something is essential”.

Simply put, we know something is essential, not because it is highlighted as such, but because Scripture is God breathed and we have the Spirit of God. For this to work properly we have to be submitted to the Church as God set it up. That is the error of the protestant who accept some but reject others.

It really is not about private interpretations but about submission.

 

[PRmerger]

I see you are evolving from “we cannot know essentials” to “they know something is essential”.

Where have I stated that we cannot know essentials?

My point has always been that Scripture does not declare what’s essential doctrine–one needs an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture to discern this.

Thus, the SS advocate who argues from “essentials” is paradoxical–for there are no Scripture verses which declare what’s an essential. He must rely on an OUTSIDE authority.

Simply put, we know something is essential, not because it is highlighted as such, but because Scripture is God breathed and we have the Spirit of God.

What you are saying is that we know something is revealed (not essential), not because it is highlighted as such, but because Scripture is God-breathed and we have the Spirit of God.

Incidentally, one would not know what is “God-breathed” were it not for, again, an OUTSIDE authority.

For this to work properly we have to be submitted to the Church as God set it up. That is the error of the protestant who accept some but reject others.

Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Where have I stated that we cannot know essentials?

I a bit confused by GT’s assertion that I have stated that we cannot know essentials.

See a summary below of my posts. Not one of them states the above, but only re-iterates my position that essentials are not listed in Scripture, but by the Church.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

It is an essential because the Catholic Church has discerned it is.

[SIGN1]There is nothing in Scripture which tells us what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not essential.
[/SIGN1]

One needs an outside authority to declare this.

Thus, when Protestants declare that they agree on the “essentials”, I always ask what verses tell them what’s essential and what’s not.

Inevitably, they always provide a list of their own perceptions of essential Scripture verses. This is not helpful, because, of course, they cannot provide any chapter or verse which indicates why verse A is essential but verse B is not.

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”, but* only from an outside tradition*–either a man-made, personal one in the case of Protestants, or a sacred one, in the case of Catholicism.

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

All excellent and essentially essential, these.

And, of course the NT could not exist without the OT, thus one cannot forgot that the OT is also essential.

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I enjoyed reading your response. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us.

God bless

Somehow I feel like I am being set up here Just kidding…really. Thanks for all your posts to me whether agreeing or disagreeing.

God Bless

 

[gtrenewed]

I a bit confused by GT’s assertion that I have stated that we cannot know essentials.

It was in your post

Just click on the link in my original post to bring up your post which I edited down to the relevant lines.

 

[PRmerger]

It was in your post

Just click on the link in my original post to bring up your post which I edited down to the relevant lines.

Originally Posted by gtrenewed
I see you are evolving from “we cannot know essentials” to “they know something is essential”.

Read my post below. There is nothing at all that states we cannot know essentials.

It is an essential because the Catholic Church has discerned it is.

[SIGN1]There is nothing in Scripture which tells us what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not essential.
[/SIGN1]

One needs an outside authority to declare this.

Thus, when Protestants declare that they agree on the “essentials”, I always ask what verses tell them what’s essential and what’s not.

Inevitably, they always provide a list of their own perceptions of essential Scripture verses. This is not helpful, because, of course, they cannot provide any chapter or verse which indicates why verse A is essential but verse B is not.

Absolutely not. We cannot “know essentials from Scripture”, but* only from an outside tradition*–either a man-made, personal one in the case of Protestants, or a sacred one, in the case of Catholicism.

Yes.

Indeed.

Yet the reason they know something is “essential” is NOT because Scripture has declared it to be.

 

[PRmerger]

If scripture does not contain essential docrtine why do we even have it? We have it because it reinforces the essentials.

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

I see you are evolving from “we cannot know essentials” to “they know something is essential”.

Please stop creating straw men, GT.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

I really do not think you have to worry about me ‘setting you up’. If there is a problem, I aim and shoot. If there isn’t a problem… everything is cool!

Let me tell you that I do not think you (or any other individual) can KNOW what is essential in Scripture - just like you can not know the Table of Contents by just reading all of the UN-ASSEMBELED Books that have gone into making the Bible (we won’t even go near all of the books that were considered - and ultimately with some being rejected and some accepted by the Catholic Church that have given us the Bible we use today.)

The reason why I do not think any one person can know what is essential is the 400+ year history of the multi-splinterings of Protestantism. All of those guys were not only believers in knowing what is essential - they could provide personal interpretation to back up anything they came up with! Let’s see now…

Baptism is essential … well, maybe, some call it an ordinance, some say it is optional, some forbid infants and children, while some follow Christ’s command to let the little children come to Him. Some don’t use water, while some fully immerse in a local river. And, all of these groups claim they know what is essential. Now, this is just one of the Seven Sacraments - and, we really can not determine what is objectively essential as demonstrated by the 30,000+ Protestant groups, assemblies, tabernacles, bodies, congregations - all claiming to be a church that can unite them to Christ.

Make no mistake about it - each of us can come up with our own list of what we think is essential - and I guarantee, if there were two of us, there would be two different lists. If there were 30,000 of us, there would be 30,000 different ‘essential lists’. We can all correctly claim that we know was are the three ESSENTIAL elements for a fire: heat, air, fuel. Remove any one of them and the fire goes out. Add another element and the fire contineus to burn - remove an essential element - even with the new one you have just added - and the fire goes out. That is what essential really means.

This would be an impossible situation (like all the chaos that is present in today’s Protestantism) if the Catholic Church had not stepped in and defined the doctrines of our Faith. For example - you can have all the personal interpretation you want when it comes to the Genisis creation accouint. Did God take six 24-hour days or billions of years? That is not the issue decided by the Catholic Church - what is essential is that God created everything out of nothing. How He did it - well, you can have all the theories you want, as long as you maintain the All-Powerful nature of God to create how and when He pleases.

What we really need to know is what (if anything) has the Catholic Church identified as essential - and then go with that.

God bless

Somehow I feel like I am being set up here Just kidding…really. Thanks for all your posts to me whether agreeing or disagreeing.

God Bless

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Let me tell you that I do not think you (or any other individual) can KNOW what is essential in Scripture

Jesus said “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself”

Is this essential (or as the dictionary says ‘of utmost importance’)?

There are people who the Catechism refer to as separated brethren, other Christians in the world. These separated brethren would say yes, this scripture is an essential. They have never been exposed to what the Catechism says.

They know this because they believe that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says it is inspired. This is their faith. So they know an essential. They are not complete outside of the Church but they are Christian.

I don’t mean that denominations that use private interpretations of what is completely essential (obviously wrong to you and me) as an arguement against knowing what is an essential or some of or many of the essentials.

The reformation was wrong but we are so far removed from it that many protestants don’t even think about being in protest but are merely trying to worship Jesus as Lord. Graciously, God has provided a way for them, Scripture and the Church declaring that they are part of the Church whether they know it or not.

We can all correctly claim that we know was are the three ESSENTIAL elements for a fire: heat, air, fuel. Remove any one of them and the fire goes out. Add another element and the fire contineus to burn - remove an essential element - even with the new one you have just added - and the fire goes out. That is what essential really means.

You have used science techniques in several posts. Jesus said to Thomas, “you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.” We cannot always see faith as objectively as science, there are mysteries that will never be explained in this life. The Eucharist is a prime example.

Desire is an essential concept. The Catechism talks of people who have desire and if they had the opportunity and not had some major impediment to the Catholic Church they would be part of it. Now, I am not qualified to judge those circumstances, nor am I defending protestantism but I am just saying while I had impediments, it was more important for me to submit to the Catechism than maybe a person whose known family tree was protestant, God will judge.

What we really need to know is what (if anything) has the Catholic Church identified as essential - and then go with that.

Agreed

 

[gtrenewed]

Essentials! Essentials! Thank God for essentials! They brought gtrenewed back home!
:extrahappy:

Cinette

Thanks for keeping us grounded in what matters:thumbsup:

Jesus said “My words they are spirit and they are life”

When brothers and sisters in the Lord share words of encouragement we share in that spirit and life

God Bless