Personal interpretation

[gtrenewed]

Tradition with a capital T is the Oral Tradition which the Apostles used to spread the Good News. Scripture emanated from Tradition. What do you mean by “Traditions learned from scripture”?

Perhaps non-Catholics consider their interpretations of some scripture to be “traditions” with a small t ie Sola Scripture, Sola Fide.

Yes, I agree. Protestants have traditions that they base on their interpretation of scripture that I am not defending just giving a point of view from my time there but not defending it. Haven’t I said this over and over enough though?

 

[Cinette]

Yes, I agree. Protestants have traditions that they base on their interpretation of scripture that I am not defending just giving a point of view from my time there but not defending it. Haven’t I said this over and over enough though?

*Yes, and we have been warned about traditions of man.

Cinette*

 

[gtrenewed]

It is an honest question.

Not to mention, sarcasm means I indicate the opposite of what I’ve been saying. As in, “Nice job”. Said sarcastically it would indicate that I really think you’ve done a poor job.

To say that my question is sarcastic does not even make sense.

Here is a definition also.
“Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.”

If they discerned any essentials it was through use of non-Scriptural tradition–either in convergence with the CC, or of their own authority, but it was not simply by reading Scripture.

They use scripture by their own authority; yet by the mercy of God they understand the essential of being a christian.

 

[gtrenewed]

That there are essentials, no one here denies.

That one knows these essentials form Scripture, nope.:nope:

One needs an OUTSIDE authority–the Catholic Church–to discern them.

If you ask a Baptist, an Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Lutheran if baptism is an essential, you’re not going to get any agreement.

Is baptism an essential doctrine for non-Catholic Christians or not, gt?

To some it is; to some it is not; that is why I reverted. But you still have no understanding on this you just keep saying no without any proof just opinion.

Of course it takes the church to tells us authoritively.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is a definition also.
“Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.”

Fair enough.

That is another definition of sarcasm. It doesn’t apply to my comments, but I accept your other definition.

They use scripture by their own authority; yet by the mercy of God they understand the essential of being a christian.

Indeed. Being a Christian is essential to one’s salvation.

However, again, knowing what the essentials are cannot be gleaned from Scripture alone. One needs an OUTSIDE authority; thus, being a SS advocate while being an “essentials” advocate are untenable.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course it takes the church to tells us authoritively.

Excellent. Scripture cannot tell us what’s an essential.

You cannot use Scripture to glean whether Acts 2:13 is essential. If you could, you would be able to cite another verse, from Scripture, which limns this.

 

[gtrenewed]

Actually, I agree with Catholic apologist John Martignoni who states that there are more likely millions of Christian denominations. To say “tens of thousands”, then, is being gracious, IMHO.

From your link:
According to Martignoni:
“There are many Protestants who come up with legitimate interpretations of many passages of Scripture based on their own private reading of the Bible.”

"Finally, I never say that one needs “Rome’s infallible interpreter” to come to a “correct understanding” of any given Scripture passage. The Catholic Church has, as far as I know, rarely stated in a definitive manner what this or that particular verse of the Bible means. So, no, we do not need “Rome’s infallible interpreter” to understand all of the Bible. However, what we do need, just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 needed, is a guide. A guide that doesn’t have to translate every single verse for us, but rather a guide that will tell us if we have gone out of bounds in our interpretation of any given verse. And that is what the Catholic Church provides for her children. The Church lays down the boundaries within which we are free to interpret Scripture as we feel led by the Holy Spirit to do. If we step outside of those boundaries, then the Church is there to provide correction and guidance and understanding. "

This is what I have been saying. A protestant can come to a correct understanding of essential doctrine in scripture. They know it is essential by virtue of understanding it. They would know acts 2:13, your example, is not essential salvation doctrine by virtue of understanding it. That is how they become christian; however, due to human weakness they do not understand all of it and that is why there is division.

His other point would be true of millions of denominations taking into consideration that for the protestant it is about personal responsibility. They feel that since they will stand before God’s judgement alone, they alone are ultimately responsible for following God. And they believe since God requires this He will give them what they need from scripture. So in that sense Martignoni is correct that virtually every protestant is setting themselves up as a denomination. However, they are grouped in numbers that divide that down.

Thanks for that link. I’ll read it more.

 

[PRmerger]

This is what I have been saying. A protestant can come to a correct understanding of essential doctrine in scripture.

It seems that you are changing the argument.

An “understanding of essential doctrines" is quite different from "an understanding of what these essential doctrines are.”

Very different, indeed.

And, just 'cause you want to argue with me, and I’m rather enjoying this, I will continue.

To be sure: a Protestant can come to a correct understanding of essential doctrine in Scripture.

When a Protestant says, “There is one God”, that is correct.
When a Protestant says, “Jesus is Divine”, that is correct.
When a Protestant says, “The Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ”, that is correct.

NOW! When a Protestant says, “The Bible says that “A” an essential doctrine”, I will have to ask him, “Where does the Bible say that?” and he will have to give some obfuscations, and some ambiguous responses, but he will NOT be able to state, “Bible Verse Z says that Belief A is an essential doctrine.”

One needs the CHURCH to proclaim this to be an essential.

They know it is essential by virtue of understanding it.

This is absurd. All Protestants can understand [BIBLEDRB]Psalm 44:2[/BIBLEDRB]

but that doesn’t mean it’s an essential because they “understand” it.

 

[PRmerger]

His other point would be true of millions of denominations taking into consideration that for the protestant it is about personal responsibility. They feel that since they will stand before God’s judgement alone, they alone are ultimately responsible for following God. And they believe since God requires this He will give them what they need from scripture. So in that sense Martignoni is correct that virtually every protestant is setting themselves up as a denomination.

Exactly. Tis a sad but true fruit of the Reformation. :sad_yes:

Thanks for that link. I’ll read it more.

I hope you do. Just a friendly warning, though, you seem to be quite sensitive and Mr. Martignoni’s style is fresh, frank and a bit on the sarcastic side.

Just sayin’.

 

[gtrenewed]

It seems that you are changing the argument.

An “understanding of essential doctrines" is quite different from "an understanding of what these essential doctrines are.”

Very different, indeed.

This has been the disagreement all along. I have always maintained that we can know what is essential in scripture. I have not changed the arguement.

To draw the distinction above shows a lack of understanding on your part. When I understand a verse or verses in context; I also understand if it is essential. I understand Acts 1:5 and I know that Acts 1:5 is essential for the christian. As I read on in scripture this is confirmed many times.

The completeness of the essentials in scripture becomes confused without the Church but not to the point of being rejected by the Church as non-christian unless they deny certain essentials like Mormons or JW’s.

To be sure: a Protestant can come to a correct understanding of essential doctrine in Scripture.

When a Protestant says, “There is one God”, that is correct.
When a Protestant says, “Jesus is Divine”, that is correct.
When a Protestant says, “The Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ”, that is correct.

NOW! When a Protestant says, “The Bible says that “A” an essential doctrine”, I will have to ask him, “Where does the Bible say that?” and he will have to give some obfuscations, and some ambiguous responses, but he will NOT be able to state, “Bible Verse Z says that Belief A is an essential doctrine.”

One needs the CHURCH to proclaim this to be an essential.

All Protestants can understand Psalm 44:2 but that doesn’t mean it’s an essential because they “understand” it.

I never said that every understood verse in scripture means that it is essential to be considered a non-catholic christian.

I said an essential verse can be known/understood as essential.

Without the Church though an essential can be missed or misapplied. While they have known essentials enough to be declared a separated christian, they missed or misapplied others that would make them Catholic.

It seems to me you are mixing two arguements. It seems to me that you are trying to counter the sola scriptura position by denying that they can know an essential doctrine as essential solely from scripture. The sola scriptura arguement does not belong here.

I deny the sola scriptura position, that is that scripture is the sole authority. However, I still maintain that anyone can know what is an essential doctrine from that scripture or group of scriptures alone but they run the risk of misapplying it without the authority of the Church.

By understanding the verse “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” in the context of the entire new testament comes the understanding that this is essential.

By understanding the verse “you must believe that God is and that He is the rewarder of those that diligently seek Him” we have the understanding that this is an essential.

By understanding the verses that relate to the Apostles Creed, we have the understanding of what is essential to be a christian.

Sola Scriptura says that scripture is the sole authority, it shows a human weakness in not understanding that Jesus taught the Apostles and they in turn passed on that teaching and that Jesus’ authority was passed down to the Apostles and they in turn passed down that authority and that in scripture and in the early church (Tradition)Peter and then his successors were given a primary position.

A person can indeed know, that is understand, essential doctrine from Scripture alone but outside of the Church they cannot know it completely and they are subject to incorrect application. That is why there are various divisions in protestanism.

 

[gtrenewed]

I hope you do. Just a friendly warning, though, you seem to be quite sensitive and Mr. Martignoni’s style is fresh, frank and a bit on the sarcastic side.

Just sayin’.

I briefly read that he admits to responding in like kind. But he claims much patience with an honest discussion without accusations. Since I try not to be antagonistic I should be ok. Although I try to live up to 2 Timothy 2:24 and 25. Not always successful, but I try.

I bring it up so much because it is used so much on this forum unjustly. I am trying to bring it to light in the hopes of a better dialogue; I am more aggravated by it than sensitive. I can only suggest, though, for each poster is free to post in any manner they choose until busted by a moderator.

Well I guess we have ‘worn out the carpet’ on this one, each of us is holding to our position. So I will say God’s Blessing on your journey in Christ.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

There is, in my opinion, a major problem with your presentation…

This is where we diverge. It is hard to conceive since alot has been handed down in both traditions but if a person got hold of new testament scripture who was never exposed to either tradition they would have the words of Jesus which according to Jesus are spirit and life. They could come to faith in Jesus from the essentials illuminated by the Holy Spirit. They would not have the complete doctrine but they would know about and by the grace of God have eternal life in Jesus Christ.

For a hypothetical person (one not exposed to either tradition) to pick up the NT and read it and determine what is ‘essential’ we would have nothing short of a miracle! And, the reason for this is that there are 30,000 other guys (albeit who have some exposure to a tradition) who are all over the place on what is essential - and they can not agree on this. The proof of that pudding is there would have be one group effectively surrendering their Protestant position to another who has (or at least had) a different Protestant position.

Your hypothetical man would be confronted with the same problems that everyone else (of these 30,000 groups has confronted)…if it is not from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church then they are just spinning their wheels. Maybe your hypothetical man would think that plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand to avoid sin is essential - now what? Just because others do not believe this means nothing. He has determined it is essential - and now has maimed himself. Who is to set him straight (after he leaves the hospital!)?

Individuals who even think they can determine essential doctrine from the NT - without the expressed guidance of the Magisterium are simply setting themselves out on a limb that they are vigiorously sawing off from the tree. What ever else happens - there will be a doctrine that this hypothetical man determines is essential, and it isn’t - and he will think he is divinely inspired to argue with the Catholic Church - and, he isn’;t - to proclaim a new teaching on ‘essentials’.

In my view, this is a one-way street leading into a dead end. Once there, the issue will eventually become, how do we get out?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

I said an essential verse can be known/understood as essential.

Right.

It just can’t be known from Scripture alone.

Otherwise, you would have been able to cite what Scripture (book, chapter, verse) states that IActs 2:13 is essential or not.

Your inability to provide any verse indicating that another verse is essential proves my point.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Maybe I was not clear … so, let me try again…

They use scripture by their own authority; yet by the mercy of God they understand the essential of being a christian.

There is no doubt that some non-Catholics can read, comprehen and apply a scriptural verse - that is essential to salvaton - to their own lives. But, getting one item correct does not necessarily imply one will get the next one correct. Maybe an analogy would be helpful. While I do not know if the Russians were really responsible for the invention of their own form of ‘roulette’ … it has taken on their name. Where a revolver containing one round is spun so that the position of the round is unknown - and then the trigger pulled. If this game is played long enough - one will eventually find the round and it will kill them.

This emphasis on someone -however you wish to define them - determining what is essential for salvation is a loaded gun. Every time you insist someone can actually do this - in my opinion, you are spinning the cylinder. While you say that the Catholic Church is the definitve source… you have givem me the impression that there are other soucres that others can tap into and find out what is ‘essential’. Here is the danger - with everyone now on a quest for what is ‘essential’ just how much consistency do you think you will find if you were to write down all of these ‘essentials’?

My guess is that these various ‘essentials’ will show up as the dogmas of the various Protestant groups. Imagine a Southern Baptist thinking that everyone (including infants) should be baptized and he tells his idea to the congreagation. What do you think his congregation will say? Or, imagine a Methodist thinking that Christ delegated the power to forgive sins to men, and he tells his idea to the congregation. Whod do you think his congregation will say? These individuals think they have found an ‘essential’ truth - but, ones not believed by their respective congregations. What happens next?

What is essential is that we conform our lives to Christ and His Commands. How we do this is to obey His Word as expressed through the Catholic Church. Everything we need for salvation is taught and provided by the Catholic Church - and we will find that there are in fact many essentials to being a Christian.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Well, based on your criteria, I, too, lack understanding! Or, at least the type and amount necessary to agree with your statement!

This has been the disagreement all along. I have always maintained that we can know what is essential in scripture. I have not changed the arguement.

To draw the distinction above shows a lack of understanding on your part. When I understand a verse or verses in context; I also understand if it is essential. I understand Acts 1:5 and I know that Acts 1:5 is essential for the christian. As I read on in scripture this is confirmed many times.

Merely repeating your current argument over and over again, Gtrenewed, does not make it so. What would help to make it so would be if you were to provide some actual data to support your position.

Being long on opinion and short on fact will resolve nothing! Several posters have remarked that no where in the Bible does it say that a particular verse is ‘essential’ - yet you continue to cling to this unproven hypothesis of yours. Really, now is the time to actually mount a factual argument. With everyone going for ‘essentials’ and there being no single authority (save the Catholic Church) - there will be single list you can point to and say - here it is! There will be 30,000 groups, however all claiming to have the ‘essential’ beliefs as part of their belief system!

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

]Hi, Gtrenewed,

There is, in my opinion, a major problem with your presentation…

For a hypothetical person (one not exposed to either tradition) to pick up the NT and read it and determine what is ‘essential’ we would have nothing short of a miracle!

Too true. Too true. :sad_yes:

And, the reason for this is that there are 30,000 other guys (albeit who have some exposure to a tradition) who are all over the place on what is essential - and they can not agree on this.

Exactly.

Your hypothetical man would be confronted with the same problems that everyone else (of these 30,000 groups has confronted)…if it is not from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church then they are just spinning their wheels. Maybe your hypothetical man would think that plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand to avoid sin is essential - now what? Just because others do not believe this means nothing. He has determined it is essential - and now has maimed himself. Who is to set him straight** (after he leaves the hospital!)**?

That, tqualey, elicited a real life guffaw from me.

 

[PRmerger]

I briefly read that he admits to responding in like kind. But he claims much patience with an honest discussion without accusations.

You might be interested in reading what he says about essentials. (He states that one cannot know what they are from Scripture. In fact, as I have not read the entire Scriptures from cover to cover, the only reason I can assuredly say that the Bible does not have any verses which tell us what’s essential and what’s non-essential** is because I read John Martignoni say so on his website.** )

 

[PRmerger]

You might be interested in reading what he says about essentials. (He states that one cannot know what they are from Scripture. In fact, as I have not read the entire Scriptures from cover to cover, the only reason I can assuredly say that the Bible does not have any verses which tell us what’s essential and what’s non-essential** is because I read John Martignoni say so on his website.** )

Also, here’s something else Martignoni says about essentials in Scripture alone (bold mine):

“They won’t say it explicitly, but a lot of Christians believe that it is acceptable to have conflicting doctrines. “Well, even though we disagree on some of the non-essential doctrine, but we agree on essential doctrine” Sounds good, right? Open your Bible. WHICH doctrines does the Word say are essential/non-essential? That table/index does not exist. So who is deciding? It’s simply a way to justify contradictory and conflicting doctrine and not make an attempt at total reconciliation.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Why use ‘plain jane’ type analogies when totally outrageous ones - that still make the point - are so much more interesting?!!!

Exactly.
That, tqualey, elicited a real life guffaw from me.

So, let’s see if we can pray for God’s Grace to do good and avoid evil for today - and keep eye and hand both coordinated and intact!

God bless

 

[gtrenewed]

Hi, Gtrenewed,

Well, based on your criteria, I, too, lack understanding! Or, at least the type and amount necessary to agree with your statement!

Merely repeating your current argument over and over again, Gtrenewed, does not make it so. What would help to make it so would be if you were to provide some actual data to support your position.

Being long on opinion and short on fact will resolve nothing! Several posters have remarked that no where in the Bible does it say that a particular verse is ‘essential’ - yet you continue to cling to this unproven hypothesis of yours. Really, now is the time to actually mount a factual argument. With everyone going for ‘essentials’ and there being no single authority (save the Catholic Church) - there will be single list you can point to and say - here it is! There will be 30,000 groups, however all claiming to have the ‘essential’ beliefs as part of their belief system!

God bless

First consider these facts:
1- One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers;

2- Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit;

3- The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation;

My following conclusions are based on the facts above; summarized below:

1- the Church recognizes there are non-Catholic Christians;
2- a non-Catholic uses the Word of God to know God;
3- God desires to communicate with His children;
4- the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s Word;

A Christian can know what is essential in Scripture to know God as a Christian because our Heavenly Father wants them to know.

The divisions result from a misunderstanding of authority, from human weakness and by not being in submission to the Church.

They are a Christian community but they are not a Church. They make mistakes in defining doctrine because they were not given that authority.

The debate should not be about knowing essentials but about authority.