Personal Interpretation

[scylla]

So based upon the fundamentals, I am allowed to believe in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church and even reject personal interpretation of scripture.

I find a complete understanding of scripture when I have questions and have references the Catholic Church understanding, yet find confusion elsewhere, except on fundamentals, but even on those then you have people sincerely interpreting the Bible to interpretations differing on the fundamentals, as you called them.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[sandusky]

Aaron I.:

If you do not have issue with God guiding the Church in defining the canon, then why can’t you accept infallibility in other areas? What was particular about this case that seperates it from other areas?

I do not see the formation of the canon as infallibility, but inerrancy.

I do have a problem with papal infallibility, and I am not inclined to discuss it.

 

[sandusky]

scylla:

I find a complete understanding of scripture when I have questions and have references the Catholic Church understanding, yet find confusion elsewhere, except on fundamentals, but even on those then you have people sincerely interpreting the Bible to interpretations differing on the fundamentals, as you called them.

In Christ
Scylla

I am sure that we do not agree on exactly what the fundamentals are, and my list was deliberately not comprehensive. My point was to illustrate differing interpretations among God’s people within the framework of Christian liberty.

What are things that you consider to be fundamentals.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

Through the Holy Spirit, as He did with the writings.

When and to whom did the Holy Spirit communicate this message?

Whether or not there is a ban on any writing contained within the scripture is irrelevant.

The Gospel of Thomas, along with many, many others, were considered to be forgeries.

Irenaeus referred to them as “an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings…forged to bewilder the minds of the foolish.”

Whether or not there is a ban on any writing contained within the scripture is hardly irrelevant. It goes to the very heart of the matter. How can we interpret scripture unless we first know what scripture is?

 

[heisenburg]

My Friend,
Forgive me if I am being obstainant. as I am genuinly not trying to bode you, but my concerns are very simple…

I know you do not agree wiht us about having the ability to use a deposit of faith that is 2000 years old. That is what we use when we are learning scripture, my question is and has ben much less complicated than you are making it out to be.

How do you know your interpretation is correct. We already have differing interpretations on what 2 Peter 3:15-16 is saying. We have differing interpretations on what the end of chapter 1 is saying. So, obviously, even with reading the same scripture, praying to the same God, how is it we come to such differant interpretations of the same thing. What is obvious to you, is not obvious to me, and vice versa. My interpretation seems to you to be a twisting of scripture, the same goes for what you have said to me.

Are we hearing what we want to hear?
Are we being mislead by the devil?
Are we following the Spirit?

These are geniune questiosn i ahve and are Not meant to be rude or insulting on your beliefs. We do not have a problem with personal interpretation, our problem is how do you know your personal interpretation is correct. I know you do not agree with it, but we do have a very consise refrence to use when we are attempting to descern scripture. individuals may vary in there interpretations, but the over all church has not. From what i ahve seen, and i can be wrong, the same is not true for many protestant churches, and thus, you have so many varying interpretations on the same thing.

I am not trying to critisize your belief, so please forgive me if you think Iam being hostile, my posts are not meant to be. These are real questiosn I have. To me, and this could be a misrepresentation, I fullly admit it, It ahs always sounded like any one can interpret the bible how ever they want, and for god plan for them, it is infalible. Is this an accurate statement? If it is not, please correct it as I do not want to misrepresent it.

Personal Opinion is fine, Basing your entire belief on personal interpretations is Bad. because over time we WILL be led to faulty interpretations that in the end may throw you completly off…

Again, i am not meing to be hostile, If you feel I am, please forgive me.

To You in Christ

 

[kp1]

Ok, I have been watching this thread for a little while and I woke up feeling compelled to write today. A few points to consider about Sola Scriptura:

1. Which came first Doctrine or Scripture? Luther said the faith is based on scripture, then why did he take out eleven books to support his doctrines on Faith and Scripture alone in addition to adding the word “alone” to one line in his scripture that was never in a translation at that point. So is your scripture based on doctrine or doctrine on scripture. This is the reasoning why the Gospel of Thomas (doubting Thomas) was excluded from the RC’s Cannon, it went against doctrine as it supported the Gnostic beliefs.
2. How do you defend John 21:25 “There are still many other things written that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” Some things were just not listed but known to the apostles.
3. How do you support your belief in the Trinity when there is no exact wording in the bible for that doctine. It is inferred several times, but not specifically spelled out. This is also the case for other doctrines we Catholics hold dear like the sinlessness of Mary and purgatory?

I am sorry to sound so blunt, I was verbally attack yesterday by a couple of confused brethern. Having admitted my newness at defending my faith and my lack of skill at quoting scripture, I was then able to stand firm with what little I had from reading these boards and self study from our apologetic superiors like Hahn and Keating. I am not trying to evaligilize, I am trying to understand these confusing points between the RCC and the various Protestants by learning both sides of the arguement. So hopefully this post will go through so I can better understand your point.

 

[sandusky]

kb1:

Which came first Doctrine or Scripture? Luther said the faith is based on scripture, then why did he take out eleven books to support his doctrines on Faith and Scripture alone in addition to adding the word “alone” to one line in his scripture that was never in a translation at that point. So is your scripture based on doctrine or doctrine on scripture. This is the reasoning why the Gospel of Thomas (doubting Thomas) was excluded from the RC’s Cannon, it went against doctrine as it supported the Gnostic beliefs.

I am in agreement with all of the solas; I find them very important; without them the simplicity of the Gospel gets buried.

Certainly the Gospel of Thomas was excluded because it went it against doctrine. As I quoted Irenaeus, he, and others, called it, and other writings, “spurious forgeries.”
kb1:

How do you defend John 21:25 “There are still many other things written that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” Some things were just not listed but known to the apostles.

The English and Greek convey the same meaning. John is talking about things that Jesus “did.” Now there are probably also things that He “said” that were not recorded as well, but the emphasis of the apostle is on things that He “did.” Probably more healings, and miracles. I am certain that the providence of the H.S. in the writing of scripture included all of the important sayings, both from Christ and through the apostles on what we need to know to be saved, as Paul assured Timothy, and all who read the scripture. I am certain as well, that were many other things that God “did” with Israel that were not recorded in scripture as well, but those things that God wants us to know, have been recorded (Dt 29:29).
kb1:

How do you support your belief in the Trinity when there is no exact wording in the bible for that doctine. It is inferred several times, but not specifically spelled out.

The same way that you support your belief, I was initially taught, and through my own study agree with all of the Christian teachings on the Trinity.
kb1:

This is also the case for other doctrines we Catholics hold dear like the sinlessness of Mary and purgatory?

As far as Mary, you are free to believe anything that you wish about her. You have the ability to make your decisions that she was immaculately conceived, that she was without sin, and you may even pray to her, if you wish; I, however, believe that is error, and done to your peril.

As far as purgatory, I believe that is also error, and comes from a misunderstanding of the Crucifixion of Jesus. I find scripture to be crystal clear on the issue of the sacrifice of Christ—Jesus paid the penalty in full for those who believe; having been washed, sanctified, and justified by Christ, no further cleansing is needed.
kb1:

I am sorry to sound so blunt…I am not trying to evaligilize.

I don’t mind bluntness; it is generally just cutting to the point; nor do I mind being evangelized; I find it refreshing that someone would care enough to do so.

 

[scylla]

sandusky:

I am sure that we do not agree on exactly what the fundamentals are, and my list was deliberately not comprehensive. My point was to illustrate differing interpretations among God’s people within the framework of Christian liberty.

What are things that you consider to be fundamentals.

I understand, I was just making the point that even though Catholics do agree on the fundamentals as stated by some Christian denominations usually they are regarded as anti-gospel.
(that is maybe a whole other thread)

The fundamentals or a basic set of beliefs which we should all hold is a good way of showing our unity of belief at least on some parts of chosen Christian doctrine. Yet this is ignoring the unity prayed for by Jesus to a certain extent, by just manufacturing a unity of belief which isn’t practiced together.
This is like a marriage in which the couple live in separate houses and do not even eat together. A true family of Christians are of one accord and worship together as a family.
I agree that those can be considered a fundamentals though they are more meant to show a unity that is just a profession and not an expression of unity.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[sandusky]

heisenburg:

How do you know your interpretation is correct. We already have differing interpretations on what 2 Peter 3:15-16 is saying. We have differing interpretations on what the end of chapter 1 is saying.

Simply put, I know how to read; that may sound flippant, but it is true. I know unbelievers, who, reading the scripture as a narrative, understand everything that is going on, and they have committed much of it to memory. The problem is, they don’t believe it, they don’t have faith. That is easy to understand as well, as faith is a gift from God, if one can read and understand the basic thrust of scripture and not believe, then I must conclude that God has not graced that person with faith.

The difficulty, as I see it, is people are told that the scriptures are some great mystical mystery. I don’t believe that God wrote a mystery, but a revelation. Read it for what it is, and for what it says, keep it simple, and don’t spiritualize or allegorize, take scripture at its word.

heisenburg:

So, obviously, even with reading the same scripture, praying to the same God, how is it we come to such differant interpretations of the same thing.

Either one has the Spirit, and the other doesn’t, or neither has the Spirit.

It’s pretty simple. The RCC and the Protestants can both be wrong regarding the truth, but they cannot both be right or truth is negated. You are convinced the RCC is the true church; I am not.

As for praying to the same God, I don’t agree with you heisenburg. Although I don’t mean to be inflammatory, I’ll take the risk of sounding so and say that I pray to the God who created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six solar days about six thousand years ago; I pray to the God whose chosen people is the nation Israel, and who also has graciously allowed the gentile races entrance into His Kingdom on the coattails of His chosen people; I pray to the God who sent His only begotten Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh to die upon a cross as a substitute for sinful men who lacked the currency to buy themselves out of sin’s bondage, and that His Son paid the penalty of man’s sin in full, thereby doing away with the need for a priesthood who offered sacrifice daily for the sins of themselves, and the sins of the people; I pray to the God who says unequivocally that there are no righteous men, not one, that all have turned aside, that none understands, and, with one exception, are all born in sin, and sin continuously; I pray to the God who insists that I pray to Him and to Him alone, and that I attribute everything of grace as coming from His hand alone and not through any other vehicle; I pray to the God who alone forgives my sins, and who uses no other vehicle to forgive confessed sin; heisenburg, is that the God you pray to as well?

Whose prayers does God hear? Those who belong to Him.

heisenburg:

Are we hearing what we want to hear?
Are we being mislead by the devil?
Are we following the Spirit?

You do well to recognize the dangers of the flesh and of iniquitous spirits.

 

[sandusky]

Scylla:

I understand, I was just making the point that even though Catholics do agree on the fundamentals as stated by some Christian denominations usually they are regarded as anti-gospel.

Scylla, I do see it as a different Gospel.

Scylla:

The fundamentals or a basic set of beliefs which we should all hold is a good way of showing our unity of belief at least on some parts of chosen Christian doctrine. Yet this is ignoring the unity prayed for by Jesus to a certain extent, by just manufacturing a unity of belief which isn’t practiced together.

This is like a marriage in which the couple live in separate houses and do not even eat together. A true family of Christians are of one accord and worship together as a family.
I agree that those can be considered a fundamentals though they are more meant to show a unity that is just a profession and not an expression of unity.

But, we differ on so many critical issues.

Unity requires like-mindedness. Our division is one of authority. What is the authority? For me, and many others it is God’s word alone.

 

[NotWorthy]

sandusky:

Unity requires like-mindedness.

Wow, that sounds almost Catholic!

sandusky:

Our division is one of authority. What is the authority? For me, and many others it is God’s word alone.

Now that sounds more like the Sandusky we’ve come to grow in love with.

And yet when the Catholic Church teaches with the authority given to it by Jesus Christ, you tend to ignore it?!?

Hmmmmm…

Notworthy

 

[Kay_Cee]

Sandusky, I’m trying not to feel left out, but you never answered my questions in post 44.

I’m especially interested in your response to the first question.

The issue of what constitutes scripture is crucial here. If I’m arguing about purgatory, and I quote Maccabees to support my position, a Protestant may very well reply, “That’s not scripture.”

If a Mormon quoted from the Book of Mormon to you, I think you’d reply, “That’s not scripture.”

Do you need more time? Do you need to do more research?

 

[kp1]

sandusky:

The difficulty, as I see it, is people are told that the scriptures are some great mystical mystery. I don’t believe that God wrote a mystery, but a revelation. Read it for what it is, and for what it says, keep it simple, and don’t spiritualize or allegorize, take scripture at its word.

Romans 13:1-3
“1Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God. 2As a consequence, the man who opposes authority rebels against the ordinance of God; those who resist shal draw condemnation down upon themsleves. 3Rulers cause no fear when a man what is right but only when his conduct is evil. Do you wish to be free from the fear of authority? Do what is right and you will gain its approval,”

I believe Jesus started the Church, namely the Catholic Church, which would be God. He placed Peter incharge of that church until his return.

As for the “mystical mystery”, I beleive it is about us trying to rationalize God into something more tangible for our brains. I mean, we as humans get overwhelmed with all the planning and attention that goes into our lives. We can look back several years and see how God has placed us in certain people’s paths to effect some change. So if we are so overwhelmed by our own lives, how can we rationalize the will of God? He is watching us all for our birth to our death from the beginning of time to the end. This is something we really can not comprehend, so we refer to it as a mystery. God’s might has no boundaries, but us humans do. The Holy Spirit tries to guide our simple minds in the right way, but even as a mother tries to get her 18 month old to comprhend her wishes, it is just beyond our reach. So to rationalize that to know scripture is to know God is merely a part of the whole picture. As with children, you learn by doing.

John 14:25-26
" 25 This much I have told you while I was still with you; 26 the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you."

There is much missing from the scripture that was taught by oral tadition as described by the church fathers. Somethings where just known by the apostles either by being Jewish or from having walked with Christ, or by the HS through revelation. The Scriptutres gives a very good account, but does not go into all the conversations or preaching done by the church fathers to relate a deeper meaning of the Holy Trinity. These things were taught by tradition.

Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm. Hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter.”

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

Sandusky, I’m trying not to feel left out, but you never answered my questions in post 44.

I’m especially interested in your response to the first question.

Kay Cee, I did not respond to your post because I am not interested in a protracted argument over the Canon of scripture in which, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, “most certainly you’ll go your way, and I’ll go mine.”

The H.S. was at work in many in the early church. The earliest of the church were suspicious of the the deuterocanon, thus it is called “deuterocanon,” as opposed to the “protocanon.” The deuterocanon was not accepted by all as inspired, as it contains errors of fact, and contradicts, in places, with the more highly regarded protocanonical books. Jerome rejected it completely, not wanting them in his translation, but included it with protest. Augustine gave warnings of caution regarding them as well, and so did others, as you no doubt know.

After Carthage in 397, not all considered them to be equal to the protocanon, in Carthage in 419, after voting that the Boniface should confirm them, the question of how large the Bible should be became a matter to be settled by authority (as usual) rather than by criticism. The apocryphal books possessed inferior authority with most, until Trent.

Furthermore, you will never convince me of merit in the notion of purgatory; I see it as unbelief in the absolute sufficiency, and infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[sandusky]

kp1:

Romans 13:1-3
“1Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God. 2As a consequence, the man who opposes authority rebels against the ordinance of God; those who resist shal draw condemnation down upon themsleves. 3Rulers cause no fear when a man what is right but only when his conduct is evil. Do you wish to be free from the fear of authority? Do what is right and you will gain its approval,”

I believe Jesus started the Church, namely the Catholic Church, which would be God. He placed Peter incharge of that church until his return.

Rom 13 is referring to civil authorities, kp1, not church authorities, though it does require submission to the government by church authorities, where that submission does not violate God’s law.

kp1:

As for the “mystical mystery”, I beleive it is about us trying to rationalize God into something more tangible for our brains. I mean, we as humans get overwhelmed with all the planning and attention that goes into our lives.

Being overwhelmed with planning your life is sinful, kp1 (Mt 6:25-34). I am not overwhelmed by life, nor am I anxious about it; I know where I came from, and I know where I am going.

kp1:

He is watching us all for our birth to our death from the beginning of time to the end. This is something we really can not comprehend, so we refer to it as a mystery.

That is why I am not worried about my life, kp1, the Lord direct my steps. Again, it is not a mystery that God does that, but a revelation; the mystery is how He does that.

kp1:

The Scriptutres gives a very good account, but does not go into all the conversations or preaching done by the church fathers to relate a deeper meaning of the Holy Trinity.

This idea of “a deeper meaning,” is a counterpart to Gnosticism’s esoteric, higher knowledge. Gnosticism had an influence in those early years.

kp1:

Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm. Hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter.”

I think that the traditions are what is written. God in His genius, and in His overseeing the writing of Scripture (1 Pet 1:10-22; 2 Pet 1:20-21), wouldn’t leave out important stuff from His revelation. I have too much faith in Him to believe that He did that, as it has led to disunity. I am certain that what is essential, is what is written.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

Kay Cee, I did not respond to your post because I am not interested in a protracted argument over the Canon of scripture in which, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, “most certainly you’ll go your way, and I’ll go mine.”

The H.S. was at work in many in the early church. The earliest of the church were suspicious of the the deuterocanon, thus it is called “deuterocanon,” as opposed to the “protocanon.” The deuterocanon was not accepted by all as inspired, as it contains errors of fact, and contradicts, in places, with the more highly regarded protocanonical books. Jerome rejected it completely, not wanting them in his translation, but included it with protest. Augustine gave warnings of caution regarding them as well, and so did others, as you no doubt know.

After Carthage in 397, not all considered them to be equal to the protocanon, in Carthage in 419, after voting that the Boniface should confirm them, the question of how large the Bible should be became a matter to be settled by authority (as usual) rather than by criticism. The apocryphal books possessed inferior authority with most, until Trent.

Furthermore, you will never convince me of merit in the notion of purgatory; I see it as unbelief in the absolute sufficiency, and infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice.

I only mentioned purgatory as an example.

I too am not interested in a protracted argument over the canon.

Here’s the point I wanted to make: Protestantism not only allows for personal interpretation of what scripture *says, *it allows for personal interpretation of what scripture *is. *And that’s a far more dangerous thing.

Yes, there was dispute in the early Church over what constituted scripture. As you pointed out, Trent authoritatively settled the question of the canon, at least within the Catholic Church (even though the same canon had existed within the Church for over 1,000 years). So, for Catholics, the question is settled, whereas Protestants (whom I doubt would accept Trent’s authority) have the question still unsettled.

Which opens the door to all kinds of things. Martin Luther tossed seven books out of the Old Testament and added the word “alone” to Romans. The Jesus Seminar accepts the Gospel of Thomas. The JW Bible claims Jesus is not God, He is “a god.” The NIV Bible translated paradosis (tradition) as “teachings,” even though the Greek word for “teachings” is didiche.

And there is no authority in Protestanism to put a stop to tinkering with scripture. A Protestant can only say, "you’ll go your way, and I’ll go mine” or “well, I’m being led by the Holy Spirit and you’re not” if someone wants to delete from or add to the Bible. His doctrines of personal interpretation and sola scriptura are no defense against it. In fact, personal interpretation should applaud personal interpretation of what scripture is.

The fruit of personal interpretation isn’t just denominational splits. It leads to splits of what the Bible actually is.

As a Christian, I find that frightening.

 

[heisenburg]

Good Morning Sandusky…

A few comments On your stastements directted at me…

While I appreciate the time you ahve spent to try and describe your view on this subject, there are a few points you made that stond out that I have a question on.

1. Most disturbing - When I asked you hwo do you know you are reading it properly, you responded that simply put you know how to read. I understand it was not emant to be a smart alick response, but it does not answer the fundamental questions. Why is your interpretation better than someone else. Is your interpretation always right? How do you know you are being led by the spirit, and others are not? What gives YOUR interpretation validity, and others not. We interpret scripture by ourselves with out guidence differantly. By this statement, are you trying to tell me that everytime you read scripture, what you interpret its always correct? If this is true for you, why can it not be true for someone else, say, the catholic church. I know you disagreew with what she teaches, but just because you disagree, does not automaticly make the church wrong.

Why is how we interpret scripture, even when we back up ur interpretation with other scripture, wrong and your correct.

It also seems as if you are saying, no one is good enough to interpret scripture, but your interpretation is.

Becareful that you do not let Pride guide you in your studies…

1. When i asked about the churches that ahd strayed, you say because some are with the spirit and others are not. While I agree, why did they then praying to the same god not get led by the spirit and others did not. Why when reading the same scripture, did they not get led to the same conclusions. (goes back to point one. they coud read, yet were led astray.) Only when an outside interveening force (Holy Spirit Through THE church with PAUL as the messanger) did they get corrected.
2. Curious more than anything else - Are you saying Catholics are not christians? That is what you are saying when you say We are not praying to the same god. Are you absing this on your interpretation of scripture? again, this goes back to whose interpretation is correct. How do you know that YOUR interpretation is not the twisting of words that is warned about The Catholic Church (not individuals within the churc) has NOT changed its fundamental beliefs since day one. It has been steady in its interpretation, and has consitantly taught the same thing for thousands of years… Can the same thing be said for those in various protestant denomonations? There are as many various interpretations of a single verse (any verse) as there are denomonations. If someone does not agree with soemthing a pastor teaches, they can (and often do) go start their own church and have their own followers. This sounds far more like twisting to me, than anything the Church ha done. Yes, we are praying to the same god. One of us has his message wrong. But we are praying to the same god. Tear apart my statements if you want, but the core issue goes BACK to the oriianal three which have not been adaquatly addressed…

All you have effectivly said is “YOU WILL KNOW”… How…

Saying that and then saying it address it is not an explaination… If anything all you ahve done is weaked your arguement. I am willing to listen, but i along with many others will need more than jsut "I will know"because this can even be shown ins cripture not to be the case. (again, the differant churchs Paul chastized)

I am not tryig to be rude, so please do not feel I am attacking your beleifs. It is jsut the arguements for your understadning sound much like the following…

Those that are with the spirit will know they are with the spirit
Those that are not with the spirit wil knwo they are not with the spirit…

Why is your interpretation right. Saying You can read is not valid and if anything proves my point that personal interpretation without guidence is dangerous.

TO you in Christ

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

Here’s the point I wanted to make: Protestantism not only allows for personal interpretation of what scripture says, it allows for personal interpretation of what scripture is. And that’s a far more dangerous thing.

Kay Cee, Catholicism allows for personal interpretation as well. You agree with Catholicism because you believe that your Church teaches what God’s word and your tradition teaches. You believe that on the basis of faith in some things, and on the basis of your own personal interpretation of scripture. You would do well to reconcile that there are many who do not see your Church as the final authority, and some who do not see your Church as any authority and get to the bottom of that.

That people are going to follow strange doctrine is not only foretold in scripture, but taking place at the time as well; therefore, no church is immune to that possibility, except Christ’s church, which He guards, and we disagree as to the identity of that church.
Kay Cee:

Yes, there was dispute in the early Church over what constituted scripture. As you pointed out, Trent authoritatively settled the question of the canon, at least within the Catholic Church (even though the same canon had existed within the Church for over 1,000 years). So, for Catholics, the question is settled, whereas Protestants (whom I doubt would accept Trent’s authority) have the question still unsettled.

The question is settled for protestants as well, except for some who may be on the fringe, such as the Jesus seminar, but I hardly consider them a denomination.
Kay Cee:

Which opens the door to all kinds of things. Martin Luther tossed seven books out of the Old Testament and added the word “alone” to Romans. The Jesus Seminar accepts the Gospel of Thomas. The JW Bible claims Jesus is not God, He is “a god.” The NIV Bible translated paradosis (tradition) as “teachings,” even though the Greek word for “teachings” is didiche.

I personally find the Jesus Seminar a bunch of misguided scholarly types who are unbelievers to boot. As far as the JW’s, they are not Christian. As far as the NIV, this is a free country and people can publish what they like, I have no control over that and neither do you, though I have taken a stand along with many others on the NIV gender-netural translation; again, however, people are going to publish what they want to publish.

 

[sandusky]

heisenburg:

)Most disturbing - When I asked you hwo do you know you are reading it properly, you responded that simply put you know how to read. I understand it was not emant to be a smart alick response, but it does not answer the fundamental questions. Why is your interpretation better than someone else. Is your interpretation always right? How do you know you are being led by the spirit, and others are not? What gives YOUR interpretation validity, and others not. We interpret scripture by ourselves with out guidence differantly. By this statement, are you trying to tell me that everytime you read scripture, what you interpret its always correct? If this is true for you, why can it not be true for someone else, say, the catholic church. I know you disagreew with what she teaches, but just because you disagree, does not automaticly make the church wrong.

heisenburg, if you answer the questions you ask me, you will find that all of this falls into the areas of objective experience, subjective experience, and spiritual experience. The way that you have concluded what is true is probably very close to the way that I have concluded what is true, and we have reached different conclusions. I am at a point where I don’t labor over why someone believes differently from me. I know what I believe, and why I believe what I believe.

heisenburg:

Why is how we interpret scripture, even when we back up ur interpretation with other scripture, wrong and your correct.

I use scripture as the guide, you use scripture plus tradition. We are bound to come to different conclusions.

heisenburg:

It also seems as if you are saying, no one is good enough to interpret scripture, but your interpretation is.

IMHO, the same is true of your position.

heisenburg:

When i asked about the churches that ahd strayed, you say because some are with the spirit and others are not. While I agree, why did they then praying to the same god not get led by the spirit and others did not. Why when reading the same scripture, did they not get led to the same conclusions. (goes back to point one. they coud read, yet were led astray.) Only when an outside interveening force (Holy Spirit Through THE church with PAUL as the messanger) did they get corrected.

Again, not everyone in those churches had strayed, and, I think it safe to say, that not everyone in those churches were true believers. Scripture bears out that false teachers, and “tares” would, indeed had, crept in.

heisenburg:

Curious more than anything else - Are you saying Catholics are not christians? That is what you are saying when you say We are not praying to the same god. Are you absing this on your interpretation of scripture? again, this goes back to whose interpretation is correct.

That is certainly a conclusion that could be drawn from what I said, but what I said was in response to your statement that we all pray to the same God. I briefly described the God that I pray to. Perhaps you should write down a description of the God you pray, and see if we line up.

heisenburg:

All you have effectivly said is “YOU WILL KNOW”… How…

Saying that and then saying it address it is not an explaination… If anything all you ahve done is weaked your arguement. I am willing to listen, but i along with many others will need more than jsut "I will know"because this can even be shown ins cripture not to be the case. (again, the differant churchs Paul chastized)

I am not tryig to be rude, so please do not feel I am attacking your beleifs. It is jsut the arguements for your understadning sound much like the following…

I understand that you are not trying to be rude, nor am I. What I have answered is an explanation, but it is obviously not satisfying to you. We arrive at our conclusions using the same methods, and also using different authorities. I don’t find any mystery in that. I wish that my explanation were satisfying to you. Realize that we have those differences, and work from there.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

Kay Cee, Catholicism allows for personal interpretation as well.

So long as it is in line with Catholic Tradition. Personal interpretation that is published should have an imprimatur and nihil obstat declaring that the work is considered to be free from doctrinal and moral error. It is also not allowed to the extent of changing scripture. The Church has, in fact, banned certain Bibles because scripture in them was changed, something for which the Church has been highly criticized. I doubt, however, that many Protestants would give a JW Bible to a new Christian.

You agree with Catholicism because you believe that your Church teaches what God’s word and your tradition teaches. You believe that on the basis of faith in some things, and on the basis of your own personal interpretation of scripture. You would do well to reconcile that there are many who do not see your Church as the final authority, and some who do not see your Church as any authority and get to the bottom of that.

You do not know what the basis for my belief is. Please do not presume that you do know.

That people are going to follow strange doctrine is not only foretold in scripture, but taking place at the time as well; therefore, no church is immune to that possibility, except Christ’s church, which He guards, and we disagree as to the identity of that church.

No disagreement with you here.

The question is settled for protestants as well, except for some who may be on the fringe, such as the Jesus seminar, but I hardly consider them a denomination.

But who decides who is “on the fringe”?

Whether or not the Jesus Seminar is a denomination is not something I even got into in my post. However, they do consider themselves true believers.

I personally find the Jesus Seminar a bunch of misguided scholarly types who are unbelievers to boot. As far as the JW’s, they are not Christian. As far as the NIV, this is a free country and people can publish what they like, I have no control over that and neither do you, though I have taken a stand along with many others on the NIV gender-netural translation; again, however, people are going to publish what they want to publish.

I’m surprised this doesn’t upset you more. I’m sure you hold the Bible in very high regard. Doesn’t it bother you that some brand new Christian can so easily be handed a Bible with deliberate mistranslations?

You didn’t get into the point I made at all: Personal interpretation of what scripture says leads to personal interpretation of what scripture is. Do you deny this?