Private Interpretation of Scripture

[praxising]

Recently I have been approached by Catholics evangelising to me and claiming that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church and that I am facing eternal hellfire. .

I’m so sorry this happened to you. It’s bad enough to intrude on you, it’s worse to have people claiming to be Catholic completely misrepresenting the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that anyone can be saved. That means atheists, Buddhists, well, anyone.

This is going to sound oddly paranoid, but there is a huge element in this country seeking to destroy the Catholic Church. There always has been across time, but these days they can’t get people to round us up and kill us, and so they try and pervert the message. Every Catholic board has people claiming to be Catholic who are actually part of “evangelical Christian” groups, using techniques like this. They approach people coming out of their churches, ostensibly to convert you, but in fact, to spread deception and cause people to hate us.

They start little websites that are supposed to be Catholic, but that use the same techniques semiPentacostal “independent” churches use to gain followers and in every case, that includes attacking other churches, most especially, the Catholic Church, and spreading ignorance and distorting teaching.

Catholics themselves are beginning to believe a lot of foolishness because they are shown pieces of documents or very out of date ideas that their Church doesn’t advocate. On this very forum, one or two of them tried to convince everyone that we declare certain people are in hell or will go there. The Church would never presume to do so.

The Liar is oh-so-clever at manipulating human minds and hearts, and pretending to support something while secretly trying to destroy it is one of his favorite tricks. I don’t know who approached you, but I do know what they told you is not factual.

In John 10:35 Jesus Christ says Scripture cannot be broken. This is a precious statement for biblebelieving protestants, as it confirms that Jesus knew the Old Testament, and he points to it by saying It is written, Have ye not read,

The following quote is from the KJV, John 10:33-37, my bolding:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus didn’t say “scripture cannot be broken.” He was making an argument to Pharisees, in the way that they argue, and the operative phrase here is: “If…and.” Two conditionals. We are only missing the “then” . He is using their own argument against them (and we’d have to find God in the OT saying people are gods). So, He is saying.

“If this is what is said and if this is unchangeable, then you cannot condemn me for saying…”

See, 'scripture" just means “writings” so we don’t know what writings He is referring to. The Jews were as devoted to Commentaries about writings they considered sacred as they were to the writings themselves.

“Scripture” used in Scripture doesn’t necessarily refer to Scripture!!

 

[nikella]

I am glad that you are here and are open to learning!

As far as your comment stating that it is not ok for us to say that one is more of a Christian than another, that is quite true, IMO.

However, it is also true that we must proclaim that some truths (i.e. the pope is the vicar of Christ) have been proclaimed by the Catholic Church.

Thank you for the welcome, I am learning about your faith, slowly.
It is difficult for me as a protestant to grasp everything you hold sacred so I hope you forgive me for not automatically understanding where you are coming from? When I was evangelised to by Catholics it was very shocking, because it is as if Catholics and Protestants speak different languages. Well, to me it seems as if we do, I’d better point out. For instance, Vicar of Christ is to me not what it is to you. So I realise I have to learn your vocabulary. Fortunately this is a large forum, and I’m sure all the answers are contained within the pages.

 

[nikella]

I’m so sorry this happened to you. It’s bad enough to intrude on you, it’s worse to have people claiming to be Catholic completely misrepresenting the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that anyone can be saved. That means atheists, Buddhists, well, anyone.

This is going to sound oddly paranoid, but there is a huge element in this country seeking to destroy the Catholic Church. There always has been across time, but these days they can’t get people to round us up and kill us, and so they try and pervert the message. Every Catholic board has people claiming to be Catholic who are actually part of “evangelical Christian” groups, using techniques like this. They approach people coming out of their churches, ostensibly to convert you, but in fact, to spread deception and cause people to hate us.

They start little websites that are supposed to be Catholic, but that use the same techniques semiPentacostal “independent” churches use to gain followers and in every case, that includes attacking other churches, most especially, the Catholic Church, and spreading ignorance and distorting teaching.

Catholics themselves are beginning to believe a lot of foolishness because they are shown pieces of documents or very out of date ideas that their Church doesn’t advocate. On this very forum, one or two of them tried to convince everyone that we declare certain people are in hell or will go there. The Church would never presume to do so.

The Liar is oh-so-clever at manipulating human minds and hearts, and pretending to support something while secretly trying to destroy it is one of his favorite tricks. I don’t know who approached you, but I do know what they told you is not factual.

The following quote is from the KJV, John 10:33-37, my bolding:

Jesus didn’t say “scripture cannot be broken.” He was making an argument to Pharisees, in the way that they argue, and the operative phrase here is: “If…and.” Two conditionals. We are only missing the “then” . He is using their own argument against them (and we’d have to find God in the OT saying people are gods). So, He is saying.

“If this is what is said and if this is unchangeable, then you cannot condemn me for saying…”

See, 'scripture" just means “writings” so we don’t know what writings He is referring to. The Jews were as devoted to Commentaries about writings they considered sacred as they were to the writings themselves.

“Scripture” used in Scripture doesn’t necessarily refer to Scripture!!

Hi, and thank you for clarifying the quite fiery behaviour… I’m over it now, but thought I’d rekindle my faith by looking into the statement of salvation.

(Regarding the issue of Scripture, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 about “gods”. In John 5:45-47 Jesus points to the writings of Moses, and in Luke 24:44 Jesus said “all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me”.)

 

[PLeeD]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Interesting discussion so far.

Regarding the first quote, Philip never made any claim regarding interpretation of scripture. To derive this understanding from the passage, you have to elevate the importance of the words of the unbaptized Ethiopian to the level of an inviolable commandment. I’m not the least bit convinced by this.

In the second quote, I disagree with that translation, or at least with the way the CC interprets that translation. I think it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to understand that Peter is saying that scripture is divinely inspired. He is referring to the inspiration behind the prophet’s writing, and saying nothing about the reading and interpreting of the resulting scripture.

If by ‘guidance’ you mean we require ‘human’ guidance, then I don’t agree that it’s at all obvious from the two quotes you give. The best guidance we have is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say we should dismiss human guidance. We should consider human guidance, then rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who has written God’s law on our hearts, to discern the truth of the matter.

Jeremiah says this:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
*“Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the LORD’s declaration. "I will place My law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people. No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying: Know the LORD, for they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them"—the LORD’s declaration. “For I will forgive their wrongdoing and never again remember their sin.”
*

Then Paul says this:

**Romans 2:14-15 **
*So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them.
*

So, if you say we “need” human guidance, then I agree.

If, on the other hand, you say we are compelled to follow human guidance, then I disagree. No human authority, be it Benedict or Billy Graham, outranks the Holy Spirit. It’s the Spirit that we are ultimately beholden to, and it’s by the Spirit that we are judged.

 

[praxising]

Hi, and thank you for clarifying the quite fiery behaviour… I’m over it now, but thought I’d rekindle my faith by looking into the statement of salvation.

(Regarding the issue of Scripture, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 about “gods”.

You know, it’s an odd Psalm for us, I think, to understand because the Psalmist is actually speaking of the Hebrew God speaking to other gods. (In those days, the belief was in many supernatural beings who influenced humans life, many gods - the Hebrews were only allowed to worship the one: “I AM.” (Yahweh) So when this was written, the concept of there only being One God wasn’t part of the culture. Anyway, here’s the whole text from the KJV online:

** Psalms Chapter 82**

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

So, it’s a story of Yahweh amongst a bunch of other gods, chastising and exhorting them. (1,2) In 3 and 4 He is telling the other gods how they ought to behave, and in 5, “they” is us, humans, whose case Yahweh is making.

In 6, the pivotal verse in our discussion, Yahweh, our God, is telling those others they are gods, not saying we are. Which is further supported in 7 when the gods are told they will die like men.

In 8, the Psalmist prays for Yahweh to become to the premiere God, to alone be our judge, and prophesys (“prophecizes?” ) He will “inherit all nations” so that the whole of humankind will have only one god (presumably because indeed, the other gods will die, and only Yahweh will be left.)

Cool.

But I’m not sure it’s what Jesus was referring to in John. (I wish we had a Jewish person posting ITT to give us perspective on the Hebrew interpretation of all this.)

 

[nikella]

You know, it’s an odd Psalm for us, I think, to understand because the Psalmist is actually speaking of the Hebrew God speaking to other gods. (In those days, the belief was in many supernatural beings who influenced humans life, many gods - the Hebrews were only allowed to worship the one: “I AM.” (Yahweh) So when this was written, the concept of there only being One God wasn’t part of the culture. Anyway, here’s the whole text from the KJV online:

So, it’s a story of Yahweh amongst a bunch of other gods, chastising and exhorting them. (1,2) In 3 and 4 He is telling the other gods how they ought to behave, and in 5, “they” is us, humans, whose case Yahweh is making.

In 6, the pivotal verse in our discussion, Yahweh, our God, is telling those others they are gods, not saying we are. Which is further supported in 7 when the gods are told they will die like men.

In 8, the Psalmist prays for Yahweh to become to the premiere God, to alone be our judge, and prophesys (“prophecizes?” ) He will “inherit all nations” so that the whole of humankind will have only one god (presumably because indeed, the other gods will die, and only Yahweh will be left.)

Cool.

But I’m not sure it’s what Jesus was referring to in John. (I wish we had a Jewish person posting ITT to give us perspective on the Hebrew interpretation of all this.)

Hi again
Thanks for posting more of the psalm. From the perspective the Lord was speaking from when he mentioned the psalm to his persecutors, I think it was clear to them that he was referring to leaders of Israel by “gods”/elohim. Comparing with Moses who was told to be as a god (elohim) to Pharao, etc. Meaning ruler, authority, be God’s representative if adhering to God’s will. Lord Jesus couldn’t have been more clear in addressing their abuse of the weak when they were supposed to serve them and minister onto them, since they had the keys (understanding) but withheld it from God’s people. Like Adam, in disobeying God, their divinely appointed authority would be taken away from them because of this sin and they would “die like men”. In my humble understanding of Scripture.

 

[praxising]

Hi again
Thanks for posting more of the psalm. From the perspective the Lord was speaking from when he mentioned the psalm to his persecutors,…

I think my point was there is no way to know what Jesus was referring to. I don’t know exactly why you believe it must be this Psalm.

 

[elvisman]

Interesting discussion so far.

Regarding the first quote, Philip never made any claim regarding interpretation of scripture. To derive this understanding from the passage, you have to elevate the importance of the words of the unbaptized Ethiopian to the level of an inviolable commandment. I’m not the least bit convinced by this.

In the second quote, I disagree with that translation, or at least with the way the CC interprets that translation. I think it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to understand that Peter is saying that scripture is divinely inspired. He is referring to the inspiration behind the prophet’s writing, and saying nothing about the reading and interpreting of the resulting scripture.

If by ‘guidance’ you mean we require ‘human’ guidance, then I don’t agree that it’s at all obvious from the two quotes you give. The best guidance we have is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say we should dismiss human guidance. We should consider human guidance, then rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who has written God’s law on our hearts, to discern the truth of the matter.

Jeremiah says this:
Jeremiah 31:33-34
“Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the LORD’s declaration. "I will place My law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people. No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying: Know the LORD, for they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them"—the LORD’s declaration. “For I will forgive their wrongdoing and never again remember their sin.”

Then Paul says this:
**Romans 2:14-15 **
So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them.
So, if you say we “need” human guidance, then I agree.

If, on the other hand, you say we are compelled to follow human guidance, then I disagree. No human authority, be it Benedict or Billy Graham, outranks the Holy Spirit. It’s the Spirit that we are ultimately beholden to, and it’s by the Spirit that we are judged.

**Can you then tell me who is right and who is wrong when we see major differences in teaching about the Gospel message?

**Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
**Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not. **
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

The Holy Spirit does NOT teach differing “truths”, so who is right?
The ONLY one who is right is the one that christ himself gave complete and total authority to: His Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

 

[Timonator348]

I still would like someone to explain to me how the private interpretation of Scripture which has led to the state of Christianity today with massive denominationalism and division and endless dispute over doctrine is a good thing? In reality it’s the exact opposite of the unity Jesus prays for in his followers. It is a blessing Bibles are readily available nowadays but there has to be the Church authority to settle disputes between Christians.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interesting discussion so far.

Regarding the first quote, Philip never made any claim regarding interpretation of scripture. To derive this understanding from the passage, you have to elevate the importance of the words of the unbaptized Ethiopian to the level of an inviolable commandment. I’m not the least bit convinced by this.

In the second quote, I disagree with that translation, or at least with the way the CC interprets that translation. I think it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to understand that Peter is saying that scripture is divinely inspired. He is referring to the inspiration behind the prophet’s writing, and saying nothing about the reading and interpreting of the resulting scripture.

If by ‘guidance’ you mean we require ‘human’ guidance, then I don’t agree that it’s at all obvious from the two quotes you give. The best guidance we have is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say we should dismiss human guidance. We should consider human guidance, then rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who has written God’s law on our hearts, to discern the truth of the matter.

Jeremiah says this:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
“Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the LORD’s declaration. "I will place My law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people. No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying: Know the LORD, for they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them"—the LORD’s declaration. “For I will forgive their wrongdoing and never again remember their sin.”

Then Paul says this:

**Romans 2:14-15 **
*So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them.
*

So, if you say we “need” human guidance, then I agree.

If, on the other hand, you say we are compelled to follow human guidance, then I disagree. No human authority, be it Benedict or Billy Graham, outranks the Holy Spirit. It’s the Spirit that we are ultimately beholden to, and it’s by the Spirit that we are judged.

I agree with you.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I still would like someone to explain to me how the private interpretation of Scripture which has led to the state of Christianity today with massive denominationalism and division and endless dispute over doctrine is a good thing? In reality it’s the exact opposite of the unity Jesus prays for in his followers. It is a blessing Bibles are readily available nowadays but there has to be the Church authority to settle disputes between Christians.

From bold highlight. While most churches try, NONE is really following, IMHO. Each has its own interpretation. Each church quotes the writer who is of likely thinking.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Mark 7:5-13 (ESV)

5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

"'This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;
7in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)[a]— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

When Luther was asked to retract at the Diet:

“Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

 

[Timonator348]

I know every Protestant denomination and their leaders do put their own spin on Scripture as they say the Holy Spirit guides them. But I’ve asked Protestant friends before if their church could exist without the Bible and they have to say no if they’re to be honest. Also, Protestants can claim their church could exist now that they’ve had the Bible they could “do it from memory” and pass it down. What’s great about the Catholic Church is this was done and handed on for over 300 years by the men Jesus actually picked and walked with and taught. Then the same Holy Spirit which had guided them by oral tradition that whole time guided His Church leaders into compiling the writings which were truly inspired into the Bible. Someone please explain how Protestants define the Canon of Scripture since it appears even Martin Luther simply took what agreed with his theology and accepted the rest based on tradition. Just as most Protestants I know accept the 66 booked Bible they were given because of tradition based on whoever gave it to them told them it was inspired and they believed.

 

[Timonator348]

Can anyone point out an example from Scripture of someone needing guidance in understanding the Scriptures and they are told something to the effect of “just pray to the Holy Spirit and he’ll guide you.” Haven’t been able to find one to back up Protestant claims.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I know every Protestant denomination and their leaders do put their own spin on Scripture as they say the Holy Spirit guides them. But I’ve asked Protestant friends before if their church could exist without the Bible and they have to say no if they’re to be honest. Also, Protestants can claim their church could exist now that they’ve had the Bible they could “do it from memory” and pass it down. What’s great about the Catholic Church is this was done and handed on for over 300 years by the men Jesus actually picked and walked with and taught. Then the same Holy Spirit which had guided them by oral tradition that whole time guided His Church leaders into compiling the writings which were truly inspired into the Bible. Someone please explain how Protestants define the Canon of Scripture since it appears even Martin Luther simply took what agreed with his theology and accepted the rest based on tradition. Just as most Protestants I know accept the 66 booked Bible they were given because of tradition based on whoever gave it to them told them it was inspired and they believed.

Wow, you probably are the first person I’ve heard say that knows every Protestant denomination. Further, that every leader of each Protestant denomination puts their own spin on scripture… double wow!

As for the Canons, this article from Jimmy Akin is interesting:

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/septuagint_or_m.html

And with respect to Luther, Have you actually read his writings? I mean not just the title .

Do you think the Holy Spirit is exclusive to the RCC?

I think our Lord is completely sovereign and self-sufficient and in His perfect Holiness chooses whomsoever He chooses. Who am I to question? That doesn’t mean that I am irresponsible and gullible. Just means I need to be responsible and humble before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Timonator348]

Well I don’t know them all personally.

I was just generalizing since all non-Catholic denominations were started by someone or a group of someones who misinterpret at least some of the Bible and don’t use the full 73 booked Bible to begin with.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So,

Do you think the Holy Spirit is exclusive to the RCC?

 

[Timonator348]

No, but I believe the holy spirit draws everyone home to the Catholic Church if they are truly listening to the spirit of truth.

 

[PRmerger]

No, but I believe the holy spirit draws everyone home to the Catholic Church if they are truly listening to the spirit of truth.

 

[PRmerger]

So,

Do you think the Holy Spirit is exclusive to the RCC?

Not at all. But the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth, so when a church teaches something that is consonant with Catholic teaching, then the HS is present in that church.

When a church teaches something that is contrary to Catholic teaching, then the HS is not present in that church.

That is, if a church teaches OSAS, the HS is not present in that church, to the degree that they proclaim this, for this is contrary to the truth proclaimed by the CC.

If a church teaches that Scripture is the Word of God, then the HS is present in that church, to the degree that they proclaim this, for this is consonant with the truth proclaimed by the CC.

 

[Timonator348]

I again have to go back to my original point as said in

2 Peter 1:20-21 ~ “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

I would like someone who claims they don’t need the Church to guide them in reading Scripture themselves as they have the Holy Spirit to guide them to show me a Bible verse that says the Holy Spirit guides individuals to correct and infallible interpretation.