Protestant interpretation

[Shibboleth]

Beaver:

Moot because you want it to be…

I have always saw Lutherans as brothers in Christ.

Let us put this way, if popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests who constantly are trying to destroy the church from within cannot do so, why does Protestant think they can? Is that you feel you can do a better job of it. Soon you find yourself at Jericho with walls tumbling down. The seventh trumpet wins again…

The point is moot because your proof relied on the fact that Protestants deny Catholic Tradition and since the New Testament is Catholic Tradition we indirectly deny scripture.

Since we do not deny catholic tradition this argument makes no sense.

I do not think that Popes and bishops will tear down the walls of the Church because the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church Catholic as the Body of Christ.

Do I believe that the Catholic Church is heterodox in some ways? Yes, but that is why I am Lutheran and we will simply have to suffer through our disagreement on this issue.

In reference to Jericho I do hope that the walls that were built between our Faiths do crumble; however, if we want to throw out diatribes just to exasperate fine – I hope your Tower of Babel crumbles beneath your feet also…

 

[Mickey]

I would like to make a general clarification. I know many baptists who are prayerful, bible-believing christians. I just feel that there are many areas where they lack understanding and I think much of it has to do with scriptural interpretation.

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Hello Everyone, I hope you are all well.

Protestant interpretation is an interpretation that doesn’t use all of the available Scriptures on any given topic. For instance, going to heaven, they use 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to promote a secret rapture to flit away off to heaven, yet Jesus Christ said very plainly in John 3:13, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” He also says in Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Not heaven. Vs. 3 “… for theirs is the Kingdom OF heaven.” Not IN heaven. Revelation 5:10, “And have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on THE EARTH.” Not in heaven.

I understand that most of the people that post here dont believe that the Bible interprets itself, but I have just shown it really does. If you go back and read the verses before 1 Thessalonians 4:17, you will see that Jesus Christ will descend from heaven with a SHOUT … AND WITH THE TRUMP OF GOD, Vs. 16. Well if He returns with all that noise how could it possibly be a “secret rapture”? It cant as Matthew 24:27, 30 says that all nations will see Him when He returns. Whats more is that those who teach this rapture theory say the purpose of the rapture is to wisk Gods people off before the tribulation, yet Matthew 24:29-31 places the time of the trumpet blast and the gathering of the elect mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, “Immmediately AFTER the tribulation” Mt. 24:29.

Again the Bible does interpret itself, it is not open to any private interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20. It takes Gods Spirit to understand the Bible.
I hope this helpful, GED

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

I would like to make a general clarification. I know many baptists who are prayerful, bible-believing christians. I just feel that there are many areas where they lack understanding and I think much of it has to do with scriptural interpretation.

Very true. I can live with your statement as it is. I would expand that and say that many people of all denominations are misled at least partially with Scriptural interpretation.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

I would like to make a general clarification. I know many baptists who are prayerful, bible-believing christians. I just feel that there are many areas where they lack understanding and I think much of it has to do with scriptural interpretation.

Very true. I can live with your statement as it is. But, I would also expand that and say that many people of all denominations are misled at least partially with Scriptural interpretation.

Peace…

 

[ja3712]

Mickey:

Dear Ja3712,

You misunderstand the concept of infallibility. Do your research…and remember, people sin, doctrine does not.

Doctrine is no use if people in charge of the doctrine arent following the doctrine. Plus, I studied religion in university for more than a year now, and I encourage you to read about the reformation.

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Very true. I can live with your statement as it is. But, I would also expand that and say that many people of all denominations are misled at least partially with Scriptural interpretation.

Amen, ahimsaman!

 

[santaro75]

How do you guys interpret 2Pet1:20. I think that it says that you have to know what the author intended. You can’t interpret the scripture out of the context in which it was written. So i think that you need to understand the traditions of the time

 

[chrisb]

santaro75:

How do you guys interpret 2Pet1:20. I think that it says that you have to know what the author intended. You can’t interpret the scripture out of the context in which it was written. So i think that you need to understand the traditions of the time

Peace be with you Santaro75,

Here is the verse, broken down and commended on by John Gill:

**2Pe 1:20 - Knowing this first,… Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered;

that no prophecy of the Scripture, that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will,

is of any private interpretation: not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, “of one’s own interpretation”; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man’s own impulse”, invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come; because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man’s, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense the following words require.

PS: the short answer is “without the work of the Spirit”.

Peace.
**

 

[Mickey]

ja3712:

Doctrine is no use if people in charge of the doctrine arent following the doctrine. Plus, I studied religion in university for more than a year now, and I encourage you to read about the reformation.

The doctrine of the Catholic church began almost two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ. I have studied extensively about the reformation. It is very sad. Martin Luther’s motivations were noble. Reform was needed in the Catholic church. (such as the abuse of indulgences). But remember, people sin, not doctrine. If Martin would have stayed in the good graces of the Catholic church, he could have done much good. In fact, if Martin had never existed the church would have reformed it’s disciplinary errors—because the gates of hell shall not prevail. Instead, ol’ Marty went too far and changed doctrine which splintered christianity into tens of thousands of divisions. The evil one must have been thrilled with the reformation. Martin Luther himself, on his deathbed, regretted what he had started. I recommend that you begin reading the early church fathers. This will enlighten you with regard to doctrine. What did you say is the name of that college you go to?

 

[ianraygor]

They take their interpretation from the “reformers” that came in the 15th Century. I find it interesting that those who claim “salvation by faith alone,” have no faith in what Christ Himself promised:

That he founded

One: Jn 10.16; Eph 4.3-6; Rom 16.17; 1Cor 1.10; Phil 2.2; Rom 15.5; Jn 17.17-23; 1Cor 12.13; Rom 12.5; Eph 4.4; Col 3.15; Saint Cyprian (250AD) – On the Unity of the Church 23; Tertullian (197AD) – Apology 39,1; St Hillary (4th century) – Treatise 62.13

Holy: the example of the Saints: St Peter and the Apostles, Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assisi , St Francis Xavier, etc, etc.

Catholic: Mt 28.19-20; http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm

Apostolic: Jn 15.16; Jn 20.21; Lk 22.29-30; Mt 16.18; Jn 10.16; Lk 22.32; Jn 21.17; Eph 4.11; 1Tim 3.1, 8; 5.17, Tit 1.5

Church, which is:

**The pillar and foundation of the truth: **1Tim 3.15

Authoritative: Mt 28.18-20; Jn 20.23; 1Cor 11.23-24; Lk 10.16; Mt 18.17-18; St Irenaeus (c 200AD) – Against Heresies, 1, 10, 2; Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) Ecclesiastical History 4, 7, 13; St Augustine (392 AD) – The Advantage of Believing 35

Infallible: Jn 16.13; Jn 14.26; Lk 10.16; 1Tim 3.15; 1Jn 2.27; Acts 15.28; Mt 28.20; St Irenaeus (c 200) – Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

Perpetual: Is 9.6-7; Dan 2.44; Dan 7.14; Lk 1.32, 33; Mt 7.24; Mt 13.24-30; Mt 16.18; Jn 14.16; Mt 28.19-20

**and Visible

****Led into all truth by the Holy Spirit **Jn 14.16, 26; 16.13

**With Peter as the Rock and that the gates of Hell would not prevail over: **Mt 16.18; Mt 16.19; Lk 22.32; Jn 21.17; Mk 16.7; Lk 24.34; Acts 1.13-26; Acts 2.14; Acts 2.41; Acts 3.6-7; Acts 5.1-11; Acts 8.21; Acts 10.44-46; Acts 15.7; Acts 15.19; Gal 1.18; etc.

**The prophets and apostles as the foundation, and Christ himself as the Cornerstone: **Eph 2.19-20

Who He would remain with until the end of time Mt 28.20

From what I’ve seen it comes down to several reasons depending on the person but are all based in pride:

1. 
   *]They do not know, which is usually due to either accepting what they have been taught without seriously questioning it, sloth, or indifference.
   *]They reject the truth because in acknowledging it, know they must be obedient to an authority outside themselves. An act, which in itself, shows that they do know what the truth is but prefer to live life on their own terms.
   *]They believe they are self-sufficient and can come to knowledge of the truth by themselves. They claim that the fullness of truth cannot be known, and that what is known “is not true or at least doubtful.” As someone pointed out, with this proclamation they deny that Christ can be known who is Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And while it is true that we cannot know all that God IS because he is ineffable, we can with certainty know of the truths He **has **revealed to us.
   
   The attitude of most of our Separated Brethren follow that of one of the posters: They check the writings of the “reformers” first and then look at everything else, even though Christ and His apostles warned against false teachers that would come later: Mt 7.15; Mk 13.22-23; 2Cor 11.3-4; Gal 1.6-9; 2Tim 3.1, 13; 2Tim 4.3-4, they follow these readily enough.

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

They take their interpretation from the “reformers” that came in the 15th Century. I find it interesting that those who claim “salvation by faith alone,” have no faith in what Christ Himself promised:

That he founded

One: Jn 10.16; Eph 4.3-6; Rom 16.17; 1Cor 1.10; Phil 2.2; Rom 15.5; Jn 17.17-23; 1Cor 12.13; Rom 12.5; Eph 4.4; Col 3.15; Saint Cyprian (250AD) – On the Unity of the Church 23; Tertullian (197AD) – Apology 39,1; St Hillary (4th century) – Treatise 62.13

Holy: the example of the Saints: St Peter and the Apostles, Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assisi , St Francis Xavier, etc, etc.

Catholic: Mt 28.19-20; http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm

Apostolic: Jn 15.16; Jn 20.21; Lk 22.29-30; Mt 16.18; Jn 10.16; Lk 22.32; Jn 21.17; Eph 4.11; 1Tim 3.1, 8; 5.17, Tit 1.5

Church, which is:

**The pillar and foundation of the truth: **1Tim 3.15

Authoritative: Mt 28.18-20; Jn 20.23; 1Cor 11.23-24; Lk 10.16; Mt 18.17-18; St Irenaeus (c 200AD) – Against Heresies, 1, 10, 2; Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) Ecclesiastical History 4, 7, 13; St Augustine (392 AD) – The Advantage of Believing 35

Infallible: Jn 16.13; Jn 14.26; Lk 10.16; 1Tim 3.15; 1Jn 2.27; Acts 15.28; Mt 28.20; St Irenaeus (c 200) – Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

Perpetual: Is 9.6-7; Dan 2.44; Dan 7.14; Lk 1.32, 33; Mt 7.24; Mt 13.24-30; Mt 16.18; Jn 14.16; Mt 28.19-20

**and Visible

****Led into all truth by the Holy Spirit **Jn 14.16, 26; 16.13

**With Peter as the Rock and that the gates of Hell would not prevail over: **Mt 16.18; Mt 16.19; Lk 22.32; Jn 21.17; Mk 16.7; Lk 24.34; Acts 1.13-26; Acts 2.14; Acts 2.41; Acts 3.6-7; Acts 5.1-11; Acts 8.21; Acts 10.44-46; Acts 15.7; Acts 15.19; Gal 1.18; etc.

**The prophets and apostles as the foundation, and Christ himself as the Cornerstone: **Eph 2.19-20

Who He would remain with until the end of time Mt 28.20

From what I’ve seen it comes down to several reasons depending on the person but are all based in pride:

1. 
   *]They do not know, which is usually due to either accepting what they have been taught without seriously questioning it, sloth, or indifference.
   *]They reject the truth because in acknowledging it, know they must be obedient to an authority outside themselves. An act, which in itself, shows that they do know what the truth is but prefer to live life on their own terms.
   *]They believe they are self-sufficient and can come to knowledge of the truth by themselves. They claim that the fullness of truth cannot be known, and that what is known “is not true or at least doubtful.” As someone pointed out, with this proclamation they deny that Christ can be known who is Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And while it is true that we cannot know all that God IS because he is ineffable, we can with certainty know of the truths He **has **revealed to us.
   
   The attitude of most of our Separated Brethren follow that of one of the posters: They check the writings of the “reformers” first and then look at everything else, even though Christ and His apostles warned against false teachers that would come later: Mt 7.15; Mk 13.22-23; 2Cor 11.3-4; Gal 1.6-9; 2Tim 3.1, 13; 2Tim 4.3-4, they follow these readily enough.

1. 
   You write so much about a group of people that you fail to understand on even the simplest of levels. You throw out tired arguments that have been refuted on numerous occasions as if they have never been addressed before on a plethora of levels.
   
   You argue that we as Protestants fail to use the Faith and then list a series of scriptures knowing full well I could list the exact same scriptural references to refute you. And in the end you will say that my interpretations are wrong and yours are right by guidance of the Church and I will do the same with other sources.
   
   You look to your Catholic Church and I to my Church Catholic.
   
   The Church is most definitely one, holy, catholic, and apostolic – and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, but we differ on what that means and to what level that can be taken.
   
   I think we all look the Godhead first and to everything else second.

 

[ianraygor]

Shibboleth:

You write so much about a group of people that you fail to understand on even the simplest of levels. You throw out tired arguments that have been refuted on numerous occasions as if they have never been addressed before on a plethora of levels.

You argue that we as Protestants fail to use the Faith and then list a series of scriptures knowing full well I could list the exact same scriptural references to refute you. And in the end you will say that my interpretations are wrong and yours are right by guidance of the Church and I will do the same with other sources.

You look to your Catholic Church and I to my Church Catholic.

The Church is most definitely one, holy, catholic, and apostolic – and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, but we differ on what that means and to what level that can be taken.

I think we all look the Godhead first and to everything else second.

I am open to understanding why, if you can explain it to me I’d be happy to listen.

You’re right, they are the same arguments, that have 2000 years of history, not 500 years of trying to start all over without all the facts.

Faith and knowledge of the Scriptures aren’t the same thing. Many can quote tons of Scripture and have no faith in God.

You’re right, people just end up quoting Scripture passages back and forth which proves that “faith” and Scripture are not sufficient by themselves, otherwise eveyone would interpret it the same. What many don’t look at are the facts that lie outside the Scriptures. Why I included the Scripture quotes is that Protestants claim Sola Scriptura but don’t follow it. It’s all very “literal” when it pleases them, but then becomes very vague when it does not.

You say you will look to your “church,” but it was started by Luther, not by Christ. How do you explain that?

God called everone to one baptism, one faith, one Lord of all based on the faith that He handed on to the Apostles. NOT many and diverse opinions. You can only trace your beliefs to Luther, not before. How do Protestants explain the 1500 years before the “reformers?”

I truly wish to understand. Explain it to me if you would.

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

I am open to understanding why, if you can explain it to me I’d be happy to listen.

You’re right, they are the same arguments, that have 2000 years of history, not 500 years of trying to start all over without all the facts.

Faith and knowledge of the Scriptures aren’t the same thing. Many can quote tons of Scripture and have no faith in God.

You’re right, people just end up quoting Scripture passages back and forth which proves that “faith” and Scripture are not sufficient by themselves, otherwise eveyone would interpret it the same. What many don’t look at are the facts that lie outside the Scriptures. Why I included the Scripture quotes is that Protestants claim Sola Scriptura but don’t follow it. It’s all very “literal” when it pleases them, but then becomes very vague when it does not.

You say you will look to your “church,” but it was started by Luther, not by Christ. How do you explain that?

God called everone to one baptism, one faith, one Lord of all based on the faith that He handed on to the Apostles. NOT many and diverse opinions. You can only trace your beliefs to Luther, not before. How do Protestants explain the 1500 years before the “reformers?”

I truly wish to understand. Explain it to me if you would.

members.aol.com/EvCathCh/index.HTML

 

[Exporter]

ahimsaman72,
You wrote this:
"I know most of my personal study has been done in this way:

1. prayer for enlightenment,
2. reading the Scripture for myself - several times - and cross-referencing with other passages to get an accurate understanding.
3. use of concordances and lexicons to get the meanings and listings of particular words and phrases.
4. use of commentaries and Bible encyclopedias (such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary)
5. reference theologians and preachers - early and modern
6. trusted Christian brothers and sisters in local assembly (older ones especially)
7. local pastors and teachers
   And to get to your last points - when they all disagree with one another - what do you do? and, how do you know what is truth?

---

If I understand Micky’s question, " Where do the protestants get their interpretation of scriptures?" It means what it says. Or we can say,“How do Protestants interpret the Scriptures?”

I have found that Methodists, Baptists, Pentacostals and Church of Christ believe that an adult individual can ask the Holy Spirit for help, read the verses and, Voila…they know what that Scripture means. Their Preachers say they can interpret too, but they ( the Preachers) overide the interpretations of thee people , why? In order to hold the Church together. What I say is from first-hand observation over the past 15 years. Yes I said they read the Bible, ask for guidance and then the know what was said.

One problem with this is if you placed several Protestant “interpreters” in separate rooms and you asked for them to interpret lets say Apocalypse 12: 1 thru 12 youd find each has a different interpretation. I have seen antimated arguments between two Pentacostals over just two verses reguarding the concept of being snatched up into the clouds with Jesus.

aihms, You are not a typical Protestant, look what you said you do."3) use of concordances and lexicons to get the meanings and listings of particular words and phrases.
4) use of commentaries and Bible encyclopedias (such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary)
5) reference theologians and preachers - early and modern
6) trusted Christian brothers and sisters in local assembly (older ones especially)
7) local pastors and teachers
You are asking Pastors, Older Christians, reference Commentaries etc. Why don’t you trust the Holy Spirit to tell you the meaning of what you read? Many others do.

 

[Beaver]

Shibboleth:

The point is moot because your proof relied on the fact that Protestants deny Catholic Tradition and since the New Testament is Catholic Tradition we indirectly deny scripture.

Since we do not deny catholic tradition this argument makes no sense.

I have had many Protestant deny Catholic Tradition, you are an execption.

Shibboleth:

I do not think that Popes and bishops will tear down the walls of the Church because the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church Catholic as the Body of Christ.

Do I believe that the Catholic Church is heterodox in some ways? Yes, but that is why I am Lutheran and we will simply have to suffer through our disagreement on this issue.

There are many Protestants within the church structure, who try to undermine it. They are Catholic in name only for they distort the truth. Too many do this… I understand why you are confused. I would get a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will rid you of the outside distortions.

 

[ianraygor]

Also, while I’m thinking about it, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

You obviously know this is a Catholic site. Yet you seem to renounce what the Church Teaches. So what’s your motivation for coming here?

Do you simply want to argue?

You seem more interested in making statements than asking questions to discover the truth. If you’re interested in knowin why the Church teaches what she does, welcome. If not, why are you here?

Are you really looking for the truth or simply defending your position? You claim the Church is wrong, but don’t seem to offer any conclusive arguments other than the Church is wrong, or the inability to know the whole truth. Much like the circular reasoning you once accused me of (and you still haven’t responded to my response on that) Why are you here?

Yes, you can twist all the Scripture you want to prove your point, that doesn’t make it true. What do you have besides Scripture to prove what you claim?

If you’d like to discuss the issues point by point, I’d be more than happy to.

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

Also, while I’m thinking about it, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

You obviously know this is a Catholic site. Yet you seem to renounce what the Church Teaches. So what’s your motivation for coming here?

Do you simply want to argue?

You seem more interested in making statements than asking questions to discover the truth. If you’re interested in knowin why the Church teaches what she does, welcome. If not, why are you here?

Are you really looking for the truth or simply defending your position? You claim the Church is wrong, but don’t seem to offer any conclusive arguments other than the Church is wrong, or the inability to know the whole truth. Much like the circular reasoning you once accused me of (and you still haven’t responded to my response on that) Why are you here?

Yes, you can twist all the Scripture you want to prove your point, that doesn’t make it true. What do you have besides Scripture to prove what you claim?

If you’d like to discuss the issues point by point, I’d be more than happy to.

I am here for a variety of reasons, some of which I assume are the work of the Holy Spirit that I am not aware of…

I originally came to this site because I heard Jimmy Aiken on the radio and found him to nothing short of genius. I became an avid listener on Thursdays thereafter. By way of Catholic Answers live I found my way here.

So why do I participate. Primarily I read and learn, put up questions and replies and learn from other people’s responses. So in the end I am here to learn which is why a rarely if ever state what problems I have with the Catholic Church.

What problems do I have with the Catholic Church – well infallibility mostly, but that is to be expected. However, I do realize that this might be due to the sinful nature of myself and a hardening of my hart so I keep quiet about it other than I disagree and find certain things problematic. I am a guest in this house and it wouldn’t be proper for me to come in and insult the residence.

If you will notice most of my comments are in defense of my Faith and to explain my faith when other people ask. Because Protestantism and Catholicism disagree on a variety of issues it naturally places us on contradictory sides from time to time – I explain my side but I try not to outright tell a Catholic individual that they are wrong.

In every instance on this message board where I have come across a Catholic playing with the idea of leaving the Church I have encouraged them not to…

I find the Catholic Church a noble organization with a rich history just waiting for me to uncover. That is why I am here – to listen, to learn, and to reply when needed – although I reply sometimes when it is not needed.

If you cannot tell my views for a Lutheran are extremely orthodox. The Lutheran Church has lost some things in the years that need to be reestablished. I would like to help in that change, but that requires knowledge some of which I can find here…

In reference to the tautological post – I vaguely remember it but as to where it was made I cannot. I think that I decided that the argument wasn’t going anywhere and would best be left to die but if you give me a link I will gladly reply.

Main Entry: shib·bo·leth
Pronunciation: 'shi-b&-l&th also -"leth
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew shibbOleth stream; from the use of this word in Judg 12:6 as a test to distinguish Gileadites from Ephraimites, who pronounced it sibbOleth
1 a : a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning <the old shibboleths come rolling off their lips – Joseph Epstein> b : a widely held belief <today this book publishing shibboleth is a myth – L. A. Wood> c : TRUISM, PLATITUDE <some truth in the shibboleth that crime does not pay – Lee Rogow>
2 a : a use of language regarded as distinctive of a particular group <accent was… a shibboleth of social class – Vivian Ducat> b : a custom or usage regarded as distinguishing one group from others <for most of the well-to-do in the town, dinner was a shibboleth, its hour dividing mankind – Osbert Sitwell>

 

[ianraygor]

Certainly not the response I expected.

A few things that confuse me, though.

If you have some problems with the Church, it would probably be a good idea for you to let them out and discuss them so that they can be addressed…especially here. Regarding infallibility, what problems do you have with it?

Deciding that a conversation will go nowhwere after one response doesn’t bode well. It seems you are not willing to let your true thoughts be known and I think that is detrimental to you.

“You do not truly know someone until you fight them”
More along the lines of the Jabbok ford struggle than simply fighting.

The site you sent me really didn’t answer my question. I wanted to know what you believed and why.

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

Certainly not the response I expected.

A few things that confuse me, though.

If you have some problems with the Church, it would probably be a good idea for you to let them out and discuss them so that they can be addressed…especially here. Regarding infallibility, what problems do you have with it?

Deciding that a conversation will go nowhwere after one response doesn’t bode well. It seems you are not willing to let your true thoughts be known and I think that is detrimental to you.

“You do not truly know someone until you fight them”
More along the lines of the Jabbok ford struggle than simply fighting.

The site you sent me really didn’t answer my question. I wanted to know what you believed and why.

Some things are simply a personal matter and I would like to leave them as such. For your information I do talk with a Roman Catholic Priest regularly regarding my concerns and he helps me.

In reference to my link – that is pretty much where I stand in regards to Christianity. I believe in a visible Church but that church is the Church Catholic and not the Catholic Church. I believe in apostolic succession and all the things that are in the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

I was baptized Roman Catholic but my parents left the Church before I have any real memories due to the fact that my father had been married before and they did not have the money to get an annulment.

They tried to raise me Methodist but I didn’t buy into it so during my Confirmation I decided, unfortunately to be agnostic.

During that time I made quite a few homosexual friends and I fought for their rights and continue to do so… About a year ago I popped into a Lutheran site to argue with someone about homosexuality and marriage. While I was looking into certain scriptures to refute him the Holy Sprit grabbed me by the neck and shook some sense into me.

My journey continues…

Once again I would be more than happy to respond to the tautological post – where is it? It might have simply slipped my mind, I don’t know.