Protestant interpretation

[ianraygor]

I’m glad to hear that you are talking to a priest and that he is helping you.

I have to say though, it seems you are looking for something as if it doesn’t exist. I read some of the site you sent me, but it seems more of the same “grass roots” searching; and claiming to have roots in the early Church by selective quotes to support their stance, and they are most definitely a new group.

Not to be offensiive, but iIn all honesty, all anyone needs to do is look at a secular almanac or encyclopedia and they’ll show that the Catholic Church is the first Church. You say you are a student of logic, but I can’t say that you employ it very well. To not believe something just because you don’t believe it lacks logic when the proof is there.

I would refer you to the tautology, but I think you are right, it won’t go anywhere. You will not accept the facts of history, so my argument won’t mean anything to you.

May God’s peace and truth eventually be with you.

 

[ja3712]

Mickey:

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?

I’ve never said the catholic doctrine was bad, but it was vulnerable to abuse. And I dont entirely agree with Luther’s idea of salvation by faith alone, but I think Luther was more than justified to do what he did. If he did not start the reformation, the church would never have counter-reformed. It was a well deserved wake up call. And Luther was not entirely responsible for the reformation, most humanists during the renaissance had such an idea. No one should be blamed for the schism except the church itself. And why does every time I talk to you people you bring up how much you studied and how much you researched. Even if you know everything there is to know you’ll still be biased, just because you are a catholic. You think it was possible to resolve the problem within the church, but you have too much faith in your doctrine to recognize that wealth and power corrupts. And where I study is irrelevant, but im in ucsd.

 

[ja3712]

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.

I think the 1500 years of church history before the reformation is quite shameful for the catholic church, not something to be boasted. =)

 

[ianraygor]

ja3712:

Protestants dont trust any authority (the church) to tell them what to do, even though the apostols had good intentions in founding the church. Basically, people, including the pope, are not infallible, and are vulnerable to corruption. The catholic church back then prohibited the reading of the Bible btw, and protestants were completely justified to break away from the church. The church sold indulgences, taxed starving peasants, popes were pure evil, ex: pope Alexander had orgies, pope Gregory authorized torture for the inquisition, etc. Seriously, if it wasnt for protestant revolutionaries, the catholic church would not have cleaned up its acts.

I’d be interested in the sources that support your claims.

The Church has not, to my knowledge, prohibited reading of the Scriptures. They prohibited reading of false scriptures, but not of interpretations they approved of.

Also, what justifications were there from breaking away? Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the Church, I don’t recall where He or His Apostles said break away, they said to search out those who held to the truth. Although there were certain places where some of the practices you mentioned were perpetrated, it was not everywhere.

Torture was carried out by the secular arm in the inquisition. The Church was to question the person and hand them over to the secular authorities. Although there were some who went beyond their call, not all did.

Again, before making outrageous claims, you should cite your sources. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sources are a bit skewed.

 

[Contarini]

:The Catholic church has a rich historical source of scriptural interpretation that dates back to Jesus and the apostles through apostolic succession.(ie:magisterium, church fathers). Where do the protestants get their interpretation of scriptures?:

Depends what Protestants you are talking about. Since you guys keep pointing out that we are not united, why act as if we are? Protestants aren’t a monolithic bloc. More traditionally minded Protestants get their interpretation the same place you guys do, except that we don’t regard the tradition as necessarily infallible, and for the last 500 years we obviously give more weight to our own respective traditions, and less to post-Tridentine Catholicism, than you guys do. But we claim the first 1500 years just as much as you do. “We” here meaning myself and many Protestants who think as I do, including all the more traditional Protestant denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, and to a great extent also Methodist and Reformed).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Beaver]

:The Catholic church has a rich historical source of scriptural interpretation that dates back to Jesus and the apostles through apostolic succession.(ie:magisterium, church fathers). Where do the protestants get their interpretation of scriptures?:

Depends what Protestants you are talking about. Since you guys keep pointing out that we are not united, why act as if we are? Protestants aren’t a monolithic bloc. More traditionally minded Protestants get their interpretation the same place you guys do, except that we don’t regard the tradition as necessarily infallible, and for the last 500 years we obviously give more weight to our own respective traditions, and less to post-Tridentine Catholicism, than you guys do. But we claim the first 1500 years just as much as you do. “We” here meaning myself and many Protestants who think as I do, including all the more traditional Protestant denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, and to a great extent also Methodist and Reformed).

In Christ,

Edwin

Protestants think that every word that flows from the Vatican as be infallible. This simple is not true. Look up the definition as it is defined in catholic tradition, not by Webster or any other dictionary.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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.

I interpret based on my own personal skills of language and grammar, but others have gone through the same processes and same Scriptures I may struggle with. So, it is very useful to get their opinions and views. Because, I realize that I may have mistaken something in my congnition of what I read.

In the end, though, the decision is in my hands. What my conscience will tell me is what I go with. It is my “gut feeling” if you will. And of course, through prayer for guidance I expect that answer to be correct. I don’t go looking for absolute truths. I go looking for answers. They are not one and the same thing.

Peace…

 

[ja3712]

ianraygor:

I’d be interested in the sources that support your claims.

The Church has not, to my knowledge, prohibited reading of the Scriptures. They prohibited reading of false scriptures, but not of interpretations they approved of.

Also, what justifications were there from breaking away? Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the Church, I don’t recall where He or His Apostles said break away, they said to search out those who held to the truth. Although there were certain places where some of the practices you mentioned were perpetrated, it was not everywhere.

Torture was carried out by the secular arm in the inquisition. The Church was to question the person and hand them over to the secular authorities. Although there were some who went beyond their call, not all did.

Again, before making outrageous claims, you should cite your sources. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sources are a bit skewed.

I thought it was common knowledge that the church prohibited reading of the Bible. If you dont know this then there is no point in talking. And I dont have to cite anything because I dont remember the titles of all the books I read and who wrote them. You can try Christian England by Edwards. People who translated the Bible were getting their heads cut off, common knowledge…

The spanish inquisition was secular, but the Roman inquisition was directed by cardinals themselves. The pope himself threatened to burn people who spoke out against the church, ex: pope Innocent threatened to execute great philosophers like Pico

Although there were certain places where some of the practices you mentioned were perpetrated, it was not everywhere.

Aww… how naiive of you.

 

[Mickey]

ja3712:

I think the 1500 years of church history before the reformation is quite shameful for the catholic church, not something to be boasted. =)

If you are saying that 1500 years of history should be disregarded, then I am speechless. If you are referring to persecutions and corruptions, then I will tell you for the third time–PEOPLE SIN!!! Take a good look at reformation history and pay special attention to Martin luther’s persecution of the anabaptists. The nature of humanity is sinful. That’s why we believe in Jesus Christ! As far as me being biased because I am Catholic–I guess in a strange way I am biased because I believe in doctrine that has been around for almost 2000 years. Are you biased based on your belief in protestant doctrine that began about 500 years ago? I will pray for you ja3712.

 

[kwitz]

ja3712:

I thought it was common knowledge that the church prohibited reading of the Bible. If you dont know this then there is no point in talking. And I dont have to cite anything because I dont remember the titles of all the books I read and who wrote them. .

Sorry, it’s only common knowledge among anti-Catholics. I would guess if you could cite your sources for this info, they would be easily refuted. The Catholic Church preserved and copied the Bible for many, many years. Bibles were chained to pulpits not to keep them from the people but because they were so valuable (both spiritually and monetarily) and they were to be available.

Now if the question is did people read the Bible frequently, the answer has to be no. Not because they were forbidden to do so but because most couldn’t read.

Kris

 

[ja3712]

Mickey:

If you are saying that 1500 years of history should be disregarded, then I am speechless. If you are referring to persecutions and corruptions, then I will tell you for the third time–PEOPLE SIN!!! Take a good look at reformation history and pay special attention to Martin luther’s persecution of the anabaptists. The nature of humanity is sinful. That’s why we believe in Jesus Christ! As far as me being biased because I am Catholic–I guess in a strange way I am biased because I believe in doctrine that has been around for almost 2000 years. Are you biased based on your belief in protestant doctrine that began about 500 years ago? I will pray for you ja3712.

Yes, people sin. Thats why protestants put their salvation in their own hands, not at the church. You should pray for the leadership of the church instead, and hope they dont lead others into corruption, as they did in the past.

 

[Mickey]

ja3712:

Yes, people sin. Thats why protestants put their salvation in their own hands, not at the church. You should pray for the leadership of the church instead, and hope they dont lead others into corruption, as they did in the past.

Alas, your true colors are shown. You just said you are responsible for your own salvation. The Holy Catholic church does not lead people into corruption, satan does. By the way, I pray for the leadership of the church everyday.

You are very confused ja3712. Perhaps this website, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can help you.

 

[ja3712]

kwitz:

Sorry, it’s only common knowledge among anti-Catholics. I would guess if you could cite your sources for this info, they would be easily refuted. The Catholic Church preserved and copied the Bible for many, many years. Bibles were chained to pulpits not to keep them from the people but because they were so valuable (both spiritually and monetarily) and they were to be available.

Now if the question is did people read the Bible frequently, the answer has to be no. Not because they were forbidden to do so but because most couldn’t read.

Kris

Im not anti catholic, but it was very clear why the church did not like laymen reading the bible. They were afraid people would stop going to church if they can read the bible by themselves. And yes, people could not read the bible, and the church wanted to keep it that way, so translators like Wycliffe (english translator) were persecuted. It was clear that the church did not want anyone else to read the bible to keep people in the church, and thats why Luther translated the bible to german.

 

[ja3712]

Mickey:

Alas, your true colors are shown. You just said you are responsible for your own salvation. The Holy Catholic church does not lead people into corruption, satan does. By the way, I pray for the leadership of the church everyday.

You are very confused ja3712. Perhaps this website, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can help you.

Why am i confused? It seems like you are indoctrinated by the church. If you get away from the church for a while and try to find the truth by youself…

 

[kwitz]

ja3712:

Im not anti catholic, but it was very clear why the church did not like laymen reading the bible. They were afraid people would stop going to church if they can read the bible by themselves. And yes, people could not read the bible, and the church wanted to keep it that way, so translators like Wycliffe (english translator) were persecuted. It was clear that the church did not want anyone else to read the bible to keep people in the church, and thats why Luther translated the bible to german.

Wycliffe was persecuted because his translation was awful not because he had the audacity to put the Bible in English. Luther was not the first to translate the Bible into German. The Bible was originally in Latin not to keep it from the people but because that was the language of the people. An early translation was known as the Vulgate which comes from the same root word, vulgar, or common language. It’s hard for us to realize that the Latin we now see as a dead language really was the universal language. At the time, literate people wrote and read in Latin.

Kris

 

[dumspirospero]

Good reply…I couldn’t agree more.
Church Militant:

In my experience, the #2 post pretty much sums up the non-Catholic position, yet I find it distressing that there is so much difference in the interpretations of scripture from all these people who claim that the Holy Spirit has guided them. Since confusion is Biblically stated to be the work of the devil (Or at least NOT the Holy Spirit.) I am very uncomfortable with the teachings I see coming out of non-Catholic churches.

 

[Beaver]

Shibboleth:

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…

I have always try to be truthful to you. Be careful on who you call a liar it may end up being the Holy Spirit.
BY THE WAY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS INFALLIBLE.

 

[Katholikos]

ahimsaman72:

In regards to our knowledge or understanding of “truth”, I have debated many people and still contend that the Baptist denomination is closer than any other Christian denomination in the understanding of truth. However, when I compare my Christian faith with other world faiths, I see that my understanding of God is not truly complete. The Christian faith is only a microcosm of the macrocosm of world faiths. Do you see what I mean?

I can understandably believe the Baptist faith is the best Christian faith, while at the same time recognize that the Christian faith is not complete and doesn’t answer all the questions of our human existence. By being open to study and research of other faiths, I can touch the whole human experience and come to clearer, more concise conclusions.

One of the problems with your theory is that there is no “Baptist denomination,” no “Baptist faith.” The first of many Baptist denominations was split from the Mennonites by John Smyth in 1609. Shortly after founding the Baptists, Smyth left the organization and became a Mennonite. Even the trademark “Baptist” doctrine came from the “Immersion Bapists” – the third splinter in 1644.

You are basically arguing for private interpretation not only of the Christian scriptures, but of the world’s religions. There is no absolute religious Truth; therefore, truth is what you say it is. This is relativism – designer religion.

Catholicism answered all the questions that could be asked of it by an intellect like convert Mortimer Adler – the most influential philosopher of the 20th century and co-founder of the Great Books program for universities – so one wonders if the problem isn’t that your understanding of it is incomplete.

JMJ Jay

 

[ja3712]

kwitz:

Wycliffe was persecuted because his translation was awful not because he had the audacity to put the Bible in English. Luther was not the first to translate the Bible into German. The Bible was originally in Latin not to keep it from the people but because that was the language of the people. An early translation was known as the Vulgate which comes from the same root word, vulgar, or common language. It’s hard for us to realize that the Latin we now see as a dead language really was the universal language. At the time, literate people wrote and read in Latin.

Kris

What the hell are you talking about? Wycliffe died cause his translation was awful?? That doesnt make any sense, and doesnt explain why the lollards were also persecuted. And luther was not the first to translate the bible into german? The translation was his greatest accomplishment.

 

[mtr01]

kwitz:

Wycliffe was persecuted because his translation was awful not because he had the audacity to put the Bible in English. Luther was not the first to translate the Bible into German. The Bible was originally in Latin not to keep it from the people but because that was the language of the people. An early translation was known as the Vulgate which comes from the same root word, vulgar, or common language. It’s hard for us to realize that the Latin we now see as a dead language really was the universal language. At the time, literate people wrote and read in Latin.

Kris

Don’t forget also that the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation into English was completed 2 years before the original King James version.

What it really sounds like is that someone has been reading Lorraine Boettner’s book, especially with the claim that the Church forbid its members to read the Bible. The only time anything like that happened was in southern France in the 1200’s. The bishops held a local council in response to the Albigensian heresy, and decided to forbid access to the Bible in order to suppress the heresy (the Albigensians were twisting vernacular translations of the Bible to support their neo-Manichaean beliefs). The restriction was in effect only in the affected regions of France, and was lifted once the heresy was suppressed.