Protestant interpretations...

[JohnnyBeth]

I do believe that is a mistranslation…must be a Catholic Bible.

he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.’ YLT

I can’t find my Concordance (I have a good one) and the Online KJV is not so dependable, however, the KJV online say the words translated “believe” and not believe" mean just what they do in English.

It does not say “obey”. You are obviously forcing an interpretation to support your view. :tsktsk:

I don’t believe the word foundation is used for the church is the pillar and “support”; not the “foundation”. Christ is the foundation, not the church. Changes the contextual meaning significantly.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

I wouldn’t have used Tertullian either… Here’s what he said just ONE paragraph down:

CHAPTER 23. – HERMOGENES PURSUED TO ANOTHER PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. THE ABSURDITY OF HIS INTERPRETATION EXPOSED.

Its unwise to pull quotes out that adhere to your doctrine… Just like it would be wrong to do it with Biblical passages. Look at the text in its entirety. Or, don’t quote them!

Also, have you read Tertullian tract on Baptism? CHAPTER 12 Of the necessity of baptism to salvation.

• Michael

Can we use MAtthew 16:18 as a perfect example?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

It says “obey”. That’s the NASB - a Protestant Bible.

And from NIV:

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 15:20
Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

Romans 6:17
But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.

Obedience is certainly an essential aspect of a regenerate life in Christ.
Luke6:46 "Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:”

Only the saved can actualy do what He says; the unregenerate cannot and do not. Another gift of God.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

What “error” did I make? Quoting the NASB? You said I quoted a Catholic Bible. I proved you were wrong. But instead of admitting that you were in error, you continue to say that I am in error. Grow up!

No need to get upset; I think if Ginger goes back and looks again; she will see that “obey” can be used and is used in the NASB as you stated. We all make mistakes and Ginger if you will go back and review the passage in question; we can get past this.

I believe this was the verse in question & correct me if i am wrong; this is the NASB
John 3:36 (NASB) “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 3:36 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Either way; we all agree it is essential to be obedient to the Lord, why else call Him Lord or King.

 

[Luke65]

It does not have to be stated; it is implicit in being justified. It is the “good news”

If it’s “implicit in being justified”, then why did you quote that passage? Because you didn’t realize that it doesn’t say what you want it to say? And if that’s what justified means, then why are you still suffering? And if you can be justified and still suffering on Earth, then why not in Purgatory? And you didn’t answer my previous question, why doesn’t the Bible say this: “When we die those of us who are saved will immediately be with the Lord in Heaven forever!” Now that would be good news! But it’s not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Know your Bible?
Ro 4:7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

I guess you didn’t notice that it doesn’t say how our sins are “covered”. Did you notice that Paul was quoting the OT? Did you know that this had not been fully revealed at that time? Why do you think it is that the NT never says that Christ “covers over” our sins, but only says that we can “cover over” sins? It’s because the Blood of Christ does NOT “cover over” our sins, it “washes” them away! Do you understand the difference? Calvin didn’t. But now you know why the NT never says that Christ “covers over” our sins.

Good luck on repaying what is owed.

Good luck on not repaying what you owe…

“I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” (Matthew 5:26)

He’s telling you the truth. Unfortunately, you don’t believe the Son.

“Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.” (Colossians 3:25)

Yes, it’s easy to see why you ignore these scriptures.

Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

But you’re good at quoting the ones you like! But of course, you don’t understand. Salvation is a free gift from God - that’s what Paul is referring to. We can’t earn salvation. We can never pay the eternal debt for our sins - wait a minute, I already said this!

“Christ paid the eternal debt for our sins. We pay the temporal price for our sins.”

But of course, you took me completely out of context, and pretended that I was saying we could and must pay the eternal debt for our sins. But your problem is not with my words, it’s with the Word of God. You will pay a price for your sins, sooner or later, one way or another - the Word of God.

 

[Ginger2]

Yes, you were wrong that I used a Catholic Bible, and you’re somehow ignorant of many other translations. …

I knew you weren’t using a Catholic Bible as I looked up the different versions to see if any really said what you quoted.

Since there is only one version I know of that says “obey” I assumed you chose it intentionally. **Was I wrong that **you intentionally chose a version that was mistranslated to prove your point?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

…It’s not my fault if dishonest Protestant translators, like ol’ King James, want you to think that all you have to do is believe in Christ and you’re already saved.

No more than it is my fault Catholics have created false doctrines based on translations from “dishonest Catholic” scholars.

Or, perhaps not all these scholars are not intentionally being “dishonest”, but merely so caught up in trying to prove their personal beliefs, they simply pick and chose the things that support them rather than objectively looking at the facts.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Also, Ginger… You are incorrect. Arias used SCRIPTURE to put forward his heretical views, not fanciful theories as you put it…

• Michael

**Tertullian is speaking out against making claims that are not clearly written in the Scriptures and reading into those Scriptures what is not there.
**
Where is it you see Tertullian say the RC can interpret even what is not written?

Please provide the chapter so I can see it.

Tertullian is making a point much like I did against free bible students when they said there were two earths, one destroyed by satan and another created from its debris.

That is obviously not written in the Scriptures, but fanciful theories added to them without justification.

Ginger

I don’t understand why you can’t see what Tertullian actually said.

Tretullian said that H. quoted one Scripture and then added a lot of nonsense that is not supported by that Scripture.

It would be similar to your writing me a letter stating you served cake when your sister came to visit. Then I said your letter proves you are a gourmet chef because you cooked an eight course meal for t your entire family and they all raved of how superbly delicious it was.

Your letter said you served cake - period. It didn’t even state whether you baked it or bought it.

That is the point Tertullian was making. No where did he say people couldn’t understand Scriptures without the help of the RC.

If I missed that quote, please give me the reference so I can see it.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

No need to get upset; I think if Ginger goes back and looks again; she will see that “obey” can be used and is used in the NASB as you stated. We all make mistakes and Ginger if you will go back and review the passage in question; we can get past this.

I believe this was the verse in question & correct me if i am wrong; this is the NASB
John 3:36 (NASB) “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 3:36 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Either way; we all agree it is essential to be obedient to the Lord, why else call Him Lord or King.

1st, I already stated I agree we are to “obey” God

2nd, I did not say that version of Scripture doesn’t use the word “obey” I said it is a mistranslation of that verse. The original text does not say “obey” The word “obey” was not written by the author, therefore the word “obey” is not in that verse. The translator mistranslated the word as “obey” when it actually read “believe”.

3rd, the other verses that do say “obey” are not speaking of the same topic, therefore are irrelevant to the point.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t believe the word foundation is used for the church is the pillar and “support”; not the “foundation”. Christ is the foundation, not the church. Changes the contextual meaning significantly.

[1 Timothy 3:15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:15&version=NIV)** (NIV)**
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, it does say that but not in the context and script the Catholic church uses (Forgive me father for I have sinned). The only Father I know is God our Heavenly Father (and “NO”, my earthly father is addressed as “Dad”). Now if that ain’t scripture then I don’t know what is. Yes, a game of scripture tag! I love this forum (no joke).

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

Oh No Ron. This is horrible. If you are correct and the Church is wrong then guess what. God demanded us, may I repeat demanded us to sin On purpose

Its one of the ten commandments. Honor thy FATHER and Mother!

If you are correct why didn’t God command us to Honor our Mother and DAD!

So either you are WRONG or God and the CHurch is. Whats it gonna be Ron?

 

[Ginger2]

Oh No Ron. This is horrible. If you are correct and the Church is wrong then guess what. God demanded us, may I repeat demanded us to sin On purpose

Its one of the ten commandments. Honor thy FATHER and Mother!

If you are correct why didn’t God command us to Honor our Mother and DAD!

So either you are WRONG or God and the CHurch is. Whats it gonna be Ron?

lol

You seem to overlook the fact that when we call a priest “father” is not to identify him as the man whose genes we share, the man whom raised us and supported us,

but Catholics call men “father” to honor them as representatives of God, as speaking on behalf of God, as having the power of God.

When I refer to my father, I am merely identifying my relationship to him.

When I respectfully address a priest as “father” I am identifying him as a reverend, not as God’s spokes person.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

I knew you weren’t using a Catholic Bible as I looked up the different versions to see if any really said what you quoted.

Since there is only one version I know of that says “obey” I assumed you chose it intentionally. **Was I wrong that **you intentionally chose a version that was mistranslated ****to prove your point?

Ginger

Now you know of a few more…

John 3:36 – Obeying the Son

John 3:36 (New American Standard Bible)
36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 3:36 (American Standard Version)
36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:36 (English Standard Version)
36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 3:36 (New Century Version)
36 Those who believe in the Son have eternal life, but those who do not obey the Son will never have life. God’s anger stays on them."

John 3:36 (Amplified Bible)
36And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God’s displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.]

John 3:36 (NAB)
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

John 3:36 (RSV-CE)
36* He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible (Zodhiates) provides the following in the definitions:

543 Apetheia; from the neg. a (1), without, and peitho (3982), to persuade. Disobedience (Heb. 4:6). In the NT it corresponds with the verb unbelief which opposes the gracious word and purpose of God. It is a stronger term than the syn. apistia (570). unbelief. Hence we have the sons of apeitheias, disobedience (Rom. 11:30, Eph 2:2, 5:6, Col. 3:6)

544 Apeitheo; from the neg. a (1), without, and peitho (3982), to persuade. Not to believe, to disbelieve implying disobedience also (John 3:36; Acts 14:2; Rom 10:21; Heb 3:18); to disobey as through unbelief

Now, I’m no Greek scholar, but I know that Zodhiates was no Catholic, either. He cites the very verse that I did.

If this Protestant reference work states that apeitheo implies disobedience, that’s good enough for me.

Now, here is an interesting point:

John 3:36
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

You can believe all you want, but if you fail to believe and to obey, you will not see life.

You can lose your salvation through disobedience.

 

[Randy_Carson]

lol

You seem to overlook the fact that when we call a priest “father” is not to identify him as the man whose genes we share, the man whom raised us and supported us,

but Catholics call men “father” to honor them as representatives of God, as speaking on behalf of God, as having the power of God.

As did Jesus, Paul, James and Stephen.

See post #610.

When I respectfully address a priest as “father” I am identifying him as a reverend, not as God’s spokes person.

A pity.

Luke 10:
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

 

[Ginger2]

Now you know of a few more…

John 3:36 – Obeying the Son

Are you totally oblivious to what we were originally talking about? Or are you intentionally mixing apples and oranges to confuse the topic?

 

[Randy_Carson]

2nd, I did not say that version of Scripture doesn’t use the word “obey” I said it is a mistranslation of that verse. The original text does not say “obey” The word “obey” was not written by the author, therefore the word “obey” is not in that verse. The translator mistranslated the word as “obey” when it actually read “believe”.

Hmmm…see post #629 on this.

Ginger-

As a sidebar…what church do you attend and what is your denominational affiliation?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you totally oblivious to what we were originally talking about? Or are you intentionally mixing apples and oranges to confuse the topic?

Intentionally? You give me credit for paying too much attention.

In post # 624 you said, “Since there is only one version I know of that says “obey” I assumed you chose it intentionally.”

Now you know of seven (five Protestant).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[rinnie]

And what did the Early Church Fathers say:

’Not all that the Lord did was written down, but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.’ Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444) (Comm. John 12).

’**eing most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.’ Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 140-ca. A.D. 202) (Against Heresies 2,28:2).

’[T]he tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources.’ Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria (Nicene Definition 32).

’If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.’ Tertullian of Carthage (Against Hermogenes 22)

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon."
**

Ginger

Ginger that was my point that not all was written down. Are you saying the the Early Fathers are saying if is wasn’t written down we should not accept Tradition. Again here you go again not understanding a word of what you are reading. let me show you some scripture. You can dispute it.

2 thess 2:15
1 cor 11:2
2 thes 3:6
John 21:25
John 20:30
Mark 4:33-34

Can’t wait to hear your comments. Now again you are not understanding what you read, or the scripture is wrong. OR the Early Fathers are not saying what you are trying to make them say. Sound familliar

Could you please show me where they are saying something opposite then what I said.

Agains lets repeat it so we cannot misunderstand. Ron said its scripture alone! I said the bible says the opposite. I showed you the Scripture to prove my point. Now are you saying the early Fathers are saying its also scripure alone to ignore Tradition. Is that what you are implying. If not why would you continue to show this?

 

[Ginger2]

As did Jesus, Paul, James and Stephen.

Show me the verse where someone, anyone, refers to one of the Apostles, anyone, as “father”.

Look at the verses in context:

Spaking of the Pharisees, Jesus says,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 **And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. **

Luke 10:
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

These comments are referring to the Apostles. There is no mention of every bishop throughout history having this authority. The Apostle’s words are preserved in the New Testament so we know what they taught AND we KNOW they taught what Jesus taught them because they didn’t add anything new to their witness other than what we see came directly from Jesus and the Old Testament. Everything is written down for us so there is no confusion except for those who want to confuse and confound God’s Holy Word.

**We listen to the Apostles because they DID speak for God. Catholics do not have that authority and more than any other Christian.
**
Ginger