Protestants, a pragmatic question

[Dettingen]

When I read scripture, my understanding is informed by my knowledge of the times and conditions in which it was written, and interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with Protestant theology.

Some difference of opinion may arise from people who are not truly led by the Spirit in their understanding, or who have let their sin stand in the way of their understanding.

There also may appear to be different interpretations when in fact no differences may exist. This could be due to human inability to understand the Divine. Furthermore, our human languages place limitations on our ability to express what we understand.

For example, we know the God is a spirit without form or gender, yet in English we personify the Divine Being as “Father” and use the masculine pronoun “He.”

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[gearhead]

There is no conflict. Paul states that it is good to act in a way that does not scandalize others. This is what the instructions from the Church leaders did. They attempted to provide teaching that would unify the Christians in Antioch, both Jew and Gentile, in the faith.

Okay, you think there’s no conflict. Even if this is the case, you still have all the other problems to deal with.

The elephant in the room is that the early Church was clearly hierarchical. We continue to see this in the writings of the early church fathers.

But you’re missing some steps in your logic. That the early Church was heirarchical doesn’t necessarily imply that because the Catholic Church is heirarchical, it’s the “right one”… or even that it’s the heir to the one described in Acts.

If you reject this Church, how can you claim to be following Jesus?

I don’t claim to follow Jesus.

Jesus told us that if we reject those he sent we are rejecting him.

He’s also quoted in the Bible as saying that the true church can be recognized by its fruits. Depending on your point of view, the Catholic Church has many bad fruits.

 

[Radical]

It would be more accurate to say that “some ‘faithful’ Catholics follow their interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church…”, no?

depends…Non Serviam gave (by way of link) one area of interpretation and I’ll give another. Doesn’t the CC teach “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent”? Isn’t there some discussion amongst Catholics as to what that exactly means in certain situations and wouldn’t the application of that rule to certain things require interpretation? Or what about the application of the rule that there is no salvation outside the CC, w/o submission to the Pope and the effect of a lack of full knowledge? Isn’t that ball of wax subject to some interpretation? Or what about the unforgiveable sin? Has it been exhaustively defined by the CC, or is it subject to some interpretation?

Isn’t it the case that as soon as some in interpretation is required for Catholics, then the difference is one of degrees and not one of kind?

OK. Can you explain how we can therefor trust an infallible book since it was compiled by a fallible authority?

I suppose that it would be the same as how we trust the contents of a letter contained in the NT even though it was written by a fallible author…we have faith that God’s involvment counteracted the fallibility. Right?

 

[PJM]

=Dettingen;-When I read scripture, my understanding is informed by my knowledge of the times and conditions in which it was written, and interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with Protestant theology.

Some difference of opinion may arise from people who are not truly led by the Spirit in their understanding, or who have let their sin stand in the way of their understanding.

There also may appear to be different interpretations when in fact no differences may exist. This could be due to human inability to understand the Divine. Furthermore, our human languages place limitations on our ability to express what we understand.

For example, we know the God is a spirit without form or gender, yet in English we personify the Divine Being as “Father” and use the masculine pronoun “He.”

Pax, Dettingen

Excellent and infored response. Thank you!

Would you agree with that this issue of the OPQ, self interepetion of the bible, more than any other single factor has been the imputus for the dramatic increase in Protestant Denominations, give the fact that what the "bible says [or what we think it say’s] ought to be the foundation for each denominations Doctrinal beliefs?

Love and prayers,

A Brother in Christ

Pat

 

[Radical]

Would you agree with that this issue of the OPQ, self interepetion of the bible, more than any other single factor has been the imputus for the dramatic increase in Protestant Denominations, give the fact that what the "bible says [or what we think it say’s] ought to be the foundation for each denominations Doctrinal beliefs?

It is one of 3 factors that I can see.

Self interpretation is the first. (Easily found in Protestantism)

An attitude that yours is the only legitimate interpretation is the second. (Easily found in Catholicism, but necessary by one of the two factions in order to result in a split)

Third is mere practicality. There is many a protestant denomination that has no significant issue with another protestant denomination. (There is simply no matter of disagreement or they have lost that attitude described above). As such, they feel that they already enjoy the more important benefit of spiritual unity and that the much less important benefit of visible unity is simply not worth the legal and administrative problems that would arise with an attempt at merging or that would arise with an effort to stay visibly united.

 

[Dettingen]

Excellent and infored response. Thank you!

Would you agree with that this issue of the OPQ, self interepetion of the bible, more than any other single factor has been the imputus for the dramatic increase in Protestant Denominations, give the fact that what the "bible says [or what we think it say’s] ought to be the foundation for each denominations Doctrinal beliefs?

Love and prayers,

A Brother in Christ

Pat

Thank you for your kind response, Pat.

I can’t say that self-interpretation is the greatest cause because I am unable to gauge the relative force of the many, many reasons for the proliferation of Protestant denominations.

For example, some of the different Protestant denominations in the United States owe their existence not to matters of doctrine but to the forces of history. The Southern Baptists emerged from the struggle over slavery, the National Baptists from segregation. The Methodists had similar splits. And then unified with a branch of the Church of Christ.

Society also influences denominationalism. Certain worship styles (exhuberant, ritualistic, formal, and so on) are preferred by different segments of society. So different income levels tend to self-sort into different denominations (for example, you seldom find wealthy snake-handlers.)

I know the Baptists more than others, and their crabgrass-like proliferation (or kudzu?) can be attributed to the unitary nature of each congregation.

But if we love God and show it by serving God’s people, then I think perhaps God sees us as all the same.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[PJM]

Thank you friend.

Very well done. I had not really considered your third point.

Does this means that “spiritual unity” trumps theological differences?

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Radical]

Does this means that “spiritual unity” trumps theological differences?

Love and prayers,

Pat

That would be one way of saying it…another way would be by saying that unity on certain (core, important etc.) theological items creates a spiritual unity that trumps any difference on other (non-core, less important) theological matters. It is that old bit of “On essentials unity, on non-essentials liberty and in all things charity”. Everyone seems to agree with that slogan, but the fact of the matter is that more splits will occur when “essentials” are many in number and reconciliations/ spiritual unity will re-emerge when more items are reclassified from the “essentials” to the “non-essentials”. The differences that once divided often remain, but those differences are no longer viewed as reasons for separation. I see this as a trend in western protestantism and as the environment of western societies becomes more hostile to conservative christianity, I expect this trend to continue amongst conservative christians (Catholics and Orthodox included).

 

[PJM]

=Radical;5835052]That would be one way of saying it…another way would be by saying that unity on certain (core, important etc.) theological items creates a spiritual unity that trumps any difference on other (non-core, less important) theological matters. It is that old bit of “On essentials unity, on non-essentials liberty and in all things charity”. Everyone seems to agree with that slogan, but the fact of the matter is that more splits will occur when “essentials” are many in number and reconciliations/ spiritual unity will re-emerge when more items are reclassified from the “essentials” to the “non-essentials”. The differences that once divided often remain, but those differences are no longer viewed as reasons for separation. I see this as a trend in western protestantism and as the environment of western societies becomes more hostile to conservative christianity, I expect this trend to continue amongst conservative christians (Catholics and Orthodox included).

Well done friend, and I agree with your position.

As we head “into the forth quarter” Satan has a three touchdown lead in the Christian churches of America, Canada and Euorpe.

Let us pray!

 

[zaramarie81]

Hi, Thanks for responding.

As an informed and practicing Roman Catholic, I encounter personal understanding of the Bible that are darn right contrary to what it is actually saying.

This permissive attitude that the Bible is saying what I think its saying is I beleive the root cause of the many, many hundreds of different Protestant secs, each believing what they chose to hold as truth.

Catholic have a uniform understanding that if our understanding is not in accord with what The Church holds to be true, and is Taught by Her as the Truth, then we are wrong.

There can only be one single truth on any specific topic, and on all matters of Faith and Morals [only] that truth resides in Christ Catholic Church.

I struggle to accept the “logic” in personal choice?

Love and prayers friend.

Pat

I haven’t had a chance to read all the responses yet, but I just wanted to jump in as a Catholic and share a couple thoughts. One, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church only identifies a dozen or so verses that have to be interpreted a certain way. Most of the Bible is left for believers to read and interpret in multiple ways so long as they are consistent with Church teachings and the context of the Bible, etc. I find this to be very similar to how many of my Protestant friends read the Bible… they seek truth in the verses, that is within context of the verse, the historical period, and the established doctrines of the faith (Trinity, etc). Sometimes I wish us Catholics would dig a little deeper into Scripture.

I have seen some issues though where people have had little guidance. I’ve also seen some bizarre beliefs come out of wrongly interpreted verses, although I think there is more agreement between Catholics and Protestants than not. I do think “sola Scriptura” can contribute to confusion because you are sort of studying the Bible apart from the early church, almost in a vacuum, and trying to start with a modern translation and work backwards towards the original. A little tricky, but not the same as writing your own or making things up.

 

[Arthur001]

Please know that I ask because I just don’t get it, and I’m willing to be educated on a topic that I find to be of great interest.

As an FYI, I’m not pushing the Catholic Church as much as explaining where to find Biblical truth. Hope you find this information useful?

I disbelieve in Pat’s willingness to be educated.

I got distracted by the above and stopped reading the thread; apologies if I’m covering old ground.

The Quaker position is that the Bible is only one writing among many; people should read widely and follow the Inner Light. In that context, (I no longer attend there) I wouldn’t write my own bible because people would find it even less convincing than if I wrote philosophy or politics.

 

[PJM]

=gearhead;5829733]Okay, you think there’s no conflict. Even if this is the case, you still have all the other problems to deal with.

But you’re missing some steps in your logic. That the early Church was heirarchical doesn’t necessarily imply that because the Catholic Church is heirarchical, it’s the “right one”… or even that it’s the heir to the one described in Acts.

Friend you too are missing some steps in logic. “The early Church” was the ONLY Christian Church for a very long time. One Church = the One TRUE Church from which it can be showen all other “churches have sprung.”

Acts was writen by a Catholic for the ONLY Church at the time. Therefore Acts could only be speaking of what we know as thee Catholic Church today.

I don’t claim to follow Jesus.

Your choice and your loss friend.

He’s also quoted in the Bible as saying that the true church can be recognized by its fruits. Depending on your point of view, the Catholic Church has many bad fruits.

Your lack of understanding the difference between “The Catholic Church” and those who claim membership in Her, The Bride of Christ, is highly signifiant. The Church Herself remains Holy by God’s actual Presence. The people who run, work in and for Her are human, and subject to human failures and sins,*** EXCEPT when the Pope, and or the Magisterium, Teach officially on all matters of [and only on these two topics] Faith and Morals. ***

That is the personal gurantee of Jesus Himself. [Jn. 17: 15-18].

Love and prayers friends

 

[zaramarie81]

can you show me in the Bible especially in the book of acts where there was a magisterium? i have read extensively conerning the new testament and the churchs and there is no mention of a magesterium explicitly or implicitly. i wonder how this came about? thanks

The magisterium are simply the spiritual “descendants” of the 12, the apostles. They have the same authority as the original 12 in that they guide the faithful with authority and have the ability to ordain other bishops with the laying on of hands (this is what they did to replace Judas). The head of the Magisterium is the Pope. The Pope is “simply” another bishops (just as Peter was an apostle), but he is the head and has final say on matters of dispute (just as Peter did in Acts when he settled the matter on whether or not gentiles can be welcomes into the Christian faith). It’s easy to get confused with all the formal language Catholics use, but our structure is in Scripture. Many other Christian churches recreate a similar structure (although as Catholics we don’t believe they have the benefit of apostolic succession).

 

[zaramarie81]

Individual Interpretation of Scripture

 As a Protestant, I treasure the freedom I have to interpret scripture myself. One of my favorite experiences over the years has been to participate in a Bible Study and hear members of the group share their differing interpretations of specific verses of scripture. There was no concept of 'heresy', and we welcomed fresh interpretations as helpful.

  We've paid a heavy price for this freedom. Yes, we have many different denominations that may have been established because of this or that variation of understanding. I'm not nearly as troubled by that as I would be if I had to toe an official line from above. Some will call it ego, of course, but over the years I have changed my interpretation of certain passages. For example, I went through a strong pacifist phase, influenced by the Sermon on the Mount ('Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you....").  I still have a bent toward Christian pacifism, but my position has become modified over the years. 

   For some of us, Catholicism does some wonderful work among the poor and elsewhere, but we cannot help but feel that centuries ago it brought into Christianity major influences borrowed from Rome. The Pope replaced the emperor, saints replaced the various gods and goddesses, etc. Let each Christian have his or her belief. That's one of the beauties of America.

 May God bless every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

Roy, I am sorry you feel that the CC makes believers tow the line. That’s not the intent nor is there a lack of freedom. I can say as a Catholic that I have benefited greatly from the wisdom of the Saints… I am not just “stuck” trying to sort out Scripture on my own, but I have lots of wonderful (name removed by moderator)ut from Tradition, the Saints, history, etc. Still, most verses have multiple layers of meaning, and Catholics are free to explore that. We too have Bible studies where we mull over different verses and even change our perspective from time to time. Our priest does this too… when he finds a new gem of wisdom or tidbit from history that changes his perspective. The concept of heresy is not to be “mean” but to acknowledge that there is only one, true God who cannot contradict himself. That means that on things we are certain about (because God has graciously revealed himself to us in a clear way), we cannot claim differently. It’s also a guide to see… okay what does it really mean to be Christian? Am I Christian? Or am I something else? These are important things to know since our soul is at stake!

In regards to Rome, the idea of the Saints is not to worship them but to emulate their holiness, their devotion to Christ. The idea of the Pope is not as an earthly king… in fact, the very nature of the papacy is to acknowledge that the true King is Christ and that the Pope is simply the steward holding the keys to Christ’s kingdom until he returns for good. This is why us Catholics love our pope so much He is a servant of Christ, a servant of the servants of God. He is not rich, except in a spiritual sense.

 

[Arthur001]

Friend you too are missing some steps in logic. “The early Church” was the ONLY Christian Church for a very long time. One Church = the One TRUE Church from which it can be showen all other “churches have sprung.”

Acts was writen by a Catholic for the ONLY Church at the time. Therefore Acts could only be speaking of what we know as thee Catholic Church today.

Where do the Ebionites and the Nag Hamadi scrolls fit into this story?

 

[deborahssong]

Greetings! I would like to share some insight here. Five years ago I was lead to study the origins of Jewish tradition and scripture. In that quest I began to see a pattern. especially studying ancient hebrew. all I can say is wow! Here I am again, studying and researching on this journey. Making steps forward and some back, but still pushing forward…anyway I now know that my own interpretation can be dangeorus. Because scripture most definitely says specific things and mean specific issues and such. Studying ancient Jewish tradition has opened the eyes of my spirit for sure, to the catholic churches tradition. at least now I can actually see the similarity. wasnt able to completely before now. anyway just wanted to share that! Thanks God Bless all…

Debbie
proverbs 4:23

 

[gearhead]

Friend you too are missing some steps in logic. “The early Church” was the ONLY Christian Church for a very long time. One Church = the One TRUE Church from which it can be showen all other “churches have sprung.”

What do you consider to be “a very long time”? AFAICT, Christianity formed different branches from the very beginning. The same apostolic succession you claim is also claimed by other denominations.

What we know now as the Catholic Church grew out of the early Christian Church, but so did the Orthodox denominations… and the Coptics… and the Arians… and the Marcionites… and on, and on. The only way you can assume that the common history of all these denominations is “Catholic” exclusively and not any other type of Christianity is by looking at things through the lens of historical revisionism.

Acts was writen by a Catholic for the ONLY Church at the time. Therefore Acts could only be speaking of what we know as thee Catholic Church today.

That’s an unfounded leap in logic. Acts describes the Church before the Marcionite-non-Marcionite split, before the Arian-Trinitarian split, etc., etc. The Catholic Church followed a path with many forks. The mere fact that you could go backward along the trail to the original starting point doesn’t mean that the “correct” forks were taken along the way.

Your lack of understanding the difference between “The Catholic Church” and those who claim membership in Her, The Bride of Christ, is highly signifiant. The Church Herself remains Holy by God’s actual Presence. The people who run, work in and for Her are human, and subject to human failures and sins,*** EXCEPT when the Pope, and or the Magisterium, Teach officially on all matters of [and only on these two topics] Faith and Morals. ***

What makes you think that I wasn’t talking about actual, official doctrine? I agree that while many truly awful things have been done in the Catholic Church’s name over the centuries, that this doesn’t necessarily reflect on the Church itself (though this also don’t necessarily not reflect on the Church), but it has quite a bit to take exception to that’s built into supposedly infallible doctrine. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement, for example: IMO, that’s a bad fruit.

 

[PJM]

=Dunnaby=can you explain to me why the catholic church does not look like the church throughout the book of acts? they were a group on poor fishermen for the most part and the catholic church appears to be very wealthy and very ceremonious and i just do not see any of that. do you?

Yes It’s 2,000 years later and not a few thousnad believers, but literally BILLIONS! You can’t be serious friend:shrug:

One Church and One leader were a “given” as evidenced by oh so many places in the bible. that it was not necessary to articulate it every NT Book. Geeze!

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
3. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
6. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
7. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
8. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
9. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
10. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
11. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
12. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
13. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
14. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
15. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
16. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
17. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
18. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
19. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
20. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
21. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
22. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry
    (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

29: 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt. Chapter 23)

Note: While the bible does not speak specifically of the “ Chair of Peter,” this term gets it’s origin from “the Chair of Moses,” which EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE “SEAT OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.”

1. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

 

[PJM]

=Arthur001;5881001]Where do the Ebionites and the Nag Hamadi scrolls fit into this story?

Actually thet don’t

Heritics didn’t bleong to the Eary Church nor do they belong to todays Church.

Ebionites denied the Divinity of Christ thus are hertics

Nag Hamadi are “Gnostics” who believe that they can gain salvation by there briliance, also a heritical position.

Where do you folks come up with this stuff. You expect us to stick to the Bible, but you don’t have to:shrug:

Love and prayers friend,

Pat

 

[Arthur001]

Actually thet don’t

Heritics didn’t bleong to the Eary Church nor do they belong to todays Church.

Ebionites denied the Divinity of Christ thus are hertics

Congratulations, you have a position which is convincing for you.

When you’re ready to learn from protestants, the words you’ve used here probably won’t hurt you, because there will be new people willing to engage with you.