Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[larkin31]

Some of the posters participating here are Lutherans. It’s ironic to see them argue the Church of the Bible is not the Catholic Church, even though their founder came from the Catholic Church.

It’s a long time since then. Jesus was born a Jew.

 

[larkin31]

Show me the scriptures where division was acceptable?

As I’ve explained, Protestants are our separated brothers and sisters. The reformers took parts of the faith with them, from the Catholic Church. We are all called to live our faiths, how much a part we respond is up to each of us. It is the hope and prayer of the Catholic Church, that through God’s great and infinite ecomony, all will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

The biggest part of ‘rejection’ I see on these forums, is Protestants rejecting Catholics, some in part and some in whole. Now, before it’s brought up, I also realize there are Catholics who ‘reject’ Protestantism, either in part or in whole. Neither side can claim a perfection, as we are all human.

That means there are a few of us that must seek a way for unification through our hope. Otherwise, we work from despair and despair is lacking, as I believe all Christians will agree.

A lot of objections that keep us divided, have no impact on one’s salvation, yet they are argued as if they are. For example, so I believe Mary remained ever virgin, does that impact my salvation? If so, someone needs to explain it to me.

This thread asks Protestants to explain something. Why are you here? To listen, or to challenge the replies? What do you expect? If you want to chat with Catholics, I suggest other threads.

You are Christian if you can recite and believe the Apostle’s Creed. The rest is meaningless details.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s a long time since then. Jesus was born a Jew.

A Jew was of the old covenant, Jesus was the new and everlasting covenant. Jesus built a Church of believers. They are called Christians.

I have shown where the term ‘Catholic’ originated, from the Greek, using scriptures. I also provided the first writing that used the term and not introduced it.

There was one Church and Martin Luther was a part of that Church. He founded a new Church. It doesn’t make sense to see Lutherans deny the Catholic Church was the Church of the Bible because of this.

Just as Roblox84 brings up, why aren’t there Catholics and Lutherans? Why are there so many denominations beside the one?

The ‘rifts’ visible between Protestants and Catholics is not exclusive. Apparently there were more rifts among them. But, for some reason, we’re not seeing that being discussed by anyone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread asks Protestants to explain something. Why are you here? To listen, or to challenge the replies? What do you expect? If you want to chat with Catholics, I suggest other threads.

You are Christian if you can recite and believe the Apostle’s Creed. The rest is meaningless details.

As you point out, this thread asks Protestants. Agnostics are neither Catholic or Protestant, but you feel the need to express a view, just as I do. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that.

Just as Protestants are invited to explain, I’m going to defend the Catholic faith against things said against it. There are many who ‘lurk’, just read these forums, Catholics and Protestants. If I can offer them some knowledge on the subject according to my faith, I’m going to do it.

I have asked several times now, for examples of scriptures showing divisions is acceptable, but that has not been responded too. It was a request for all to respond too, Protestants included.

 

[Xavierlives]

Please don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying that Joe Blow won’t or can’t receive some sort of inspiration or lesson or motivation or whatever in his rudimentary studies. But where Scripture becomes controversial, he himself has to depend on the correct, infallible if you will, translation of the translators, no?

Well lets talk about those things. This is topic is overdone.

 

[CMatt25]

Ok, i’m not an expert on religion and i’m reading these posts to gain more knowledge about my own religion, but I would just like to see other peoples thoughts on something.

Everyone is in agreement that God created only one church, not a bunch of church’s. So when Luther broke away from the one and only church which God created to start his own religion, wouldn’t just that one action be enough to make people think about following Luthers protestant religion?

Most people on here cite a lot of bible verses which is ok, but if you look at it just at face value how can one argue about it, if the protestants seem to be following a religion that was started by Luther and the Catholics are still practicing the faith that was taught to the apostles.

I just want to hear peoples opinions about this because many people don’t seem to be taking a direct approach to this question.

I’m thinking a Protestant might say Christ has His hand on His church at all times and from time to time needs to steer it in a direction so as to keep it from straying off course so the gates do not end up prevailing. Or to repair or reform something gone wrong. Like a car. A part goes wrong. So you replace it with a new part. Same car. Same church. Just Christ using Luther, etc to keep it on course. That’s how I sorta look at Protestantism at least. You also must remember they define “church” as the body of believers united in Christ. I presume for many that includes at least some Catholics.

 

[Xavierlives]

This thread asks Protestants to explain something. Why are you here? To listen, or to challenge the replies? What do you expect? If you want to chat with Catholics, I suggest other threads.

You are Christian if you can recite and believe the Apostle’s Creed. The rest is meaningless details.

Really? What if I can’t recite the Apostle’s Creed and I am Christian?

 

[larkin31]

As you point out, this thread asks Protestants. Agnostics are neither Catholic or Protestant, but you feel the need to express a view, just as I do. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that.

I fully understand. I am not the one complaining, nor the one accusing you “of not understanding”. And I know the Protestant p.o.v. very well, having grown up in a minister’s household. And I sympathize with the Protestant p.o.v. and feel that it is mischaracterized here.

The rest is just fun.

 

[larkin31]

Really? What if I can’t recite the Apostle’s Creed and I am Christian?

I simply meant read it, state it.

And if there are parts that you don’t honestly feel that you can believe, then I would talk to your minster. Some are even flexible on, say, the part about “virgin” Mary. But I don’t assume to fully know–I just don’t believe in the importance of all these divisions among churches over non-central matters. I never understood it while in a church, and I still don’t now.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I fully understand. I am not the one complaining, nor the one accusing you “of not understanding”. And I know the Protestant p.o.v. very well, having grown up in a minister’s household. And I sympathize with the Protestant p.o.v. and feel that it is mischaracterized here.

The rest is just fun.

And you don’t see how the Catholic Church is mischaracterized at all? It’s a two way street here, really it is and I had thought that anyone could see it.

While these discussions are enjoyable, I don’t think anyone here is doing it ‘just for fun’.

 

[Roblox84]

I’m thinking a Protestant might say Christ has His hand on His church at all times and from time to time needs to steer it in a direction so as to keep it from straying off course so the gates do not end up prevailing. Or to repair or reform something gone wrong. Like a car. A part goes wrong. So you replace it with a new part. Same car. Same church. Just Christ using Luther, etc to keep it on course. That’s how I sorta look at Protestantism at least. You also must remember they define “church” as the body of believers united in Christ. I presume for many that includes at least some Catholics.

See I never understood this. I have a girlfriend who is baptist and I go to her church a lot too. Her church always teaches that the bible is the word of God and it has to be taken literally. So when you say they define church as all believers this would mean that they are not taking the bible literally. I was at their mass one time and the pastor said that the bible is our only authority and that they aren’t under the authority of any creeds or traditions, yet even the bible states that traditions are just as important. I have been going to this church for over a year now and I find it very confusing. Some parts they take literally, but others such as the sharing of the flesh and blood of Christ aren’t taken literally. Once I asked her what is someone in her church is saved but then does something bad if they are still saved? Her and her parents say that they must not have been truly saved, but then at their mass they say once saved, always saved. So are all the people in these churches that confused or am I just not getting something here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

See I never understood this. I have a girlfriend who is baptist and I go to her church a lot too. Her church always teaches that the bible is the word of God and it has to be taken literally. So when you say they define church as all believers this would mean that they are not taking the bible literally. I was at their mass one time and the pastor said that the bible is our only authority and that they aren’t under the authority of any creeds or traditions, yet even the bible states that traditions are just as important. I have been going to this church for over a year now and I find it very confusing. Some parts they take literally, but others such as the sharing of the flesh and blood of Christ aren’t taken literally. Once I asked her what is someone in her church is saved but then does something bad if they are still saved? Her and her parents say that they must not have been truly saved, but then at their mass they say once saved, always saved. So are all the people in these churches that confused or am I just not getting something here.

Kind of contradicts the salvation assurance of once saved always saved, doesn’t it?

 

[Roblox84]

Kind of contradicts the salvation assurance of once saved always saved, doesn’t it?

Well that’s what I don’t understand. If they can’t define it, it means the Pastor doesn’t really know an answer to it either. And how could someone go to a church were they are just moving through life blindly. I’ve sat through many sermons and usually he just states that “I think this bible passage means this…”. It truly stinks because they are so full of anti-catholic slander that it is hard to tell her and her family why their church teaches the wrong things.

 

[CMatt25]

See I never understood this. I have a girlfriend who is baptist and I go to her church a lot too. Her church always teaches that the bible is the word of God and it has to be taken literally. So when you say they define church as all believers this would mean that they are not taking the bible literally. I was at their mass one time and the pastor said that the bible is our only authority and that they aren’t under the authority of any creeds or traditions, yet even the bible states that traditions are just as important. I have been going to this church for over a year now and I find it very confusing. Some parts they take literally, but others such as the sharing of the flesh and blood of Christ aren’t taken literally. Once I asked her what is someone in her church is saved but then does something bad if they are still saved? Her and her parents say that they must not have been truly saved, but then at their mass they say once saved, always saved. So are all the people in these churches that confused or am I just not getting something here.

You don’t believe all who profess Christ are part of His Christian church body? I can’t help you then on that. The literal question affects all. Catholics will say to take the body and blood literally but not perhaps Creation literally in 6, 24 hr days. Or a whole host of things in the Bible are not taken literally by Catholics and nons alike. I don’t say I take everything literally or else I’d be supporting slavery, advocating women to not speak in church, etc. So I can’t help you on that either.

 

[Roblox84]

You don’t believe all who profess Christ are part of His Christian church body? I can’t help you then on that. The literal question affects all. Catholics will say to take the body and blood literally but not perhaps Creation literally in 6, 24 hr days. Or a whole host of things in the Bible are not taken literally by Catholics and nons alike. I don’t say I take everything literally so I can’t help you on that.

But mainly I was just saying that the Baptist along with the other church’s pride themselves on taking the entire bible literally, yet what they preach and what they do are two different things. So if this happens in the baptist church then it happens in a lot of other protestant churches. And sure, all believers could be said to be a “Church” but then that wouldn’t be taken literally

 

[AmateurPianist]

Please use scriptures to show us that we are to read scriptures and interpret them for ourselves, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then provide the scriptures where we can know without a doubt which is correct and which is wrong if there are differing interpretations.

He said He would not leave His Church as orphans. That means we have a way for the Father to give us truth.

You are changing the subject.

First of all the premise of the thread says nothing about the Bible. It says an “infallible book”.

The object of the premise was “be useful”.

So, the thread is proposing the logic that an “infallible book” can not be of any use without an infallible interpreter.

I have plainly showed that in real life, fallible books are of great use to all of us without any infallible interpreters. Amazing isn’t it. I wonder why that is?

It would be logical then that an infallible book would be of even greater use than a fallible book. Both being without infallible interpreters.

I am not talking about the Bible or anything else (yet). I am not talking about God or what is Scriptural or not Scriptural.

I am first establishing that the very logic of the title of this thread is just nonsense. Why can’t folks just admit it?

…unless I should get rid of all of my computer manuals because without an infallible interpreter they are obviously useless.

 

[RedBert]

"Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter? "

The exact same way it works for the Jews.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are changing the subject.

First of all the premise of the thread says nothing about the Bible. It says an “infallible book”.

The object of the premise was “be useful”.

So, the thread is proposing the logic that an “infallible book” can not be of any use without an infallible interpreter.

I have plainly showed that in real life, fallible books are of great use to all of us without any infallible interpreters.

It would be logical then that an infallible book would be of even greater use.

I am not talking about the Bible or anything else (yet). I am not talking about God or what is Scriptural or not Scriptural.

I am first establishing that the very logic of the title of this thread is just nonsense.

Unless I should get rid of all of my computer manuals.

I am conveniently accused of changing the subject, yet I feel like we’re only to provide one side of the discussion to prove the Catholic view.

Are the ‘real life’ fallible books written in parables, metaphors, through a 2000 year old culture, have they gone through many translations from old languages to a modern language, was the instructions written without chapter or page numbers with those being added by someone else later? Are those books to be weighed spiritually or is carnally good enough?

There is a great difference between the Bible and the instructions for my dvd player, computer, television, or any other modern ‘appliance’. So, personally, I cannot see the comparison as the same or as logical.

The Bible states it is ‘useful’, which is short of being complete.

We see Protestants weigh their interpretation against Catholic interpretation and declare that Catholic interpretation is wrong. But, no one will produce the authoritative scriptures stating it as such. No one will produce scriptures stating the Bible is the ONLY authority or that we are to fallibly interpret them for ourselves and then assume an authority to tell others they are wrong, because they have Holy Spirit guidance. This assumes, or accuses, that we do not have Holy Spirit guidance. Then it’s pointed out how many different interpretations there are with scriptures and we ask for scriptures to show us which is correct and which is not, but no one responds with scriptures…because it’s not a scriptural teaching and was not a practice of the early Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

"Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter? "

The exact same way it works for the Jews.

Read Nehemiah 8 to see how it worked for the Jews…

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am conveniently accused of changing the subject, yet I feel like we’re only to provide one side of the discussion to prove the Catholic view.

That is because you have not addressed my issue yet.

Are the ‘real life’ fallible books written in parables, metaphors, through a 2000 year old culture, have they gone through many translations from old languages to a modern language, was the instructions written without chapter or page numbers with those being added by someone else later? Are those books to be weighed spiritually or is carnally good enough?

There is a great difference between the Bible and the instructions for my dvd player, computer, television, or any other modern ‘appliance’. So, personally, I cannot see the comparison as the same or as logical.

Are you saying, yes the premise of this thread is nonsense. In real life we have fallible books without infallible interpreters. And we somehow make do. Imagine that.

Was that so difficult to admit?

Now what you are saying in effect is that in every other case in real life we function just fine with fallible books and no infallible interpreters (imagine that), yet at the same time you want me to believe that in this one case and this one case only an infallible book (which is far superior to fallible books) requires an infallible interpreter.

Sorry, but that still doesn’t make any sense.,

Oh…to your point. Just because a document might be difficult to understand (in places)…or a document is long…or a document has many authors…or a document was written a long time ago…it still does not follow that this document requires an infallible interpreter.

The Bible states it is ‘useful’, which is short of being complete.

I’m not saying it is complete. That is a separate issue. Complete with respect to what?

We see Protestants weigh their interpretation against Catholic interpretation and declare that Catholic interpretation is wrong.

I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong. That is a hornet’s nest I would rather not walk into myself thank you. At the same time, I have absolutely no reasons to believe several of your claims, this one included. But as I have always said, I am not out to convert you all.

But, no one will produce the authoritative scriptures stating it as such. No one will produce scriptures stating the Bible is the ONLY authority or that we are to fallibly interpret them for ourselves and then assume an authority to tell others they are wrong, because they have Holy Spirit guidance. This assumes, or accuses, that we do not have Holy Spirit guidance. Then it’s pointed out how many different interpretations there are with scriptures and we ask for scriptures to show us which is correct and which is not, but no one responds with scriptures…because it’s not a scriptural teaching and was not a practice of the early Church.

Again the purpose of me being here is not to claim you are wrong. I will freely admit that I find great big holes in many of the arguments that you present to us…this one included.