Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[SD_Catholic]

There were Apostles in Jerusalem, there were none at Nicea. The conclusions from Nicea seem reasonable, and could be 100% correct, but they were not inspired - they were philosophy. Jesus led the Apostles into all truth in the first century. This statement from Jesus that he would do this is plain as day and anyone who says that truth continues to grow goes directly against what Jesus said.

Just curious… would your position be that there’s no way then to know the entire revealed truth? There’s no hidden motive here, I was just wondering where you stand on revealed truth.

SD

 

[SteveGC]

There were Apostles in Jerusalem, there were none at Nicea.

Not the 12, no. Their ordained successors, yes indeed.

The conclusions from Nicea seem reasonable, and could be 100% correct, but they were not inspired - they were philosophy.

I see. So the NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST is just a “philosophy”?? You’re free to believe the Son of God is NOT God Himself. And if you did, you could still call yourself a Christian? I’m not saying you believe it incorrectly yourself. I’m saying you think this decision at Nicea was just trivial, and insignificant to the core beliefs of Christians everywhere. That’s a pretty remarkable position to put yourself in. If you only knew the post-apostolic decrees which you now hold as fundamental truths today, decrees which have protected you from growing up into a completely heretical and unChristian world. I don’t think you have any idea how immensely indebted you are to The Church, and it’s undying work to preserve The Truth.

Jesus led the Apostles into all truth in the first century. This statement from Jesus that he would do this is plain as day and anyone who says that truth continues to grow goes directly against what Jesus said.

That’s right. The Deposit of Faith was given unto the Apostles. Truth doesn’t grow. Truth is promulgated. Truth is protected. Truth is translated for all generations to come. This is the role of the Apostolic Church on earth.

 

[SyCarl]

Just curious… would your position be that there’s no way then to know the entire revealed truth? There’s no hidden motive here, I was just wondering where you stand on revealed truth.

SD

If you don’t mind me interjecting, I think the point is that God is beyond our comprehension. How can the finite describe or explain the infinite? How can we understand everything God is or that He does. As He says through Isaiah, as the heavens are above the earth so are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

The best we can do is to take His revealed word and do our best to express what we can. Nicea is our best attempt to explain how God is but is limited by our very nature to understand and express such things.

 

[SD_Catholic]

If you don’t mind me interjecting, I think the point is that God is beyond our comprehension. How can the finite describe or explain the infinite? How can we understand everything God is or that He does. As He says through Isaiah, as the heavens are above the earth so are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

The best we can do is to take His revealed word and do our best to express what we can. Nicea is our best attempt to explain how God is but is limited by our very nature to understand and express such things.

No problem:thumbsup:… but that’s why I was asking about Revealed Truth, which I meant to be the things that God wanted us to understand and know about him… I’m sure you realize Revealed Word is different to a Catholic than it is to a Protestant, so usualy that’s why there is the misunderstanding about the Revealed Truth… I was trying to get a grasp for what ckempston’s take on Revealed Truth was and how it is determined.

SD

 

[ckempston]

Just curious… would your position be that there’s no way then to know the entire revealed truth? There’s no hidden motive here, I was just wondering where you stand on revealed truth.

SD

Define revealed truth. If revealed truth is simply what we need to be saved, then I’d say obviously we can know it. If you mean by revealed truth, explaining the mechanics of the Trinity, then no, I would say there is no possible way we can know it.

We will only know in part until we reach the next life. I’ve used this word before, but I believe Catholics have been inflicted with this thing I like to call “explanationism.” Catholics just can’t let it be that “there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ;” they have to explain exactly how this works, down to a science, so that there is no mystery left. The fact that Catholics have so many things that they call “mysteries” that have better explanations than some scientific theories seems pretty disingenuous.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Define revealed truth. .

My meaning of it as I explained to SyCarl was the things that Jesus revealed to us that he wanted us to know and understand… Perhaps there’s a better def but this should cover it.

I guess I don’t feel too uptight that somebody can halfway explain a mystery that I can’t understand… I don’t understand all the chemistry behind certain prescription drugs, but I trust my Dr. and the pharmacist to prescribe medicine for my child when I have no idea how it’s made… Some people just have been given gifts that not all have the pleasure (or misery if it locks you in a cubical) of being able to experience… I think we can only try our best to understand the things we can with the information we have available… just because we don’t totally understand something doesn’t make it untrue or unrevealed.

SD

 

[MDK]

If you don’t mind me interjecting, I think the point is that God is beyond our comprehension. How can the finite describe or explain the infinite? How can we understand everything God is or that He does. As He says through Isaiah, as the heavens are above the earth so are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.

The best we can do is to take His revealed word and do our best to express what we can. Nicea is our best attempt to explain how God is but is limited by our very nature to understand and express such things.

That’s probably the best someone dedicated to Protestantism can do. However, it’s not what God set forth for us. He gave us a means to always be without error in knowing His revealed truth. Protestants reject this in favor of determining for themselves what God tells them. Protestantism is an exercise, therefore, in how man can tell God what he wants to believe about God. Even for those sincere, the method of Protestantism does not work, and produces error. There is no Protestant church without error in teaching. Protestantism comes from man’s use of God’s gift of free will that mankind has used to their own liking. The Catholic Church faithfully presents His revealed truths, without error in faith and morals when binding on the faithful. The Catholic Church comes from the ordained will of God. We are members due to our own free will.

 

[ckempston]

Not the 12, no. Their ordained successors, yes indeed.

I see. So the NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST is just a “philosophy”?? You’re free to believe the Son of God is NOT God Himself. And if you did, you could still call yourself a Christian? I’m not saying you believe it incorrectly yourself. I’m saying you think this decision at Nicea was just trivial, and insignificant to the core beliefs of Christians everywhere. That’s a pretty remarkable position to put yourself in. If you only knew the post-apostolic decrees which you now hold as fundamental truths today, decrees which have protected you from growing up into a completely heretical and unChristian world. I don’t think you have any idea how immensely indebted you are to The Church, and it’s undying work to preserve The Truth.

Well, if someone said Jesus is not God himself, I’d conveniently point them to the Scriptures that say otherwise. You don’t even need the New Testament for that. The Arian controversy only proves one thing; at some time in the early centuries, Bishops started thinking too highly of themselves and stopped relying on the Scriptures; they further complicated matters when they seemed to prefer to hear themselves speak rather than being silent where God had not revealed anything to us on certain matters.

I personally believe everything about Jesus that’s written in the Scriptures, and as I’ve pointed out in other posts, Nicea seemed to come to a reasonable conclusion, but it wasn’t an inspired one, no matter how good we think it is.

That’s right. The Deposit of Faith was given unto the Apostles. Truth doesn’t grow. Truth is promulgated. Truth is protected. Truth is translated for all generations to come. This is the role of the Apostolic Church on earth.

I’m sorry, but this is delusional. If Truth doesn’t grow, then all the extra doctrines the Catholic church has aren’t it, because its “truth” has been growing for hundreds of years.

 

[ckempston]

That’s probably the best someone dedicated to Protestantism can do. However, it’s not what God set forth for us. He gave us a means to always be without error in knowing His revealed truth. Protestants reject this in favor of determining for themselves what God tells them. Protestantism is an exercise, therefore, in how man can tell God what he wants to believe about God. Even for those sincere, the method of Protestantism does not work, and produces error. There is no Protestant church without error in teaching. Protestantism comes from man’s use of God’s gift of free will that mankind has used to their own liking. The Catholic Church faithfully presents His revealed truths, without error in faith and morals when binding on the faithful. The Catholic Church comes from the ordained will of God. We are members due to our own free will.

Protestants don’t “determine for themselves” any more than Catholics do. Catholics rely on the Catechism, Protestants rely on the Scriptures. There is no difference. Clearly, as I have pointed out many times, but it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, Catholics have to interpret the teachings of the Magesterium (e.g. the Catechism, Encyclicals, etc.). Based on conversations in these very forums, CAtholics believe some very different things in regard to what has and hasn’t been defined, and what the church does, or does not say. The Catholic accusation of “personal interpreation” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

[MDK]

Protestants don’t “determine for themselves” any more than Catholics do. Catholics rely on the Catechism, Protestants rely on the Scriptures. There is no difference. Clearly, as I have pointed out many times, but it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, Catholics have to interpret the teachings of the Magesterium (e.g. the Catechism, Encyclicals, etc.). Based on conversations in these very forums, CAtholics believe some very different things in regard to what has and hasn’t been defined, and what the church does, or does not say. The Catholic accusation of “personal interpreation” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Yet, you miss the reality that was being discussed. The only means in Protestantism is for individual interpretation…, unless you’re telling me that you’re listening to the Pope and Magisterium like Christ set forth for you and I and everyone.

Catholicism is defined and one can be more or less of a good Catholic Christian (which is also to be a true Christian). So, yes individual Catholics can and do vary, there is no way around that. That really wasn’t the point, though. Being baptized into the Church is a ticket in, now where you go from there, and how well you adhere to the true teachings describes how true of a Catholic you are. We have the living means of learning the revealed truth without error (Protestantism does not). We can go back and ask the Bishop or get clarification on the teaching. The point is that there is a standard and way of knowing truth. Catholics have it, others don’t. There is a way to know what it means to be a good Catholic.

What does it mean to be a good adherent to Protestantism? Nobody knows! It’s an individual thing that if you don’t like one flavor, go try one you do like.

 

[ckempston]

Yet, you miss the reality that was being discussed. The only means in Protestantism is for individual interpretation…, unless you’re telling me that you’re listening to the Pope and Magisterium like Christ set forth for you and I and everyone.

The only means in Catholicism is individual interpretation. See how easy it is to just spew out catchy statements with no backing?

Catholicism is defined and one can be more or less of a good Catholic Christian (which is also to be a true Christian). So, yes individual Catholics can and do vary, there is no way around that. That really wasn’t the point, though. Being baptized into the Church is a ticket in, now where you go from there, and how well you adhere to the true teachings describes how true of a Catholic you are. We have the living means of learning the revealed truth without error (Protestantism does not). We can go back and ask the Bishop or get clarification on the teaching. The point is that there is a standard and way of knowing truth. Catholics have it, others don’t. There is a way to know what it means to be a good Catholic.

You have the means of looking at someone else’s opinion on what revealed truth is just like Protestants. Totally untrue that Protestants have no standard: it’s called Scripture.

What does it mean to be a good adherent to Protestantism? Nobody knows! It’s an individual thing that if you don’t like one flavor, go try one you do like.

Nobody knows what it means to be a good Catholic! (See again, how easy it is to make these accusations?) If you don’t like your current Catholic Parish, just go find one you do like among the 20 or so different Rites.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by ckempston
There were Apostles in Jerusalem, there were none at Nicea.

This little exchange prompts me to ask this question.

Why is it so impossible for our non-catholic bretheren to consider that, when Jesus Gave the Apostles the Authority to Bind and Loose, He did just that, - Gave them this authority?

So that when the Apostles, using the Authority Granted tehm by Jesus, ordained others into the ministerial priesthood, they passed on this same authority to these men. Thus we have valid succession.

Why is the authority and succession of the Apostles not seen as logical and yet is is seen as perfectly logical that The Holy Spirit will guide each individual in their personal interpretation of the Bible and that now “Authority” is needed?

Peace
James

We catholics are seen to be wrong in our interpretation,

 

[MrS]

Protestants don’t “determine for themselves” any more than Catholics do. Catholics rely on the Catechism, Protestants rely on the Scriptures. There is no difference. Clearly, as I have pointed out many times, but it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, Catholics have to interpret the teachings of the Magesterium (e.g. the Catechism, Encyclicals, etc.). Based on conversations in these very forums, CAtholics believe some very different things in regard to what has and hasn’t been defined, and what the church does, or does not say. The Catholic accusation of “personal interpreation” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Protestants rely on whose Bible. The only one introduced came from the Catholics, inspired by the Holy Spirit - the ONE Whom Christ promised to His ONLY Church to lead them (The Church) into the whole Truth.

Outside the Catholic Church, one can only hope to catch the crumbs from the table.

.

 

[SyCarl]

Yet, you miss the reality that was being discussed. The only means in Protestantism is for individual interpretation…, unless you’re telling me that you’re listening to the Pope and Magisterium like Christ set forth for you and I and everyone.

Catholicism is defined and one can be more or less of a good Catholic Christian (which is also to be a true Christian). So, yes individual Catholics can and do vary, there is no way around that. That really wasn’t the point, though. Being baptized into the Church is a ticket in, now where you go from there, and how well you adhere to the true teachings describes how true of a Catholic you are. We have the living means of learning the revealed truth without error (Protestantism does not). We can go back and ask the Bishop or get clarification on the teaching. The point is that there is a standard and way of knowing truth. Catholics have it, others don’t. There is a way to know what it means to be a good Catholic.

What does it mean to be a good adherent to Protestantism? Nobody knows! It’s an individual thing that if you don’t like one flavor, go try one you do like.

If a Catholic has a question of interpretation, how does he resolve it. He can ask his priest but then the priest cannot guarantee that his interpretation is right. Neither can an individual bishop. How often do people complain about liberal priests or bishops? You disagree with them but the Church keeps them in office. Do you listen to them or try to find a priest or bishop more to your taste.

How does an ordinary Catholic access the Magisterium or an infallible ruling by the Pope? You are stuck with a personal interpretation whether it is yours or someone else’s. Even where something is set out in the Catechism you must interpret how to apply it. Mortal sin is defined but individuals are constantly asking here if something is a mortal sin or even if it is a sin at all. They must interpret the definition for themselves.

What is an infallible decision. Does it require a canon from a council? How many scriptures have been infallibly interpreted by the Church? Catholics can’t seem to agree how many or even how many past papal decrees are infallible. Unless it has been infallibly established, whatever you get is someone’s personal interpretation and you must decide if you agree with it or not.

 

[MrS]

This little exchange prompts me to ask this question.

Why is it so impossible for our non-catholic bretheren to consider that, when Jesus Gave the Apostles the Authority to Bind and Loose, He did just that, - Gave them this authority?

So that when the Apostles, using the Authority Granted tehm by Jesus, ordained others into the ministerial priesthood, they passed on this same authority to these men. Thus we have valid succession.

Why is the authority and succession of the Apostles not seen as logical and yet is is seen as perfectly logical that The Holy Spirit will guide each individual in their personal interpretation of the Bible and that now “Authority” is needed?

Peace
James

We catholics are seen to be wrong in our interpretation,

As a followup to your wise (name removed by moderator)ut, those who usurp the authority of the ministerial priesthood (and their responsibility to teach) will also reap the wrath of Korah… as Jude, a book in both Catholic and non-Catholic translations, will attest to.

They claim to love and know the Scriptures… so I guess there is no excuse for their usurption.

.

 

[SD_Catholic]

ckempston and SyCarl… you have to be honest and realize the things that might be hard for a Catholic to interpret through a teaching doctrine is a far different situation then the differences in interpretations among different Protestant denominations. For ex…There is a huge difference in knowing when voting for a certain politician becomes a mortal sin (Catholic problem), as opposed to believing that sins are all equal (some Protestant interpretations)… These things are far from being equal comparisons in levels of understanding a teaching… The doctrines that are binding to the faithful in the CC can be understood pretty clearly, although certain details may be hard to sort through (usually they are minor), but comparing these to some of the different theological differences amongst “sola scripturists” is comparing apples to oranges.

SD

 

[1beleevr]

Oh for that glorious day, when there will be no more division, no more denominations, religion, or infighting among God’s children:thumbsup:Saints, all of us, rejoicing in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords! Forgotten will be the claims that Jesus commanded us to listen to the pope, or “you aren’t a true Christian!” Answers will come and doubts will disappear, and we may be surprised at who doesn’t make it to Heaven, or for that matter, who does! Everyone will be judged on their own walk, and it won’t be a case of, "hey, I deserve a bigger mansion, see all the good things I did! It won’t matter whether you were a devout________fill in the blank I believe it will come down to what have you done for Christ, and with what kind of heart(Are you a Cain, or an Abel?) Here, in the 21st century, as well as before now, we, even us Christians squabble and argue about who’s right or wrong, while people are dying without Christ, or dying to know Christ Our spiritual warfare, sometimes comes from within the camp, rather than from outside! We all know that Jesus built a church! The church did not have a name,although many like to call it Christ’s church, and all of us true believers, are members of the Bride of Christ! Can we really believe with certainty, that those who are in place in the catholic church are bonafide successors of the apostles

 

[SD_Catholic]

Oh for that glorious day, when there will be no more division, no more denominations, religion, or infighting among God’s children:thumbsup:Saints, all of us, rejoicing in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords! Forgotten will be the claims that Jesus commanded us to listen to the pope, or “you aren’t a true Christian!” Answers will come and doubts will disappear, and we may be surprised at who doesn’t make it to Heaven, or for that matter, who does! Everyone will be judged on their own walk, and it won’t be a case of, "hey, I deserve a bigger mansion, see all the good things I did! It won’t matter whether you were a devout________fill in the blank I believe it will come down to what have you done for Christ, and with what kind of heart(Are you a Cain, or an Abel?) Here, in the 21st century, as well as before now, we, even us Christians squabble and argue about who’s right or wrong, while people are dying without Christ, or dying to know Christ Our spiritual warfare, sometimes comes from within the camp, rather than from outside! We all know that Jesus built a church! The church did not have a name,although many like to call it Christ’s church, and all of us true believers, are members of the Bride of Christ! Can we really believe with certainty, that those who are in place in the catholic church are bonafide successors of the apostles

That was all very very nice:thumbsup:… and YES! I can and do believe (in answer to your question)… That belief comes much easier than others… I always wondered why people have a problem believing the Apostles had successors… I mean God used men while he was still on Earth… why would he not after he left? Some say nowadays, why would he need this or that when he’s God?.. Well then even more so why not ask, why did he need this or that when he was God on Earth? We don’t really know I guess, but if that’s the way he wanted it, why doubt it? But again my mind wanders… this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

We will only know in part until we reach the next life. I’ve used this word before, but I believe Catholics have been inflicted with this thing I like to call “explanationism.” Catholics just can’t let it be that “there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ;” they have to explain exactly how this works, down to a science, so that there is no mystery left. The fact that Catholics have so many things that they call “mysteries” that have better explanations than some scientific theories seems pretty disingenuous.

It isn’t real hard to figure out why this is… The Church is so often called on to defend itself on certain beliefs, that they are held responsible for an explanation… Be honest, how often if the CC just answered, “Well that’s a mystery and you’ll just have to accept it”, would the topic attacker feel better about the matter? There are still plenty of things in the CC that are left under the heading of “mystery”, but if parts of a mystery can be explained then I think the Church feels obligated to share that understanding with the faithful, especially when that “mystery” comes under fire… which is usually the reason a belief might be later defined even though it had been practiced for maybe hundreds of years prior to the defenition.

SD

 

[MrS]

Oh for that glorious day, when there will be no more division, no more denominations, religion, or infighting among God’s children:thumbsup:Saints, all of us, rejoicing in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords! Forgotten will be the claims that Jesus commanded us to listen to the pope, or “you aren’t a true Christian!” Answers will come and doubts will disappear, and we may be surprised at who doesn’t make it to Heaven, or for that matter, who does! Everyone will be judged on their own walk, and it won’t be a case of, "hey, I deserve a bigger mansion, see all the good things I did! It won’t matter whether you were a devout________fill in the blank I believe it will come down to what have you done for Christ, and with what kind of heart(Are you a Cain, or an Abel?) Here, in the 21st century, as well as before now, we, even us Christians squabble and argue about who’s right or wrong, while people are dying without Christ, or dying to know Christ Our spiritual warfare, sometimes comes from within the camp, rather than from outside! We all know that Jesus built a church! The church did not have a name,although many like to call it Christ’s church, and all of us true believers, are members of the Bride of Christ! Can we really believe with certainty, that those who are in place in the catholic church are bonafide successors of the apostles

Over the years, since I returned to the Faith of the Catholic Church, I have found a deep need to know, and then to share and defend the Faith.

I have seen positions such as yours innumerable times. I have, IMHO, seen a similarity in them all… a lack of conviction, or real trust in Jesus, masked as strong convictions to just “all get-along” and just love Jesus - in other words, accept all the opinions as valid, and reject the Church He founded.

The use and mis-use of Scripture becomes a “justification”

• to ignore One Church in favor of many
• to ignore a name, The Church, which Christ called the group which He founded,… in favor of allowing man made groups to use “Church” in their names of their own faith communities, for that is the most that they are… they are not either a, or the, Church.
• to ignore and deny a Catholic Doctrines, in favor of a opinions that fall apart as each new group emerges with a new set of opinions,
• to ignore the gifts and means of salvation given by Christ, and then show a concern for the salvation of everybody “else” outside of those gifts,
• to ignore the vast amount of denominations without admission that at least all but one are wrong, because they are not founded by Christ,
• to ignore many of the clear teachings of Christ in the Gospels, supported by Paul and the Church Fathers, in favor of relying on just being a “true believer”

Believer in what? What you choose to believe? The things you can understand? The things either self-taught or which come from one who has no authority to claim an understanding of Truth.

Our hope for the future is in the reality of the existence of God. Our trust for a future is in the reality of the redeemption given by His Son. Our faith is submission to much we cannot understand and it comes with our hope and our trust.

1beleevr, God does love you the way you are or choose to be. But, He loves you too much to let you stay that way. Perhaps that is why you are here… because you may not be really convicted of your convictions.

Have a happy Easter and keep the posts coming.

.