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

[NDfan]

We accept the Old Testament without accepting the authority of the Jews to interpret it for us, do we not?

Good post. If we accepted the Jews interpretation, non-Christian Jews that is, we would never believe Isaiah was speaking about Jesus as being the Christ.

 

[ckempston]

Always the Catholic church just separated itself from other interpretations of scripture. If we look at the first few councils the church argued over the relationship between GOD, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. If we look at the resulting creed we see nothing but an interpretation of scripture that some agreed to. If someone didn’t agree with that creed does it mean they interpreted scripture wrong? How do we know it was interpreted right to begin with when the creed was developed. The Apostles had no knowledge of the word Trinity and certainly had no knowledge of the Nicene Creed. So we really can’t say this is a 2000 year old teaching. The council at Nicea was dominated by the views of Athanasius who opposed Arius. Athanasius wasn’t an Apostle and certainly didn’t know the Apostles so how can we trust his interpretation of scripture was correct. The councils always voted to determine doctrinal matters yet the councils were never really ecumenical. Nicea only had 300 or so Bishops in attendance out of about 1800. Who says those 300 can speak for the entire church? How about those that fell into the minority? Was their interpretation wrong because the majority voted against them?

If we got enough people to agree 2+2=5 we could create that as a doctrine. But would that doctrine be true? No matter how you slice it private interpretation of scripture has always and will always exist. You can never prove the RCC is right and everyone else is wrong. That will always remain private interpretation.

This proves that most teachings that came after this were not apostolic in nature; they were simply voted upon. If they were definitely apostolic, then there would have been no vote.

 

[ckempston]

Good post. If we accepted the Jews interpretation, non-Christian Jews that is, we would never believe Isaiah was speaking about Jesus as being the Christ.

Hey, we agree on something.

 

[NDfan]

This proves that most teachings that came after this were not apostolic in nature; they were simply voted upon. If they were definitely apostolic, then there would have been no vote.

Right another good point

 

[NDfan]

Hey, we agree on something.

Chip I think I’ve always been generally in agreement with you. Perhaps I badly misunderstood your post in the other thread.

 

[MrS]

For one, the Catholic church isn’t the only one with an apostolic claim. Secondly, quite frankly, the Jews were the people of God as long as the Catholics have been around and the Jews’ status was given to others, or perhaps it could be said that they misunderstood their status thinking that they could never not be the people of God. I’m just sayin.

Let’s ask the question another way: who has the authority to determine which church is the true church?

You fail to see that the problem applies to Catholics as much as to Protestants when we simply rephrase the question. It doesn’t matter who your authority for interpreting the Bible is. At some point in your life, you made a “personal interpretation” that the Catholic church is the true church. If personal interpretation is inherently wrong, then it is wrong for Catholics too.

I offer Jesus as the one to answer your question.

The word Church is never used in the OT. In fact, its first use comes from His mouth as he says “…I will build My Church…”

The word would be best used ONLY with regards to the entity He build that is His.

Thus NO OTHER “group(s)” which follow and might claim to be Christians can be considered His Church. They only follow Chirst (Christians) within their limits and/or the limits of the man or woman who started their group.

To say that they “finally” are returning to the days before an apostasy is bull. There is no apostasy…Christ’s Promise.

We (Catholics) may not be perfect… but we are all He founded.

 

[ckempston]

Chip I think I’ve always been generally in agreement with you. Perhaps I badly misunderstood your post in the other thread.

You know, it’s funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I had to look back at some of our other conversations, and I was like, “huh? what gives? surely there has been a misunderstanding.”

 

[ckempston]

I offer Jesus as the one to answer your question.

The word Church is never used in the OT. In fact, its first use comes from His mouth as he says “…I will build My Church…”

That “church” never is used in the OT is a rather simplistic, and pretty irrelevant, statement. I would not expect the word church to be used in the Old Testament, just as I would not expect to see paraclete, Christ, or apostle

The word would be best used ONLY with regards to the entity He build that is His.

Can’t really disagree here.

Thus NO OTHER “group(s)” which follow and might claim to be Christians can be considered His Church. They only follow Chirst (Christians) within their limits and/or the limits of the man or woman who started their group.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Define “church.” In it’s simplest form, it means “those called out (of the world)” or simply “assembly.” You are assigning a non-Biblical definition to the word.

To say that they “finally” are returning to the days before an apostasy is bull. There is no apostasy…Christ’s Promise.

I never mentioned apostasy, nor do I personally consider Catholics, or most other Christians, apostate.

We (Catholics) may not be perfect… but we are all He founded.

You can repeat it as many times as you like, but that doesn’t make it true.

The Orthodox have a rather convincing counter- (or perhaps we should say, parallel) claim. Who’s right?

 

[Always_For_Him]

How do we know it was interpreted right to begin with when the creed was developed.

How do you know it wasn’t?

The Apostles had no knowledge of the word Trinity and certainly had no knowledge of the Nicene Creed. So we really can’t say this is a 2000 year old teaching.

The individual parts of the Nicene Creed had been part of Apostolic teaching from the beginning. Formally decreeing it was the answer to heresy. The information on the Trinity is there and has always been part of Sacred Tradition of the Church. Jesus said He would guide His Church to all Truth, not you got ALL the Truth now.

So, because the first few councils were not ever really ecumenical, you are saying that it is safer to go with churches founded over 1500 years and more after Christ by men who teach different teachings? They know better?

Christ says His Church can speak for Him, and that is what they did.

There is a difference in doctrine and discipline.

The Catholic Church is “right” because it is the Church founded and protected by Christ.

 

[ckempston]

How do you know it wasn’t?

The individual parts of the Nicene Creed had been part of Apostolic teaching from the beginning. Formally decreeing it was the answer to heresy. The information on the Trinity is there and has always been part of Sacred Tradition of the Church. Jesus said He would guide His Church to all Truth, not you got ALL the Truth now.

Actually, Jesus told the Apostles THEY would be led into all truth. Seems to me we have two choices: all truth was available when John died or Jesus lied.

Secondly, your statement about the Nicene creed is totally untrue. This goes back to my other statement. If there was concensus on Apostolic teaching, there never would have been a vote. The fact that there was disagreement among many Bishops reveals the falsehood of this claim to an Apostolic tradition.

So, because the first few councils were not ever really ecumenical, you are saying that it is safer to go with churches founded over 1500 years and more after Christ by men who teach different teachings? They know better?

Christ says His Church can speak for Him, and that is what they did.

There is a difference in doctrine and discipline.

The Catholic Church is “right” because it is the Church founded and protected by Christ.

 

[MrS]

That “church” never is used in the OT is a rather simplistic, and pretty irrelevant, statement. I would not expect the word church to be used in the Old Testament, just as I would not expect to see paraclete, Christ, or apostle

Correct… temple is the word for the OT, The point again is that it is Jesus Who introduces the word as something He is going to build ONE of. It is Jesus who also introduces the paraclete, the comforter.

Can’t really disagree here.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Define “church.” In it’s simplest form, it means “those called out (of the world)” or simply “assembly.” You are assigning a non-Biblical definition to the word.

Let’s, for the sake of discussion, use your definition. Again it is Jesus Who is doing the calling into His Church. Not Luther, not Calvin, not Smith, not any man or woman. And since it is His, He is the one Who makes all rules, is the source of authority, and introduces the sacraments, etc.

I never mentioned apostasy, nor do I personally consider Catholics, or most other Christians, apostate.

I was not accusing you of that. I apologize if you made that mistake.
The problem is that “other Christians” often justify their (non)church by saying that their beliefs are the early beliefs which the Catholic Church abandoned.

You can repeat it as many times as you like, but that doesn’t make it true.

And I can remain silent… and it is still true.

The Orthodox have a rather convincing counter- (or perhaps we should say, parallel) claim. Who’s right?

Both. One is referred to as the Eastern, one the Western Church. Both have valid orders, valid sacraments, valid liturgy. One has continued the office of Vicar of Christ, one has abandoned that gift(temporarily)

out of curiosity, what are you reverting from ?

 

[ckempston]

Correct… temple is the word for the OT, The point again is that it is Jesus Who introduces the word as something He is going to build ONE of. It is Jesus who also introduces the paraclete, the comforter.

When someone get’s validly baptized what do they become a part of?

Let’s, for the sake of discussion, use your definition. Again it is Jesus Who is doing the calling into His Church. Not Luther, not Calvin, not Smith, not any man or woman. And since it is His, He is the one Who makes all rules, is the source of authority, and introduces the sacraments, etc.

With you here.

I was not accusing you of that. I apologize if you made that mistake.
The problem is that “other Christians” often justify their (non)church by saying that their beliefs are the early beliefs which the Catholic Church abandoned.

No problem. It’s usually a reasonable assumption, but I’m not a typical “Protestant.” I think the core of Catholic belief is correct, and there’s not much I disagree with even in the Catechism, but it’s all the “extra” stuff that doesn’t sit well with me.

And I can remain silent… and it is still true.

Uh huh.

Both. One is referred to as the Eastern, one the Western Church. Both have valid orders, valid sacraments, valid liturgy. One has continued the office of Vicar of Christ, one has abandoned that gift(temporarily)

Oh come now! You’re telling me that’s the only difference? I’m sure I could find an Orthodox who would beg to differ. These two churches are obviously not completely unified, so only one can be the “church” based on your definition.

out of curiosity, what are you reverting from ?

I’m a member of the ICOC. I occasionally dip a toe in the Tiber to test the waters, but every time I seem to find a reason to draw it back out.

 

[SD_Catholic]

SD please explain why the church then uses the infancy Gospel of James, a non-canonical work mind you, to justify the perpetual virginity of Mary when it flat out contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, a canonical book?

I was unaware they needed Scripture to justify a doctrine… the Church is not limited to Scripture to help us understand what God has revealed and so just because it isn’t in Scripture doesn’t make it false mind you… but for the sake of argument, there’s plenty of places in Scripture that allude to her perpetual virginity, I would imagine you’ve heard them.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

We accept the Old Testament without accepting the authority of the Jews to interpret it for us, do we not?

Sure we do… his name was Jesus… the Jew

SD

 

[ckempston]

I was unaware they needed Scripture to justify a doctrine… the Church is not limited to Scripture to help us understand what God has revealed and so just because it isn’t in Scripture doesn’t make it false mind you… but for the sake of argument, there’s plenty of places in Scripture that allude to her perpetual virginity, I would imagine you’ve heard them.

SD

I thought all dogmas were supposed to be supported by scripture either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference.

 

[ckempston]

Sure we do… his name was Jesus… the Jew

SD

Nice. So, lacking any substantial response to my rebuttal, someone throws out a joke.

I’ve clearly refuted the notion that we must accept Catholic authority because God used this church to, at least partially, preserve his word. Of course, now, we have many witnesses outside that source. Fortuitous, no?

 

[SD_Catholic]

Nice. So, lacking any substantial response to my rebuttal, someone throws out a joke.

I’ve clearly refuted the notion that we must accept Catholic authority because God used this church to, at least partially, preserve his word. Of course, now, we have many witnesses outside that source. Fortuitous, no?

Did you even crack a smile? in a way I was kinda serious… and I would say a single sentence is a far cry from clear refutation. I would venture to say there are many many more arguments over NT interpretations than OT, so this would probably be the biggest concern. But many of Jesus’s followers were converted Jews who knew the OT extremely well, so in a way we did take the Jews interpretations. Plus I would imagine the writers of the NT knew the OT pretty good, as did the ECFs.

The OT had been around long before Jesus’s arrival and obviously wasn’t compiled by His Church since it didn’t yet exist… The NT on the other hand is what? The stories and teachings of Jesus’s life and ministry either directly or through the Apostles… by the time the NT was being written Jesus’s established Church was going strong, and they had everything to do with it’s being written, saved, compiled, hand copied, and protected from destruction for many many years. So even if you want to argue that the CC can’t claim that they have the authority to interpret Scripture properly, I’ll say this… since people can make Scripture say just about anything they want it to, how do we sort out the craziness? For me I will rely on a 2000 year old Church that conforms to the teachings of the Apostles and the ECFs who were closer to the Apostles than any of us could dream of.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I thought all dogmas were supposed to be supported by scripture either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference.

Does that mean Scripture is the only source for understanding a doctrine? Is all of what Jesus did or revealed written in Scripture? It can be implied or logically deducted, but obviously that doesn’t mean all will grasp it through that means.

SD

 

[ckempston]

Did you even crack a smile? in a way I was kinda serious… and I would say a single sentence is a far cry from clear refutation. I would venture to say there are many many more arguments over NT interpretations than OT, so this would probably be the biggest concern. But many of Jesus’s followers were converted Jews who knew the OT extremely well, so in a way we did take the Jews interpretations. Plus I would imagine the writers of the NT knew the OT pretty good, as did the ECFs.

The OT had been around long before Jesus’s arrival and obviously wasn’t compiled by His Church since it didn’t yet exist… The NT on the other hand is what? The stories and teachings of Jesus’s life and ministry either directly or through the Apostles… by the time the NT was being written Jesus’s established Church was going strong, and they had everything to do with it’s being written, saved, compiled, hand copied, and protected from destruction for many many years. So even if you want to argue that the CC can’t claim that they have the authority to interpret Scripture properly, I’ll say this… since people can make Scripture say just about anything they want it to, how do we sort out the craziness? For me I will rely on a 2000 year old Church that conforms to the teachings of the Apostles and the ECFs who were closer to the Apostles than any of us could dream of.

SD

Actually, my beliefs are closer to the teachings of the Apostles and the ECFs than the Catholic church. You guys added a bunch of pomp and ceremony and hats and “extra” beliefs that were never supported by the ECFs.

Besides, people within the Catholic church can make the Scriptures say just about anything they want to as well because the vast majority of scriptures do not have an “official” interpretation. If the job of the church is the interpret scripture, they’ve done a pretty lousy job. 2000 years, and what 10 - 20 passages have an “official” interpretation?

EDIT: to add response to the “we took the Jewish interpretation” statement:

We did not take the Jewish interpretation; that’s stretching credulity in the extreme. The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus, and did not interpret the OT in any way that supported his messiahship, which is true to this day. The only Jews that seemed to accept Jesus are those who saw the evidence of the miracles of Jesus himself and of the Apostles. Very few, if any, believed on the basis of the OT alone.

 

[ckempston]

Does that mean Scripture is the only source for understanding a doctrine? Is all of what Jesus did or revealed written in Scripture? It can be implied or logically deducted, but obviously that doesn’t mean all will grasp it through that means.

SD

You tell me what your church teaches. I was paraphrasing several Catholic web sites including the Catholic Encyc. when I made that comment.

All of what Jesus did or revealed is obviously not written in scripture. The question is, is what is needed for salvation and a godly life revealed in scripture?