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

[Patrick_Cox]

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?

Ummm… I’m curious… what are the “teachings of the apostles” then? Did the apostles teach that which is taught in the modern day ECF’s? Please clarify…? Where can I find the teachings of the apostles, please?

As for that last paragraph… I have been a Catholic all my life and to this day I never knew that only 10-20 passages in scriptures had an “official” interpretation! Wow - what have I been learning all my life!? Ummm… as you seem to know more about Catholicism than any Catholic people I know, could you also please let me know which 10-20 passages are official please? I would hate to give someone unofficial teachings of the Church.

Thank you kindly.

Patrick

 

[Patrick_Cox]

The other reason the “personal interpretation” debate is ridiculous is that it is one big Catholic question-begging fest. The point is, you’re misapplying 2 Peter 1:20, which is obvious from the verse itself, and verse 21, which explicitly indicates Peter is talking about the ORIGIN of the prophecy, and not interpretation of the Word of God. An explicit statement in scripture does not lend itself to interpretation, so even if you were correct that “personal interpretation is not allowed” explicit statements would be excluded.

The Catholic claim is also inconsistent. I could just as easily ask you how you know the Catholic church’s interpretation is correct, and it would be just as valid of a question. Just because you’ve surrendered your intellect to a third party in matters of Biblical interpretation doesn’t mean you are more likely to be correct.

I’d like to take this topic back to the initial question. So far these 3 pages of threads have constituted a debate between a couple of individuals regarding whether or not the Catholic interpretation (and basis / authority for interpretation) of scriptures is correct or not. The Catholic view on it’s authority for interpreting scripture has been expressed, and of course many will disagree with it for various reasons. But this is not the question asked. The question is put to our fellow (non-Catholic) Christians as to how they justify or support their particular interpretation of scriptures. Where does their authority come from? Is it divinely inspired? Inspired by the Holy Spirit? Is it just based on an ordinary interpretation of the words in scripture? How do you know your interpretation is closest to the full truth? Because I assume no-one would settle for less than full truth, surely? In these 3 pages, so far no-one has answered that… It is a very interesting issue to discuss.

Patrick

 

[ckempston]

Ummm… I’m curious… what are the “teachings of the apostles” then? Did the apostles teach that which is taught in the modern day ECF’s? Please clarify…? Where can I find the teachings of the apostles, please?

I think you’ll find them somewhere between Matthew and Revelation.

As for that last paragraph… I have been a Catholic all my life and to this day I never knew that only 10-20 passages in scriptures had an “official” interpretation! Wow - what have I been learning all my life!? Ummm… as you seem to know more about Catholicism than any Catholic people I know, could you also please let me know which 10-20 passages are official please? I would hate to give someone unofficial teachings of the Church.

Thank you kindly.

Patrick

That was a rather flippant comment, but it’s roughly true. I’ve asked Catholics several times, on this forum in fact, what passages have “official” interpretations, and the answer is always different, but it’s always very few.

 

[ckempston]

I’d like to take this topic back to the initial question. So far these 3 pages of threads have constituted a debate between a couple of individuals regarding whether or not the Catholic interpretation (and basis / authority for interpretation) of scriptures is correct or not. The Catholic view on it’s authority for interpreting scripture has been expressed, and of course many will disagree with it for various reasons. But this is not the question asked. The question is put to our fellow (non-Catholic) Christians as to how they justify or support their particular interpretation of scriptures. Where does their authority come from? Is it divinely inspired? Inspired by the Holy Spirit? Is it just based on an ordinary interpretation of the words in scripture? How do you know your interpretation is closest to the full truth? Because I assume no-one would settle for less than full truth, surely? In these 3 pages, so far no-one has answered that… It is a very interesting issue to discuss.

Patrick

My God-given Reason.

And the point of issuing the challenge to Catholic authority is that there is some serious inconsistency in the Catholic position.

 

[MrS]

Ummm… I’m curious… what are the “teachings of the apostles” then? Did the apostles teach that which is taught in the modern day ECF’s? Please clarify…? Where can I find the teachings of the apostles, please?

As for that last paragraph… I have been a Catholic all my life and to this day I never knew that only 10-20 passages in scriptures had an “official” interpretation! Wow - what have I been learning all my life!? Ummm… as you seem to know more about Catholicism than any Catholic people I know, could you also please let me know which 10-20 passages are official please? I would hate to give someone unofficial teachings of the Church.

Thank you kindly.

Patrick

Actually I think, hope, the poster was referring to the limited number of passages that state a Doctrine of the Church which must be believed by all Christians in all places for all ages.

This is correct. For example, a lot of the “infancy narratives” in Luke are not Doctrine… the shepherds, the wise men, etc. Is it all correct… sure it is. But we we have to believe to believe in Jesus… no.

To get a better grasp on the Doctrines might be possible by reading heavy works like
catholicfamilycatalog.com/cathdoc.htm

and
librarything.com/work/303615

or you could read this trash, and believe just the opposite
librarything.com/work/175822
because it is the “bible” of many of those who think they know what Catholics hold as the Truth. also… read this response:
catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp

.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

I think you’ll find them somewhere between Matthew and Revelation.

That was a rather flippant comment, but it’s roughly true. I’ve asked Catholics several times, on this forum in fact, what passages have “official” interpretations, and the answer is always different, but it’s always very few.

Any interpretation which differs with the Catholic interpretation is not “official” in the eyes of the Church. There is one teaching which stems from scripture, tradition and the magisterium (none of which conflict with the other incidentally). If any person, be they Catholic or not, tells you anything which differs from the Church’s actual teaching, that makes it, not “unofficial”, but quite simply incorrect. There is no such thing as “official” and “unofficial” teaching. There is only correct and incorrect teaching. And plenty of people (including many Catholics) are not always up to speed with the correct teaching. If you want the correct teaching of the Church, read “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”. If anybody tells you anything that differs with this explanation of the Catholic faith, that does not constitute “unofficial” teaching - that constitutes something incorrect and therefore not part of the Church’s teaching. There are not different versions of Catholicism. There is only one Catholic faith, only one Catholic teaching.

 

[MrS]

My God-given Reason.

And the point of issuing the challenge to Catholic authority is that there is some serious inconsistency in the Catholic position.

partially true… There is some serious inconsistency in what many Catholics present as a teaching of the Church… I apologize for that. We are as capable as any for shooting ourselves in the foot.

Too often a Catholic, even a knowledable one, presents a statement as being “the” statement of credibility or teaching for a topic… when they should simply say it is their own understanding on that topic.

The Catholic Position however is more reliable than that of a single Catholic. In much of our beliefs, the Church has not taken a position. Rather, the Magisterium continues in a manner of teaching or practice or discipline until a heresy arises, or a heretic teaches error… and then the Church responds - with consistency.

Example is Trent. There would have been no council (I surmise), if there had not been so much “activity” surrounding the heretic Luther and those who followed. So Trent convened to respond, reply, clarify not only to the two solas, but to much of what was becoming an issue among Catholics and those falling into error as they formed their own faith communities.

Perhaps, because the last 40 years have seen an increasing rise in the number of new interpretations based on new versions and translations of Scripture, the Church should again convene and clarify.

It would be better perhaps to let the non-believers (those who do not beleive everything Jesus left to the Church) walk away… better than letting them continue to confuse and mislead their own families, and the non-Catholic posters here who show obvious signs of misunderstanding. But God is in charge of all that.

I just try to present a post on a topic that helps to show the Catholic position as reasonable, and not in opposition to our own Bible, and let go at that.

God converts in His time, not mine.

.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

My God-given Reason.

And the point of issuing the challenge to Catholic authority is that there is some serious inconsistency in the Catholic position.

There may be inconsistency in the Catholic position as it has been conveyed to you. Perhaps certain individuals have conveyed things to you which conflict or differ or have served to leave you with more questions than answers. That is sad if it is the case. But I need to emphasize - the Catholic position itself is entirely consistent and absolutely clear. Don’t be put off by those who either don’t have sufficient knowledge of Catholic teaching or by those who claim to be Catholic, yet who disagree with certain aspects of it’s teaching. Believe me - there is no inconsistency in the Catholic position. Perhaps for you it is just a case of uncovering the truth…

As regards your answer to how you interpret scripture (and thanks for that), perhaps you can anticipate my next question…? God has given all people reason, yet we still come up with differing interpretations of a variety of passages in Scriptures. How can you be sure that your God-given reason is closest to the truth? Or would you say that it is not necessarily a major problem to have different interpretations of different passages?

 

[ckempston]

Any interpretation which differs with the Catholic interpretation is not “official” in the eyes of the Church. There is one teaching which stems from scripture, tradition and the magisterium (none of which conflict with the other incidentally). If any person, be they Catholic or not, tells you anything which differs from the Church’s actual teaching, that makes it, not “unofficial”, but quite simply incorrect. There is no such thing as “official” and “unofficial” teaching. There is only correct and incorrect teaching. And plenty of people (including many Catholics) are not always up to speed with the correct teaching. If you want the correct teaching of the Church, read “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”. If anybody tells you anything that differs with this explanation of the Catholic faith, that does not constitute “unofficial” teaching - that constitutes something incorrect and therefore not part of the Church’s teaching. There are not different versions of Catholicism. There is only one Catholic faith, only one Catholic teaching.

This is somewhat of a strawman attack. You’re equivocating between “official interpretation” and “official teaching.” There is a difference. I realize there is a whole lot of “official teaching” in the various Catholic documents such as the Catechism, the Canons, the Councils, etc. I’m asking, how many times does the Catholic church say, “The following passage means X.” It’s not very often.

 

[Howie01]

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.

The RCC is very good at making scripture say anything they want it to. IMO, they’re the best at it.

 

[ckempston]

There may be inconsistency in the Catholic position as it has been conveyed to you. Perhaps certain individuals have conveyed things to you which conflict or differ or have served to leave you with more questions than answers. That is sad if it is the case. But I need to emphasize - the Catholic position itself is entirely consistent and absolutely clear. Don’t be put off by those who either don’t have sufficient knowledge of Catholic teaching or by those who claim to be Catholic, yet who disagree with certain aspects of it’s teaching. Believe me - there is no inconsistency in the Catholic position. Perhaps for you it is just a case of uncovering the truth…

As regards your answer to how you interpret scripture (and thanks for that), perhaps you can anticipate my next question…? God has given all people reason, yet we still come up with differing interpretations of a variety of passages in Scriptures. How can you be sure that your God-given reason is closest to the truth? Or would you say that it is not necessarily a major problem to have different interpretations of different passages?

Let me clarify. My comment on inconsistency is not referring to different Catholic’s opinions or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine (how ironic, considering the topic of conversation). My accusation of inconsistency has to do with the Catholic assertion that “personal interpretation” is inherently wrong. The reason it’s inconsistent to claim this is because each person, whether Catholic or otherwise, must “personally interpret” what the source of Truth is. Catholics are no different from Protestants in this regard. Catholics choose the Magesterium, Protestants choose the Bible. Both make a “personal” choice. There is no difference.

There is only one Truth. Two people making proper use of reason will not come up with differing interpretations. If there are two differing, mutually exclusive interpretations, either one or both parties are incorrect.

 

[SD_Catholic]

The RCC is very good at making scripture say anything they want it to. IMO, they’re the best at it.

They’re the best because they wrote it (atleast the NT)… Sorry they didn’t ask for your opinion when they decided which books they included in the Bible… If you produce your own scripture than you can tell us how to interpret your book… but for the Bible I’ll trust the CC… I don’t expect you to accept it, it’s not my job… I’m just telling you why I do.

SD

 

[ckempston]

They’re the best because they wrote it (atleast the NT)… Sorry they didn’t ask for your opinion when they decided which books they included in the Bible… If you produce your own scripture than you can tell us how to interpret your book… but for the Bible I’ll trust the CC… I don’t expect you to accept it, it’s not my job… I’m just telling you why I do.

SD

I thought Jews wrote the Bible. Which is it? All this Catholic confusion is confusing me.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Let me clarify. My comment on inconsistency is not referring to different Catholic’s opinions or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine (how ironic, considering the topic of conversation). My accusation of inconsistency has to do with the Catholic assertion that “personal interpretation” is inherently wrong. The reason it’s inconsistent to claim this is because each person, whether Catholic or otherwise, must “personally interpret” what the source of Truth is. Catholics are no different from Protestants in this regard. Catholics choose the Magesterium, Protestants choose the Bible. Both make a “personal” choice. There is no difference.

There is only one Truth. Two people making proper use of reason will not come up with differing interpretations. If there are two differing, mutually exclusive interpretations, either one or both parties are incorrect.

OK, great - now we are really talking about the topic at hand! I appreciate your answer as it adds value to the discussion.

Firstly, I agree 100% with your assertion that there is only one Truth. This is absolutely fundamental - one can not have different varieties of the Truth. By definition there is only one version of Truth. The implication herein is that wherever people interpret “things” differently, sadly someone has to be incorrect in their interpretation. There is no getting away from this basic logical deduction.

My next question would be what constitutes “proper use of reason”? The Bible is not a simple to understand document. It is an incredibly intricate work that requires significant analysis and study to understand. Would you not agree? Would it not be asking a lot for every person on earth (so many of whom are not learned educated people) to apply their own reason to scriptures and expect them to come up with exactly the same interpretation of scripture? There are so many passages in the bible which can and have be interpreted in different ways - and justifiably so depending on where you place your emphasis as you read and depending on your mindset. Surely there are going to be differences in opinion?

So for example, Seventh Day Adventists say that the Sabbath falls on a Saturday, because it was commanded as such by God in writing on the Ten Commandments, and therefore Saturday is the day to be kept Holy. We may disagree with this, but there is still reason behind their assertion. What makes their “reason” incorrect? I am sure they would claim proper use of reason in this belief of theirs? So where I would disagree with you is in your claim that all people, if they apply their God-given reason will come up with the same interpretation of Scriptures. Does not the mere fact that there are so many different bible-based faiths around the world confirm that differences in opinion occur?

Secondly, you claim that “each person must personally interpret what the source of truth is”. As someone who chooses the Bible, which Biblical backing would you use to back up that statement, namely that “each person must personally interpret the source of truth”?

Patrick

 

[SD_Catholic]

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?

I don’t have to tell you what the Church teaches… you can look for yourself… you seemed to be telling me that it had to be understood through Scripture (the Trinity can be seen through Scripture and some people deny that also)… maybe I misunderstood your eyeroll…

So if it isn’t needed for salvation than it’s false? Is it necessary to pray the Hail Mary to go to heaven? No, so does that make you a heretic if you say it? The CC isn’t there to lead people to hell… they are there to help people live that Godly life so that they have the best possible chance to get to heaven… People seem to forget that so often.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I thought Jews wrote the Bible. Which is it? All this Catholic confusion is confusing me.

Could you please quit with the eye roll thing… It’s quite immature…

Where did I say the Jews wrote the Bible? Please read my whole posts and quit putting words in my mouth… If you’re trying to pick a fight by making stuff up, please do it somewhere else

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

I thought Jews wrote the Bible. Which is it? All this Catholic confusion is confusing me.

I planned on replying to all your posts, but since you aren’t interested in an answer I see no use in wasting my time… you simply are looking to start an argument where there is none.

SD

 

[ckempston]

I planned on replying to all your posts, but since you aren’t interested in an answer I see no use in wasting my time… you simply are looking to start an argument where there is none.

SD

Lighten up. Responses are forthcoming.

 

[Howie01]

SD Catholic:

They’re the best because they wrote it (atleast the NT)…

To posit that the RCC wrote the scriptures is anachronistic, but they do wrench what they want out of it, IMO.
SD Catholic:

Sorry they didn’t ask for your opinion when they decided which books they included in the Bible… If you produce your own scripture than you can tell us how to interpret your book… but for the Bible I’ll trust the CC… I don’t expect you to accept it, it’s not my job… I’m just telling you why I do.

Again, you retreat to anachronism. The Scripture is God’s revelation to His people; it is, therefore, a Christian book, belonging to those who belong to God.

 

[ckempston]

OK, great - now we are really talking about the topic at hand! I appreciate your answer as it adds value to the discussion.

Firstly, I agree 100% with your assertion that there is only one Truth. This is absolutely fundamental - one can not have different varieties of the Truth. By definition there is only one version of Truth. The implication herein is that wherever people interpret “things” differently, sadly someone has to be incorrect in their interpretation. There is no getting away from this basic logical deduction.

I’m with you so far.

My next question would be what constitutes “proper use of reason”? The Bible is not a simple to understand document. It is an incredibly intricate work that requires significant analysis and study to understand. Would you not agree? Would it not be asking a lot for every person on earth (so many of whom are not learned educated people) to apply their own reason to scriptures and expect them to come up with exactly the same interpretation of scripture? There are so many passages in the bible which can and have be interpreted in different ways - and justifiably so depending on where you place your emphasis as you read and depending on your mindset. Surely there are going to be differences in opinion?

I’d have to disagree that the Bible is incredibly intricate. It certainly requires some context and an understanding of the basic separations between different types of writings, but I wouldn’t call those things very complicated.

I disagree also that there are many passages in the Bible which can be interpreted in different ways, insofar as there can be mutually exclusive interpretations. If someone is interpreting something differently than you, care needs to be taken to explore the assumptions and thought processes behind the interpretation. You also need to ensure you agree on the definition of certain words. I often end up in arguments where it turns out both parties are saying the same thing, just using different words. Often times there will be a mistaken assumption or an incorrect understanding of a word. This isn’t rocket science and doesn’t require some authority to arbitrate. Everybody agrees that 1 + 1 = 2, and this fact can be demonstrated theoretically and in reality (just an example).

So for example, Seventh Day Adventists say that the Sabbath falls on a Saturday, because it was commanded as such by God in writing on the Ten Commandments, and therefore Saturday is the day to be kept Holy. We may disagree with this, but there is still reason behind their assertion. What makes their “reason” incorrect? I am sure they would claim proper use of reason in this belief of theirs? So where I would disagree with you is in your claim that all people, if they apply their God-given reason will come up with the same interpretation of Scriptures. Does not the mere fact that there are so many different bible-based faiths around the world confirm that differences in opinion occur?

What makes the Seventh Day Adventists incorrect is the example of the church in the Bible and the explicit statement of Paul that it doesn’t matter which day(s) you consider holy (which is another issue altogether). It can be logically demonstrated (deductively) that they are wrong.

Secondly, you claim that “each person must personally interpret what the source of truth is”. As someone who chooses the Bible, which Biblical backing would you use to back up that statement, namely that “each person must personally interpret the source of truth”?

Patrick

It doesn’t require a Biblical backing. This is self-evident and must be decided prior to even becoming a believer. It’s true of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans. The choice of who, or what, you are going to believe as an authority precedes every other belief. This gets to the most basic beliefs in existence and self-awareness (e.g. “Cogito, ergo sum.”).