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

[JRKH]

I’m not hung up on a catchphrase. It was given to me and I took it from there until you explained what it was. I appreciate that.

I’m glad that we could get that cleared up for you.

Quite honestly, I don’t care about the teachings of Martin Luther. Never have. I care about the teachings of Jesus Christ, as we all should.

I appreciate what you are saying and agree.
However, When one comes to Christianity they will almost always come through some “faith tradition”. That might be Catholic or Orthodox or it might be Protestant. That faith tradition will automatically effect how one views things at least initially. That is why I wanted to point out to you that, regardless of how you feel about Martin Luther, you are affected by his teachings.
It is good that you seek after the truth and I hope that the people here can give you good answers to any questions you have about the Catholic Church and beliefs.

You can try to tell me that about the Bible all you want but the OT was written by Jews. The NT by Jewish Christians who never called themselves Catholic. Never once alluded to it. They were called Christians, nothing more and nothing less.

Everything you say above is true, but neither does it negate the things I wrote in my pervious post to you. From the first Pentacost until around 1050 or so, the Christian Church was completely unified and universal. The only Reason that we use the term Catholic or Roman Catholic today is because of the splits.
It also remains a fact that it was this unifed Christian and universal Church that assembled the Bible canon.
Understanding these things are important because, as I said above, you are affected by the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura, which is NOT biblical and was NOT taught by the Apostles OR by the Unified Christain Church EVER. This was an invention of the Protestants.

And in the Greek, unified isn’t (katholikos), it’s (enopoiimenos). That’s because they take on two different meanings. When Paul and Barnabas went to the church at Jerusalem, they were unified.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my previous post.
Catholic comes from the Greek for Universal, not unified.
Origin:
1300–1350; ME < L catholicus < **Gk katholikós general, equiv. to kathól(ou) universally **(contr. of phrase katà hólou according to the whole; see cata-, holo- ) + -ikos -ic

So the Term Catholic means “Universal”.

So if the Bible isn’t the rule and guide of faith, why was it even canonized? I may be wrong but you are making it sound as though the church is more important than the Word. I mean, since when did the Bible stop being the Word of God?

This is a good question that would possibly need a lot more space to answer but I will try to be brief and to the point.
The first 300 years or so of Christianity, there was no “canonized” NT. There were many texts being used by various parts/reagions of the church with varying pedigrees as to their authenticity.
At the End fo the 4th Century it was determined By The Church that their should be a single volume containing those texts most universally accepted in the Church as inspired.
Thus there were held a couple of regional councils that put together the canon and this canon was later affirmed by other more general councils. I believe the 72 book canon was approved and reaffirmed 7 times by various Church Councils before the reformation.

It is important to remember that Christ founded a Church. This Church taught for nearly 400 years without a formal canon of NT Scripture. Therefore you see that “The Church” preceeded "the Bible’ as we know it today. Those books that were selected for the NT of the Bible were those that were 1) Closely associated with an original Apostle, 2) widely accepted by the Church and 3) wholly orthodox in teaching as handed down to the Church by the Apostles

The Catholic Church stands upon a “three legged stool”. The legs are, The Bible(written tradition) , Sacred Tradition (Oral tradition) and The Magisterium (The teaching office).
Each is critical to the others. To remove The Bible from the Church and try to use it seperately is inviting trouble as seen by the constant fracturing in the Protestant world.

Christ is in the mist of 2 or 3 gathered in his name in truth so that statement is true but the Holy Spirit lives in us though and there is no where in the Bible where it says the Holy Spirit needs a counterbalance. The Holy Spirit is without error…

If you look in Matthew just a bit above the “2 or 3” quote you mention, you will note that Christ also tells us to “Tell it To the Church” when someone “Sins” against us. For the record, it is a sin when someone teaches a false doctrine. Therefore, in order to prevent us from falling into error, Christ wishes for us to “Tell it To The Church” and then to abide by the Church’s decision.
Also, you will note that the term “Church” is used only twice in the Gospels, Both times By Jesus and Both times connected with granting Authority. Both times in connection with Binding and Loosing.

And lastly, I’m not confusing the Word with the Word. Think about this. The same Paul that you mentioned also said that that **“ALL scripture is God breathed.” **Jesus fulfilled the Word. All scripture points to Jesus. He is the Word.

Joey

Yes - ALL Scripture IS God Breathed and Paul recognized this.
So - If I may ask, are you using a Bible that contains ALL Scripture?
Does your Bible contain 72 books?
If not, then why are you using a bible without “ALL” of the God Breathed Scripture?

And incidentally, If your bible has but 66 books, you can thank Martin Luther and the other protestants for removing 7+ books and leaving you with a truncated Bible.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by jahsoul

And lastly, I’m not confusing the Word with the Word. Think about this. The same Paul that you mentioned also said that that **“ALL scripture is God breathed.” **Jesus fulfilled the Word. All scripture points to Jesus. He is the Word.

Joey

Joey,
Let’s take a closer look at what Paul says about Scripture in the verse you quote.
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

You will not the that the word here is “useful” of some render it “profitable”
If I were to say to you that "All Food is useful for maintaining life, would you assume that food is the only thing necessary for life? Of course not.
Therefore the term “useful” is not intercahngable witht he term “sole”

As another thought in this regard I would ask whether you think that St Paul would agree that Scripture could be removed from the tradition in which it was written and used by just anyone who was not a Properly trained Jew or Christian. Could a Pagan Roman simply begin reading the Scriptures and properly understand them?

Another point on this is that St Paul says that All Scripture is useful for " teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". These are all things that need someone to do the training correcting etc.
After all it is pretty obvious that you think that you need to “teach, rebuke and correct” me, and I think I need to “teach, rebuke and correct” you, in the proper understanding of Scripture. Thus it can be seen that written"Scripture itself" is not sufficient. It requires a proper training, understanding and needs to be maintained in the faith tradition that originated it. Thus the Bible needs to be properly understood within the framework of the Church which assembled it.

Peace
James

 

[MDK]

I can answer that question. Best of all it’s an answer that Catholics and Protestants alike can agree on: If you’re talking about my church or denomination, you should go by our official position as expressed by ourselves; if you’re talking about some other church or denomination, you should go by what the ex-members have to say.

P.S. Remember that scene in the movie “Joan of Arc”, when the guy was asked what side he was on? His reply: “The same side that you’re on … the me side.”

Well, I am Catholic (one who believes in objective truth), and disagree with this morally relative statement. It’s offensive as well to say that neither believe in objective truth, nor would be open to such statements pointing to truth, rather than prejudicial statements. For instance, I’m opposed to false statements about either Catholic Church or Protestant churches, whether made from an adherent or apostate…, untruths are obviously useless, and don’t help us at all in advancing the truthful discussion. How can we possibly discuss the ultimate Truth, when we take sides based on affiliation and not what is truthful? I don’t think I’m the only one, either, by a long shot. There are decent people in both religions, who put truth above what “jersey” you’re wearing.

 

[MDK]

MDK,

On the day of Pentecost, the church was founded in Jerusalem with over 3000 joining. Jesus could have sent Peter to Pakistan, the fact that the first church was started in Jerusalem is pretty evident. To discuss matters of Jew/Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas met the “pillars” (yeah, the Bible said there were 3 pillars) where? Yep, the Church at Jerusalem. I never once argued that Christ didn’t send Peter to Rome. I don’t know but what about it being Paul’s mission to make it to Rome also. I think he got there a little after Paul. (Why you say that Joey?) Because in Romans, Paul made no mention of him. He always mentioned Peter when he was around but made no mention of him. I’m not doubting that Peter never made it to Rome but wasn’t a church there already?

The Church was started at Calvary, with the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side. As the new Adam, Christ’s Bride was created here, just as Adam’s was taken from his side. The Church got it’s legs with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The 3,000 who joined them, were made members of the Church that Christ was building, which is the Catholic Church.

Peter was a wanted man in Rome, as the Romans wanted to kill Peter as the leader of the Christians. If you look at other writings, Rome was referred to as Babylon, a code word.

Just like there are Churches at Notre Dame de Paris, St. Peter’s at the Vatican, St. Vincent de Paul in Houston… they all look to the successor of Peter as the visible leader. In the same way, all the early churches looked to Peter as visible head. It’s just the way Christ set things up to keep His Bride from error, knowing the correct and true teachings.

For comparison, if people were to listen to you, they would be led astray.

 

[MDK]

Again, I don’t look at myself nor the church as the final authority. God and His Word is. If you read, I always say that. I also said that the same Holy Ghost that was in Peter is the same one that is in me. It’s true. And that is a false statement. God will always make a way for his Word to be read. God’s word will never go void. If they weren’t canonized, they would have still been read. That is something that you can rest assured on. And I depend on God for understanding. God is not an author of confusion, so he won’t give me something contrary to the meaning. But the thing is I get instruction from church also and they both line up. I don’t just hear at church, but I read at home. But again, when it comes to understand the Word, James 1:5-6. Read it…

You say that, but you certainly are looking to yourself, as in your interpretation of the Catholic Book, the Bible as your authority. To deny that is simply fooling yourself, because you’re not fooling us.

The same Holy Spirit in Peter has different gifts for each of us. If you believe you and Peter have the same mission, you’re once again deluded.

I do read Scriptures, but I follow the Catholic understanding that has been preserved due to the Holy Spirit. The difference between you and me is that I know what Scriptures teach… you, sadly do not. You have no authority whatsoever to be a final interpreter of Catholic Scriptures in the Bible, or to tell the Catholic Church they are wrong. It’s simply out of touch with reality to think you do.

 

[MDK]

And I don’t believe in Purgatory. (Why you say that?) Because Jesus dying on the cross paid all the debt for my sins, not some of it. If the sacrifice was not a complete sacrifice, then it was not purpose for it. It is either all or nothing, with no in between. If that’s the case, Paul said that the flesh and the Holy Spirit coexist within us, so until we are in our transformed body, we will always have a hint of sin within us. We don’t have to act on it but some do. This is one of the “laws” that Paul mentioned.

You don’t understand what Purgatory is. Purgatory is not because Jesus is not sufficient, but because we are not perfected yet. It’s up to us to apply His salvation to our lives in our time, via the Eucharist. Purgatory is to “cook you a little longer” so you can enter Heaven perfected.

Your logic is very faulty… if Jesus died for everyone, yet not everyone will be saved, how is that? Christ said there are things we must do to be in friendship with Him, like forgive others, eat His Body and Blood, pick up our cross and follow Him daily… It’s extremely presumptuous and arrogant to say that since one believes in Christ as Lord, they are completely perfected for Heaven and cannot lose this “perfection.”

 

[MDK]

Like I said, it is no pride nor arrogance. But you feel how you feel. You’ve been the only one calling me arrogant.

It is applied objectively and not emotionally. You are in fact telling God what you will and will not believe about Him, your’re definihng what He says to you and who He is, rather than listen. In this way, you have created a god in your own image and liking. This is definitely arrogant. I do know, and also feel that this is wrong for you or anyone to do. You are fortunate to have someone telling you the truth, even if at first it doesn’t seem like what you want to hear. You and all of us must listen to God, who He is, and what He asks of us. This is humility, which you sadly do not exercise, no matter what you claim you do… this is reality.

 

[MDK]

The Bible also tells us that we have a High Priest in Heaven that intercedes for us. And think about what you said, I’m not the final authority of anything. God and His Word. And I have nothing to fear. I don’t fear Satan and I surely don’t fear man. And to rebuttle, read 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

You are unfortunately confused… you act as final interpreter of God’s revealed word, yet tell us you’re “not final interpreter of anything.” You need to first understand what we mean when we say final interpreter…, which is the one who tells yourself and us what Scriptures mean. Anyone can quote, but what do they mean, having determined this yourself and will not defer to God’s authority when your interpretation conflicts with God’s authority. God left His Church for this, and yet you reject His Church and decide these things for yourself.

You are also confused about what 2 Tim 3:14-17 means. The learned person knows that this passage (like all the rest of Scripture), does not mean or literally say that Scriptures are sufficient. The Catholic Church certainly believes that Scriptures are profitable. The crucial difference is that the Catholic Church knows that Scriptures are not sufficient in and of themselves. The ignorant will twist these Scripture passages to their own destruction.

 

[Peter_J]

I can answer that question. Best of all it’s an answer that Catholics and Protestants alike can agree on: If you’re talking about my church or denomination, you should go by our official position as expressed by ourselves; if you’re talking about some other church or denomination, you should go by what the ex-members have to say.

P.S. I was kidding, of course, when I said that Catholics and Protestants are both guilty of that double-standard. It’s really just the Protestants that do that.

 

[MDK]

Peter could have been the head apostle, whatever, but the Bible states that there was 3 pillars of the church. What does that mean? So my interpretation isn’t wrong, go to who gives you instruction and ask about it. I want to know.

To understand this, one must understand that it’s like us saying you’re a false teacher, and while this is true, obviously the reality is that you’re not the only false teacher.

Your interpretation is indeed wrong. While the Bible mentions three as pillars, there are more as well, with all Apostles in union with the head Apostle Peter. Galatians mentions Peter, James and John, and does not tell us these are the only pillars. Among those, only Peter was given the keys by Christ. Only Peter is head of the church, while all these are pillars, upholding the truths, with Peter as final interpreter… have you ever noticed how when Peter speaks, the matter is settled? You don’t even know what it means that Christ made Peter head of the Church, the rock on whom the Christ builds His Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

Even more so, the Church itself is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, teaching all truth, including the truth of the Scriptures. This is because Christ set the office of head pillar as one whom would be protected from teaching error. This is how the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. So, since the Church is the Authority, and you are not, then you must give intellectual ascent to the Church’s interpretation of Scriptures. Otherwise, ignorance and arrogance will not loosen their grip on you.

 

[MDK]

And you keep saying infallible. Peter wasn’t considered infallible, why should another man be. The only time the bible used infallible was talking about the works of Jesus.

It’s kind of ignorant to say Scriptures are inspired, yet say Peter could not have been infallible. This includes ignorance of the meaning of “infallible” which is not the same as “inspired”. Infallible means will not be in error, which is different than inspired which means “God breathed”. It means he will not teach error in faith and morals when the teaching is binding on all the faithful. It does not mean perfect, nor does it mean impeccable. This protection is for God’s Church, as Peter and all the Popes can have personal sin, and therefore need confession which they do participate in. Peter was the only Pope who wrote inspired Scripture and also was infallible in teaching the faithful of Jesus’ flock. All subsequent Popes have only had the charism of infallibility.

 

[MDK]

And Catholic is a denomination, just like Protestant. It is a subgroup of Christianity, therefore it is a denomination. look up the definition

One must seek to be appropriate, and not to apply the definition to something which does not belong. The Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian Church. It’s was not taken from Christianity and diluted to man’s liking, like all others are. Catholicism is Christianity. Nothing else really is with the same fullness of truth. All others are wannabees, and cheap poorly constructed man made faith systems.

I’m sorry for the delays between post but I’m doing homework at the same time…

I don’t need to hear another word from you of disobedience to our Lord. This is because our Lord Christ asks of us obedience. You have two ears, two eyes, and one mouth… yet, you seem disproportionately attached to speaking rather than listening to the ones sent by Christ.

Will you commit to obedience to Christ, openly and honestly, no matter where that leads? If so, your indication to our Lord will be to listen to those whom He sent to continue His mission. If we see you do not do this, then you may be fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling us who know better.

 

[jahsoul]

You don’t understand what Purgatory is. Purgatory is not because Jesus is not sufficient, but because we are not perfected yet. It’s up to us to apply His salvation to our lives in our time, via the Eucharist. Purgatory is to “cook you a little longer” so you can enter Heaven perfected.

Your logic is very faulty… if Jesus died for everyone, yet not everyone will be saved, how is that? Christ said there are things we must do to be in friendship with Him, like forgive others, eat His Body and Blood, pick up our cross and follow Him daily… It’s extremely presumptuous and arrogant to say that since one believes in Christ as Lord, they are completely perfected for Heaven and cannot lose this “perfection.”

Good morning/afternoon. I will try my best to get all of the replies MDK.

Well, regarding Purgatory and its “purpose,” we won’t be per se “perfect” until we are in our glorified bodies. We strive for perfection but we won’t be able to reach the perfection of Jesus until we are out of these bodies. But perfection as Paul used it was spiritual maturity. Talking about growing in Christ, from baby step to a man. Drinking milk to eating meat.

And yes, Jesus died for the sins of all men/women. Everyone also has the free will to follow Christ or not. That is why everyone isn’t going to heaven. And you are right, there are things that we have to do. But I have to digress, all of the things that you have stated comes with believing. Believing that Jesus is the son of God that died for the remissions of our sins, was buried, and rose the third day is the first step to spiritual growth and the works are a manifestation of the change in our life. And anyone can lose it what God has given. It’s called sin. No matter what we do, sin separates us. I can forgive everybody I meet, take communion, and get baptized 5 times a year, if the inside is not right, it’s all worthless.

 

[jahsoul]

The Church was started at Calvary, with the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side. As the new Adam, Christ’s Bride was created here, just as Adam’s was taken from his side. The Church got it’s legs with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The 3,000 who joined them, were made members of the Church that Christ was building, which is the Catholic Church.

Peter was a wanted man in Rome, as the Romans wanted to kill Peter as the leader of the Christians. If you look at other writings, Rome was referred to as Babylon, a code word.

Just like there are Churches at Notre Dame de Paris, St. Peter’s at the Vatican, St. Vincent de Paul in Houston… they all look to the successor of Peter as the visible leader. In the same way, all the early churches looked to Peter as visible head. It’s just the way Christ set things up to keep His Bride from error, knowing the correct and true teachings.

For comparison, if people were to listen to you, they would be led astray.

Well, MDK, thank you for that comment, because according to you, the church was STILL started in Jerusalem. And the Bible, they were not called Catholic. This is assumed tradition through the years. They were said to walk in “the Way.” (makes sense with Jesus being The Way, the Truth, and the Life) and then in Acts 11, they were called Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Peter might have been wanted in Rome; so were other Christians. I’ve read in 1 Peter when he said that he was in Babylon. All I said was it is recording in Romans, that Paul didn’t mention him once but mentioned others who were figures in the church him. That’s all I said.

And I’m not leading anyone anywhere. If anyone reads what I write and are compelled to read for themselves, I just pray that God leads them in the right direction. Can’t lead no one astray if you pray that God leads them.

 

[jahsoul]

You say that, but you certainly are looking to yourself, as in your interpretation of the Catholic Book, the Bible as your authority. To deny that is simply fooling yourself, because you’re not fooling us.

The same Holy Spirit in Peter has different gifts for each of us. If you believe you and Peter have the same mission, you’re once again deluded.

I do read Scriptures, but I follow the Catholic understanding that has been preserved due to the Holy Spirit. The difference between you and me is that I know what Scriptures teach… you, sadly do not. You have no authority whatsoever to be a final interpreter of Catholic Scriptures in the Bible, or to tell the Catholic Church they are wrong. It’s simply out of touch with reality to think you do.

The Bible isn’t the Catholic Book, it is the Word of God that would have been read if it was canonized or not. I don’t have to fool anyone, nor do I attempt to. I look to God for everything. Read James 1:5…please.

The same Holy Spirit in Peter has different gifts for each of us??? What? I have the same Holy Spirit that was in the disciples, this is a fact, but I don’t claim to have his mission or want to have it. Peter never gave the Holy Ghost nor distributed gifts. And the gifts that are given are different for each person but again I say, to think that one person has all the gifts is completely wrong.

How do you know that you know what the scriptures teach? And the TRUE difference between you and I, is I go to God before I go to the scripture. We can talk about preservation, Judaism is twice as old as Christianity and they hold to all of their customs. Just because something is still here, doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit preserves. The truth is the Word of God has been preserved. And calling me wrong, I just grin. Not being arrogant or a jerk, but I know the Holy Spirit is in me and it manifest itself daily. I don’t have to be Peter for God to work through me…

 

[jahsoul]

It is applied objectively and not emotionally. You are in fact telling God what you will and will not believe about Him, your’re definihng what He says to you and who He is, rather than listen. In this way, you have created a god in your own image and liking. This is definitely arrogant. I do know, and also feel that this is wrong for you or anyone to do. You are fortunate to have someone telling you the truth, even if at first it doesn’t seem like what you want to hear. You and all of us must listen to God, who He is, and what He asks of us. This is humility, which you sadly do not exercise, no matter what you claim you do… this is reality.

No, it is ASSUMED by whatever is in you. And what are you talking about? I’m telling God what I believe about Him? No, everything that God wants us to know about Him is in the Word. And I listen, but the thing is, what is received is the same thing read. And in no way am I creating a god. I believe in the True and Living God, and God alone and pray to him through Jesus. I don’t pray to anyone else because praying to anyone other than God through Jesus is borderline idoltry. And own image is the image of the cross that Constantine saw. Shoot, every portrait of Jesus is our own image. And you haven’t given me anything in the Word, so what truth have I received from you. But you are right, we all must listen to God and his will. Humility before God is putting God’s will before our own life. My will dies so God’s will is done. And that is something that I do practice…

 

[Always_For_Him]

The Bible isn’t the Catholic Book, it is the Word of God that would have been read if it was canonized or not. I don’t have to fool anyone, nor do I attempt to. I look to God for everything. Read James 1:5…please.

The same Holy Spirit in Peter has different gifts for each of us??? What? I have the same Holy Spirit that was in the disciples, this is a fact, but I don’t claim to have his mission or want to have it. Peter never gave the Holy Ghost nor distributed gifts. And the gifts that are given are different for each person but again I say, to think that one person has all the gifts is completely wrong.

How do you know that you know what the scriptures teach? And the TRUE difference between you and I, is I go to God before I go to the scripture. We can talk about preservation, Judaism is twice as old as Christianity and they hold to all of their customs. Just because something is still here, doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit preserves. The truth is the Word of God has been preserved. And calling me wrong, I just grin. Not being arrogant or a jerk, but I know the Holy Spirit is in me and it manifest itself daily. I don’t have to be Peter for God to work through me…

This sounds good and all, but you are looking at it from your own point of view. We wouldn’t have the Bible if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. If they hadn’t been orally teaching it for over three centuries before it was canonized by them, all those teachings would have been lost. The only reason we have any teaching of Christ at all is because Christ made good on His promise to guide and protect His Church through the men that He gave His authority and command to. All you have to do is look at the chaos of protestantism since it’s inception to see what happens when man goes about on his own authority.

We know what the Scriptures teach because WE WROTE THEM. We taught them and passed them down before they were ever written down into the Bible. You can say that you go to God for your Scripture, but you don’t. You go to your church, and your own interpretation for your understanding of Scripture. Neither you nor your church was given the authority by Christ to teach.

If you understand that Judiasm has held to their “customs” why can’t you then understand so has Christ’s Church? The apostles taught that we should not interpret Scripture (meaning OT Scripture) for ourselves and hold true to the teachings and traditions which THEY have taught. The Catholic Church IS the Church founded by Christ through His chosen Apostles which HAS held to His teachings and “customs.” It is men since the Reformation that have separated themselves from Christ’s Church to teach their own teachings and customs.

 

[jahsoul]

It’s kind of ignorant to say Scriptures are inspired, yet say Peter could not have been infallible. This includes ignorance of the meaning of “infallible” which is not the same as “inspired”. Infallible means will not be in error, which is different than inspired which means “God breathed”. It means he will not teach error in faith and morals when the teaching is binding on all the faithful. It does not mean perfect, nor does it mean impeccable. This protection is for God’s Church, as Peter and all the Popes can have personal sin, and therefore need confession which they do participate in. Peter was the only Pope who wrote inspired Scripture and also was infallible in teaching the faithful of Jesus’ flock. All subsequent Popes have only had the charism of infallibility.

All scriptures are inspired. Infallible means without error, I know this. But think about it. The Word of God is inspired by God, therefore without error, making it infallible. Peter had error. He denied Jesus 3 times, he was a hothead at times, and at times he lacked faith. And to say what he taught wasn’t error, read why Paul rebuked him and tell me that what Peter was doing was infallible. But God’s word will never have error. It can never have a chance to have error because my God is a God that cannot lie. His word is perfect and impeccable, neither is corruptible. If He said it, it is done. If the church is lead by God, what extra protection is needed? And what is personal sin? The reason I asked is because sin shouldn’t be classified; sin is sin. And all that sin should confess their(our) sins before God. Although it is debated where or not Peter wrote those two, I don’t care and what was wrote is essential, as well as the rest of the scriptures. But the scripture still only uses the word infallible with one person, Jesus. Can’t forget him in the mix.

 

[jahsoul]

One must seek to be appropriate, and not to apply the definition to something which does not belong. The Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian Church. It’s was not taken from Christianity and diluted to man’s liking, like all others are. Catholicism is Christianity. Nothing else really is with the same fullness of truth. All others are wannabees, and cheap poorly constructed man made faith systems.

Christianity is Christianity. If that was the case, then the church would have been called Catholic since the beginning and another reason I say that is, all Catholics aren’t going to Heaven. Fact. There are some who proclaim to know God and are living contrary. You can be say Catholicism all day but if YOUR heart ain’t right, Catholicism won’t be there with you on the Day of Judgment. Also, the first group of believers were called Christians. And lets be honest here, do you speak in tongues or believe in it? That’s in the bible and all the apostles and believers spoke with em and it is in the Bible. What about praise and worship? Majority of Psalms deal with praise and worship. Diluting is also leaving out or making one less significant than the other. I take ALL things that are in the Bible, not just few that has been passed down to be right.

I don’t need to hear another word from you of disobedience to our Lord. This is because our Lord Christ asks of us obedience. You have two ears, two eyes, and one mouth… yet, you seem disproportionately attached to speaking rather than listening to the ones sent by Christ.

I’m disobedient to the Lord? Because I choose to follow Christ with all my heart, I’m disobedient. Go back through all of the thread MDK, you have spoken more than anyone…:tsktsk: Get the mote out your eye my brother before you look at my 2 eyes…

Will you commit to obedience to Christ, openly and honestly, no matter where that leads? If so, your indication to our Lord will be to listen to those whom He sent to continue His mission. If we see you do not do this, then you may be fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling us who know better.

I’m obedient to Christ. Being a Catholic doesn’t make me disobedient. Didn’t a Pope state that you don’t have to be a Catholic to be a Christian, but he may have been lead by other spirits, but wait, the office is infallible…

 

[jahsoul]

This sounds good and all, but you are looking at it from your own point of view. We wouldn’t have the Bible if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. If they hadn’t been orally teaching it for over three centuries before it was canonized by them, all those teachings would have been lost. The only reason we have any teaching of Christ at all is because Christ made good on His promise to guide and protect His Church through the men that He gave His authority and command to. All you have to do is look at the chaos of protestantism since it’s inception to see what happens when man goes about on his own authority.

We know what the Scriptures teach because WE WROTE THEM. We taught them and passed them down before they were ever written down into the Bible. You can say that you go to God for your Scripture, but you don’t. You go to your church, and your own interpretation for your understanding of Scripture. Neither you nor your church was given the authority by Christ to teach.

If you understand that Judiasm has held to their “customs” why can’t you then understand so has Christ’s Church? The apostles taught that we should not interpret Scripture (meaning OT Scripture) for ourselves and hold true to the teachings and traditions which THEY have taught. The Catholic Church IS the Church founded by Christ through His chosen Apostles which HAS held to His teachings and “customs.” It is men since the Reformation that have separated themselves from Christ’s Church to teach their own teachings and customs.

Hey Always, how are you doing?

Again, I bring up Judaism to say this. They kept the scripture for how long and isn’t most of the bible OT? The most chaos I’ve ever seen in Protestants was the inquisition. And think about this Always. Jesus said that the servant isn’t greater than the master. He was persecuted and those who believe are too. So what position did the “church” play in the persecution of protestants? But back to the topic…the Words of the NT was instruction for Christians.

The Word of God would have been read regardless. And to be fair again, although canonized, how long was it before the Word of God was available for everyone to read. We can say the office is infallible but men still hold the seat and there have been corrupt men. Not all but some. So if a man who is the “prime minister” gives interpretation of the Word to a people who can’t read/don’t know the word, they just have to go with it. This can continue for years. Not saying this happened, but to be fair.

The reason apostles (and I mean true apostles. Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, so he counts) play such a huge role is because they walked directly with Jesus and they wrote letters to the churches giving instruction. Either from jail or any other location. Because they were collected and written, it was available to all men, just as the scripture was available to the Jews. Not taking away from the church, but that is not the only place to get the Word of God anymore…

And again I say, the Christian Church (see what the believers were called in Acts 11) was the church that was founded. When was catholic used, more than likely, after the death of all the apostles…