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

[Always_For_Him]

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.

The Apostles were who Jesus told. They represent Jesus and His Church. Jesus didn’t give His Deposit of Faith to Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, or any of the thousands of men who have started their own churches in the last 500 years.

What part about my statement on the Nicene Creed is not true? I think the hubbub was regarding the filioque. That was settled.

 

[SD_Catholic]

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

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.

So you’re saying that the NT was written before Jesus’s Church began?

SD

 

[ckempston]

The Apostles were who Jesus told. They represent Jesus and His Church. Jesus didn’t give His Deposit of Faith to Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, or any of the thousands of men who have started their own churches in the last 500 years.

What part about my statement on the Nicene Creed is not true? I think the hubbub was regarding the filioque. That was settled.

I agree that Jesus didn’t give his Deposit of Faith to any of those men. Jesus said all truth would be revealed to the Apostles. Again, either all truth was revealed by the time John died, or Jesus lied.

The results of councils were determined by vote. If there was a “deposit of faith” or an “apostolic teaching” handed down, which everyone recognized, there would not have been a vote.

 

[ckempston]

A few points and questions that I have asked that I don’t feel have been dealt with by Catholics:

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

The Catholic inconsistency on personal interpretation.

The irony of Catholics misinterpreting their doctrines - doctrines, no matter how developed, still require interpretation. The Catholic assertion is simply once removed from the scriptures.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

I’m with you so far.

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.

• Then why is bible study such an enormous part of almost every Christian faith? If it were straight-forward, surely we would all just read it and all come up with the same interpretation of the entire text? But we don’t - we get together to discuss, study, analyse, contextualise, rationalise, place texts within historical contexts etc etc. Bible classes are the forum of teaching and interpreting. What need would there be for such if we all came up with the same interpretation? And you think each person will come up with the same interpretation if they read it closely? *

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).

Fact is, not everyone has agreed that 1 + 1 = 2. How do you explain the prevalence of over 30 000 different “varieties” of Christianity? Clearly reality is… people are interpreting things differently. With respect I am pretty amazed that anyone could argue differently to this. If we were all interpreting things the same way, we would not be so divided surely? To me, THAT is not rocket science.

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.

It would be interesting to have an SDA express their thoughts on this one. Again, I am sure they would use biblical texts to back up their claim. In their mind they would logically demonstrate that you are wrong. So in effect then you and they are each representing your interpretations. It is your “correct” perception vs their “correct” perception, yet as we have agreed, there can be only one truth, so someone is not living that fullness of truth.

It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you are saying that anyone who interprets any passage in the bible differently to you, personally, is quite simply incorrect, and you would perhaps suggest that they go and study it more closely in order that the correct interpretation be revealed to them? That’s not trying to be facetious - it is my deduction from your posts. Is that a fair comment or am I wrong here?

If leaders of Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, SDA churches, who no doubt have all spent months and years studying scripture, all come up with different interpretations (which we know they do), which faith is speaking the truth? And yet you say scripture should be fairly easy to interpret? It just doesn’t tally to me I’m afraid… In practice it does not work that way!

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.”).

Again, what is self evident for one, is not necessarily self-evident for another…

 

[ckempston]

Then why is bible study such an enormous part of almost every Christian faith? If it were straight-forward, surely we would all just read it and all come up with the same interpretation of the entire text? But we don’t - we get together to discuss, study, analyse, contextualise, rationalise, place texts within historical contexts etc etc. Bible classes are the forum of teaching and interpreting. What need would there be for such if we all came up with the same interpretation? And you think each person will come up with the same interpretation if they read it closely? *

Your question doesn’t raise any problems for my position. I clearly stated that Bible study is important. And I did not suggest anywhere that someone could just pick up a Bible and figure it all out on their own. You’re attacking a strawman here.

I think if we look at what our assumptions are, come to some basic agreements on context, interpretive methods, word definitions, etc., then yes, we will pretty much come up with the same interpretation, but we have to communicate and not stay in our little box.

Fact is, not everyone has agreed that 1 + 1 = 2. How do you explain the prevalence of over 30 000 different “varieties” of Christianity? Clearly reality is… people are interpreting things differently. With respect I am pretty amazed that anyone could argue differently to this. If we were all interpreting things the same way, we would not be so divided surely? To me, THAT is not rocket science.

Do your senses reliably report to your mind regarding your surroudings? That’s all I’m saying. All humans have to decide if they’re going trust their senses, and if so, they have to make decisions on what they’re going to believe from that point. What’s not self-evident about that?

 

[SteveGC]

A few points and questions that I have asked that I don’t feel have been dealt with by Catholics:

I’ll take a crack at it

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

The Body of Christ, either perfectly or imperfectly united to Christ’s Church. Imperfectly if they are not aligned with authentic apostolic teaching, successively protected throughout all ages by the Holy Spirit through laying on of hands.

The Catholic inconsistency on personal interpretation. Not sure what you mean.

What’s inconsistent? The Deposit of Faith is with The Church; we are free as Catholics to prayerfully read Scripture individually and as groups, to develop deeper understandings of God’s prophetic messages, Christ’s teachings, and application for our daily walk throughout our lives. We do this under the light of revealed Truth, as entrusted to The Church. We do not go to Scripture seeking to define doctrine regarding faith and morals, this has been done, Traditionally and Scripturally. What’s in the Bible was first revealed to humans, and this inspired human teaching has primacy. God preserves the human teaching for all time. The Bible is a reflection and documentation of that human teaching, it is not the source of it. If by ‘inconsistency’ you mean that Catholics are in disagreement about revealed Truth, then it’s simple…we go to The Church to settle the matter - hence, no more inconsistency.

The irony of Catholics misinterpreting their doctrines - doctrines, no matter how developed, still require interpretation. The Catholic assertion is simply once removed from the scriptures.

Doctrines need clarification and interpretation, especially from generation to generation. Teaching of faith and morals is forever consistent. God’s salvific plan has been fully known by humans since Pentecost. Doctrine is the translation of consistent teaching, and the verbage used to do so reflects the changing world from age to age. It is not ironic.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

…

Are you kidding? Who doesn’t agree that 1 + 1 = 2? We’re not talking about metaphysics, we’re talking about human reality and what humans experience. That 30,000 number is a red herring. On salvation issues, the vast majority of “Christian doctrine” agrees on practically everything regarding salvation and the Christian life. Many individuals do not practice, and many have different “disciplines” or practices (these differences exist in the Catholic church as well, and yet it is still considered “one”), but these are not genuine disagreements. The vast majority of Christanity agrees with Catholicism on Justification and Christian living; the differences usually end up being merely terminology.

This make-believe land where all Catholics are in 100% agreement is just that - make believe.

…

No. Truth is independent of my opinion and interpretation. Regardless of what I believe, Truth is Truth. I may be wrong, and have in fact changed my position on matters many times when it was demonstrated that I was wrong. In fact, Hinduism could be true, or we could be one big cosmic experiment by alien scientists (ok, I know that’s stretching it, but just making a point here), that would mean there was a serious flaw in my worldview, but, from my personal understanding, experience, and based on the best evidence I have available, I believe Christ to be “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The fact that I can admit that demonstrates my faith in Christ for my salvation, rather than “leaning on my own understanding.”

…
…

Again, whilst it is fair to say that much of the Christian faith and teaching is shared and agreed upon between all Christian faiths, the reality is that there are also differences in hugely important aspects. You mention “salvation”. Some Christians teach that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Other Christians teach that faith has to go hand in hand with good works.
Some Christians believe that communion is only a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus. Other Christians believe that the host and wine becomes the very body and blood of Jesus himself. Such (and many more) are the issues that are debated throughout these forums. And these are important issues. Parties arguing both sides of the coin will use scriptural backing to support their interpretation. Is this really nothing more than “mere terminology”? These are fundamental issues of faith, surely? And despite all the debate amongst many well informed and highly educated people from both sides of the coin, genuine disagreements DO remain. This is, if you don’t mind me using the word, self-evident, from all the debates that rage here in these forums and all across the world.

So which argument “trumps” the rest? Which scripturally backed teaching “trumps” the other scripturally backed teachings? We can not sort this out purely through throwing verses at each other. There must be something more than this. Something else directing us to the truth… and for me (and many others), that “trumpcard” is authority. What is the authority that justifies your set of beliefs? Because personally I do not believe that I am sufficiently spiritually endowed with gifts of interpretation or with sufficient human intelligence to work out everything on my own. Many people, it seems, think they are. But the resultant mishmash of varieties of Christianity and quagmire of different teachings thereof disproves this. Something greater has to be our guiding light here…

I don’t believe that Jesus intended for us all to differ on all the many issues that Christians do differ on, because, as we both agree, there is only one full 100% truth. Jesus wants every one of us to be one with Him in this fullness of truth, not tearing each other apart over differences in his teaching. The question is, would Jesus have left this world without the truth? Would he simply have abandoned the human race to debate and fight over issues without telling us how to be one with Him in this fullness of truth? Clearly not! That would be absurd. Jesus has shown us the fullness of truth. He has given us the formula and pointed the way for us. And he pointed us to this fullness when he walked on earth. It was not for us to work out on our own many years later, no. Who are we to suggest that we can come up with a better, more accurate formula than that which Jesus taught and instituted himself?! The fullness of truth was revealed to us by Jesus himself and effected and instituted by Jesus himself 2000 years ago. And more than this, the authority for this teaching was passed by Jesus to his apostles and to Peter himself. (“What you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven, what you lose on earth shall be considered losed in heaven”).

So that, for me, and for all Catholics is the “trumpcard”, namely the fact that Jesus instituted a foundation for his teaching **WITH HIS authority **and confirmed that such teachings would be bound and losed in heaven. Once I accept that authority, the teaching that flows from this authority is for me the fullness of truth. Anything that differs, self evidently has to differ from that fullness of truth, and I would rather be 100% in the truth than 98% in the truth.

Finally, regarding your comment: “This make-believe land where all Catholics are in 100% agreement is just that - make believe.”
Please note carefully - no-one can ever say that all Catholics are 100% in agreement, because sadly plenty of Catholics do drift from the truth or even blatantly turn their back on their faith (as happens in any faith). Many ill-informed Catholics do plenty of damage to the Catholic Church by misinforming others. All people are fallible - Catholic and Non-Catholic alike. Every single church will have people who claim to practice their faith, but who do so incorrectly, or who do so contrary to the actual teachings, or who even do evil things despite what they claim to represent. The Catholic Church is NO different in this regard, We have plenty of people from amongst our own ranks who have done evil things over the years (and plenty of people doing huge amounts of good also). But the faith and teachings of the Church are far greater than the fallible people who attempt (or otherwise) to live out that faith. Remember that even Peter denied Jesus, and Judas betrayed him for material wealth. Every Christian group is likely to have people who do good and people who don’t.
But the Catholic TEACHING is absolutely 100% clear and does not contradict, even if there are some individuals who sometimes don’t live out this teaching and hence do not give a great example of that faith in the way they go about their lives.

So please can we be clear on the separation between the actual teaching of the Catholic Church vs the actions (good and bad) of all the people who make up the faith.

 

[ckempston]

I’ll take a crack at it

The Body of Christ, either perfectly or imperfectly united to Christ’s Church. Imperfectly if they are not aligned with authentic apostolic teaching, successively protected throughout all ages by the Holy Spirit through laying on of hands.

The Body of Christ is The Church. Period. There is no way to be “imperfectly” united to the Body of Christ.

What’s inconsistent? The Deposit of Faith is with The Church; we are free as Catholics to prayerfully read Scripture individually and as groups, to develop deeper understandings of God’s prophetic messages, Christ’s teachings, and application for our daily walk throughout our lives. We do this under the light of revealed Truth, as entrusted to The Church. We do not go to Scripture seeking to define doctrine regarding faith and morals, this has been done, Traditionally and Scripturally. What’s in the Bible was first revealed to humans, and this inspired human teaching has primacy. God preserves the human teaching for all time. The Bible is a reflection and documentation of that human teaching, it is not the source of it. If by ‘inconsistency’ you mean that Catholics are in disagreement about revealed Truth, then it’s simple…we go to The Church to settle the matter - hence, no more inconsistency.

It’s not quite that simple. It’s not like a Catholic can call up the Pope or even a Bishop to resolve a difference, and it’s obvious from the forums here that answers will vary based on diocese or “personal interpretation” of said Bishop or a Priest. The real reason I say it’s inconcistent is not really being grasped by the Catholics here: as a Catholic you still need to make a choice - what are you going to believe? THAT is a personal interpretation.

Doctrines need clarification and interpretation, especially from generation to generation. Teaching of faith and morals is forever consistent. God’s salvific plan has been fully known by humans since Pentecost. Doctrine is the translation of consistent teaching, and the verbage used to do so reflects the changing world from age to age. It is not ironic.

I’d say the Catholic church hasn’t been nearly as consistent as Catholics claim, but that’s also another discussion altogether.

It is indeed ironic that Catholics disagree over, say, the Catechism. Catholics criticize Protestants for “personally interpreting” the Bible, but “personally interpret” themselves all day long; they just usually don’t interpret the Bible, but some encyclical, the Catechism, or some canon.

 

[ckempston]

Again, whilst it is fair to say that much of the Christian faith and teaching is shared and agreed upon between all Christian faiths, the reality is that there are also differences in hugely important aspects. You mention “salvation”. Some Christians teach that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Other Christians teach that faith has to go hand in hand with good works.
Some Christians believe that communion is only a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus. Other Christians believe that the host and wine becomes the very body and blood of Jesus himself. Such (and many more) are the issues that are debated throughout these forums. And these are important issues. Parties arguing both sides of the coin will use scriptural backing to support their interpretation. Is this really nothing more than “mere terminology”? These are fundamental issues of faith, surely? And despite all the debate amongst many well informed and highly educated people from both sides of the coin, genuine disagreements DO remain. This is, if you don’t mind me using the word, self-evident, from all the debates that rage here in these forums and all across the world.

Again, you are failing to apply this standard to Catholics. Catholics disagree on many issues amongst themselves, as also evidenced by this forum. The appeal to the Magesterium in matters of “Faith and Morals” is a cop-out, in my personal opinion, and statements of that Magesterium still require interpretation.

So which argument “trumps” the rest? Which scripturally backed teaching “trumps” the other scripturally backed teachings? We can not sort this out purely through throwing verses at each other. There must be something more than this. Something else directing us to the truth… and for me (and many others), that “trumpcard” is authority. What is the authority that justifies your set of beliefs? Because personally I do not believe that I am sufficiently spiritually endowed with gifts of interpretation or with sufficient human intelligence to work out everything on my own. Many people, it seems, think they are. But the resultant mishmash of varieties of Christianity and quagmire of different teachings thereof disproves this. Something greater has to be our guiding light here…

Again, special pleading. You are making an affirmative claim that there is an authority outside yourself. Your insistence that this authority is indeed authoritative is a “personal interpretation.”

I don’t believe that Jesus intended for us all to differ on all the many issues that Christians do differ on, because, as we both agree, there is only one full 100% truth. Jesus wants every one of us to be one with Him in this fullness of truth, not tearing each other apart over differences in his teaching. The question is, would Jesus have left this world without the truth? Would he simply have abandoned the human race to debate and fight over issues without telling us how to be one with Him in this fullness of truth? Clearly not! That would be absurd. Jesus has shown us the fullness of truth. He has given us the formula and pointed the way for us. And he pointed us to this fullness when he walked on earth. It was not for us to work out on our own many years later, no. Who are we to suggest that we can come up with a better, more accurate formula than that which Jesus taught and instituted himself?! The fullness of truth was revealed to us by Jesus himself and effected and instituted by Jesus himself 2000 years ago. And more than this, the authority for this teaching was passed by Jesus to his apostles and to Peter himself. (“What you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven, what you lose on earth shall be considered losed in heaven”).

I’ve already “trumped” this claim and no Catholic has provided any reasonable answer. Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth. Either all truth was revealed to the Apostles or Jesus lied. Take your pick.

So that, for me, and for all Catholics is the “trumpcard”, namely the fact that Jesus instituted a foundation for his teaching **WITH HIS authority **and confirmed that such teachings would be bound and losed in heaven. Once I accept that authority, the teaching that flows from this authority is for me the fullness of truth. Anything that differs, self evidently has to differ from that fullness of truth, and I would rather be 100% in the truth than 98% in the truth.

Riddle me this: What has any Pope ever “loosed.”

Finally, regarding your comment: “This make-believe land where all Catholics are in 100% agreement is just that - make believe.”
Please note carefully - no-one can ever say that all Catholics are 100% in agreement, because sadly plenty of Catholics do drift from the truth or even blatantly turn their back on their faith (as happens in any faith). Many ill-informed Catholics do plenty of damage to the Catholic Church by misinforming others. All people are fallible - Catholic and Non-Catholic alike. Every single church will have people who claim to practice their faith, but who do so incorrectly, or who do so contrary to the actual teachings, or who even do evil things despite what they claim to represent. The Catholic Church is NO different in this regard, We have plenty of people from amongst our own ranks who have done evil things over the years (and plenty of people doing huge amounts of good also). But the faith and teachings of the Church are far greater than the fallible people who attempt (or otherwise) to live out that faith. Remember that even Peter denied Jesus, and Judas betrayed him for material wealth. Every Christian group is likely to have people who do good and people who don’t.

I’m not talking about living righteously. Again, I’m referring to Catholic disagreements over doctrinal matters. The Eastern and Western churches are the most blatantly obvious example.

But the Catholic TEACHING is absolutely 100% clear and does not contradict, even if there are some individuals who sometimes don’t live out this teaching and hence do not give a great example of that faith in the way they go about their lives.

So please can we be clear on the separation between the actual teaching of the Catholic Church vs the actions (good and bad) of all the people who make up the faith.

I was not referring to actions.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Again, you are failing to apply this standard to Catholics. Catholics disagree on many issues amongst themselves, as also evidenced by this forum. The appeal to the Magesterium in matters of “Faith and Morals” is a cop-out, in my personal opinion, and statements of that Magesterium still require interpretation.

Again, special pleading. You are making an affirmative claim that there is an authority outside yourself. Your insistence that this authority is indeed authoritative is a “personal interpretation.”

I’ve already “trumped” this claim and no Catholic has provided any reasonable answer. Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth. Either all truth was revealed to the Apostles or Jesus lied. Take your pick.

Riddle me this: What has any Pope ever “loosed.”

I’m not talking about living righteously. Again, I’m referring to Catholic disagreements over doctrinal matters. The Eastern and Western churches are the most blatantly obvious example.

I was not referring to actions.

OK, we’re starting to hit walls here… so. once and for all…

I don’t personally interpret the bible because I am not qualified to do so on my own. I rely on:
1 Tim 3:15: the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth.
This is the same Church founded upon Peter by Jesus. The same Church that has existed for 2000 years as Jesus said it would (“The Gates of Hell will never prevail against it”). Or did Jesus lie here?

That is my CHOICE! It is NOT a personal interpretation of the Bible. **Free will / choice **is different from the “personal interpretation” of a written document. My CHOICE is to follow the Catholic Church as I would rather take my chances with a Church started by Jesus. Now that is NOT just a biblical issue. It is an historical / factual issue (remember the Church existed before the Bible). I have more faith in 2000 years of the teaching of the Church started by Jesus, than I do of trying to figure it out all by myself. If you believe you’re good to do it yourself, I can only wish you well on that quest… If you have some greater authority on which you base your “personal interpretation” I would be only too interested to know what it is… or is it still “God-given reason” as you mentioned previously?

My God-given reason tells me to go with 2000 years of Church teaching instituted, started and given authority by Jesus himself. That’s not personal biblical interpretation - that’s historical fact! And the inner peace that has come in knowing this is a blessing I would exchange for nothing in the whole world.

As for your continued emphasis on different opinions expressed by Catholics and “disagreements” in both this and other threads - ad nauseam, as I have said before, there is just one true teaching of the Catholic Church, and only one. Different opinions by people with varying degrees of knowledge will never change that! But you seem not to want to hear this point…

 

[ckempston]

OK, we’re starting to hit walls here… so. once and for all…

I don’t personally interpret the bible because I am not qualified to do so on my own. I rely on:
1 Tim 3:15: the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth.
This is the same Church founded upon Peter by Jesus. The same Church that has existed for 2000 years as Jesus said it would (“The Gates of Hell will never prevail against it”). Or did Jesus lie here?

This is hilarious. You just interpreted that verse…PERSONALLY.

That is my CHOICE! It is NOT a personal interpretation of the Bible. **Free will / choice **is different from the “personal interpretation” of a written document. My CHOICE is to follow the Catholic Church as I would rather take my chances with a Church started by Jesus. Now that is NOT just a biblical issue. It is an historical / factual issue (remember the Church existed before the Bible). I have more faith in 2000 years of the teaching of the Church started by Jesus, than I do of trying to figure it out all by myself. If you believe you’re good to do it yourself, I can only wish you well on that quest… If you have some greater authority on which you base your “personal interpretation” I would be only too interested to know what it is… or is it still “God-given reason” as you mentioned previously?

Reason is a tool. I encourage you to use it. You just personally interpreted, with historical context, and Biblical support, and arrived at a conclusion that the Catholic church is the one true church.

My God-given reason tells me to go with 2000 years of Church teaching instituted, started and given authority by Jesus himself. That’s not personal biblical interpretation - that’s historical fact! And the inner peace that has come in knowing this is a blessing I would exchange for nothing in the whole world.

As for your continued emphasis on different opinions expressed by Catholics and “disagreements” in both this and other threads - ad nauseam, as I have said before, there is just one true teaching of the Catholic Church, and only one. Different opinions by people with varying degrees of knowledge will never change that! But you seem not to want to hear this point…

You are the one who is not hearing me. I can point you to examples, in these forums, of people saying their own Bishops are not correctly teaching Catholic doctrine. How could this be?

 

[Patrick_Cox]

The Body of Christ is The Church. Period. There is no way to be “imperfectly” united to the Body of Christ.

It’s not quite that simple. It’s not like a Catholic can call up the Pope or even a Bishop to resolve a difference, and it’s obvious from the forums here that answers will vary based on diocese or “personal interpretation” of said Bishop or a Priest. The real reason I say it’s inconcistent is not really being grasped by the Catholics here: as a Catholic you still need to make a choice - what are you going to believe? THAT is a personal interpretation.

I’d say the Catholic church hasn’t been nearly as consistent as Catholics claim, but that’s also another discussion altogether.

It is indeed ironic that Catholics disagree over, say, the Catechism. Catholics criticize Protestants for “personally interpreting” the Bible, but “personally interpret” themselves all day long; they just usually don’t interpret the Bible, but some encyclical, the Catechism, or some canon.

Nope - the Catholic Church under authority of the Pope teaches - the people who choose Catholicism follow that teaching. If Catholic people misinterpret that teaching, whether they choose to read the Bible itself or the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which explains all teachings of the Church) they are off the mark. No personal interpretation here. Thought, debate, discussion, application of reason and intelligence in order to unravel that teaching, yes. But if you interpret contrary to the teaching, you differ with the Church. Catholics may be off the mark. Catholicism itself is not.

 

[ckempston]

Nope - the Catholic Church under authority of the Pope teaches - the people who choose Catholicism follow that teaching. If Catholic people misinterpret that teaching, whether they choose to read the Bible itself or the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which explains all teachings of the Church) they are off the mark. No personal interpretation here. Thought, debate, discussion, application of reason and intelligence in order to unravel that teaching, yes. But if you interpret contrary to the teaching, you differ with the Church. Catholics may be off the mark. Catholicism itself is not.

You still didn’t address the question of how one can be a part of the Body of Christ, but not a part of the Church, which is the same thing.

 

[MrS]

Well we could always imagine that we wake up in the morning, and all the bibles and references to the bibles are gone.

no more books

Our separated brethren would of course be totally lost.

Catholics, on the other hand, would still have Tradition and the Magisterium.

What, you say, protestants have a tradition too… nope. That would disappear, because they developed their own traditions from our Scriptures re-interpreted to fit their own human desires.

.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

This is hilarious. You just interpreted that verse…PERSONALLY.

Reason is a tool. I encourage you to use it. You just personally interpreted, with historical context, and Biblical support, and arrived at a conclusion that the Catholic church is the one true church.

You are the one who is not hearing me. I can point you to examples, in these forums, of people saying their own Bishops are not correctly teaching Catholic doctrine. How could this be?

No, I didn’t personally interpret that - I just gave you an example of the teaching of the Church. I follow that teaching (not blindly though!). I don’t interpret it to my own ends…
I chose to use that verse in that posting, yes (I could have chosen any number of quotes). But I ain’t personally interpreting anything. Just giving an example of the Church’s teaching… Chosing to use a particular verse to illustrate a teaching of the Church is not the same as interpreting that verse to my own means and ends…

If bishops are teaching incorrect doctrine (which sadly does happen), then the problem lies with those bishops. The correct teaching remains irrespective of who uses it or teaches it (in)correctly. As we have said, people are fallible. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - hence it is not fallible. People within the Church sadly are though…

 

[ckempston]

Well we could always imagine that we wake up in the morning, and all the bibles and references to the bibles are gone.

no more books

Our separated brethren would of course be totally lost.

Catholics, on the other hand, would still have Tradition and the Magisterium.

What, you say, protestants have a tradition too… nope. That would disappear, because they developed their own traditions from our Scriptures re-interpreted to fit their own human desires.

.

In your imaginary scenario, the Catholic church would be in trouble too. Take the Catechism for instance. It is full of Biblical quotes and references. If all Bibles and references to Bibles were gone, that would include much of the Catechism.

 

[ckempston]

No, I didn’t personally interpret that - I just gave you an example of the teaching of the Church. I follow that teaching (not blindly though!). I don’t interpret it to my own ends…
I chose to use that verse in that posting, yes (I could have chosen any number of quotes). But I ain’t personally interpreting anything. Just giving an example of the Church’s teaching… Chosing to use a particular verse to illustrate a teaching of the Church is not the same as interpreting that verse to my own means and ends…

If bishops are teaching incorrect doctrine (which sadly does happen), then the problem lies with those bishops. The correct teaching remains irrespective of who uses it or teaches it (in)correctly. As we have said, people are fallible. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - hence it is not fallible. People within the Church sadly are though…

Ok, I think you’re right that we’ve hit a wall. I see your statement as a clear personal interpretation. At some point, whether you’re a convert or a cradle Catholic, you have to make a personal decision who/what you are going to believe. I see this as having little to no difference from the Catholic accusation of Protestant “personal interpretation.”

The short answer to the original question, for me personally, is that I don’t know for sure. That’s where Faith and Trust and Hope come in. 100% certainty would negate the need for Faith; therefore, I believe any Christian whether Catholic or Protestant cannot “know” that a certain interpretation is the right one.

 

[MrS]

In your imaginary scenario, the Catholic church would be in trouble too. Take the Catechism for instance. It is full of Biblical quotes and references. If all Bibles and references to Bibles were gone, that would include much of the Catechism.

Correct.

Since the Church grew on the Tradition handed to the Apostles and their successors from Christ Himself, we still have the Oral teachings and the Oral promise that the Church and His Truth would prevail. No one else could remain outside the Tradition and still claim to follow Christ.

Maybe a compromise is in order

How about we just have a NT that includes only the book(s) that actually say they are enough to teach us our salvation.

I believe that would be a short NT… only the Gospel of John.

John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written

Are you up for that discussion?

.

 

[1beleevr]

When all of us Christians, whether catholic, or non-catholic, read our Bibles, don’t we interpret what we read, differently sometimes? Jesus told us, that the Advocate(Holy Spirit) would come and reveal all things in truth and spirit:thumbsup: I mean, how many people(be honest now) knew that the passage from Genesis3:15, was talking about Christ and Satan? Or that 2 Samuel 14:14, was a reference to Christ? I mean Exodus 12, is the story of salvetion, in the OT I have had many discussions with Christians of many different persuasions, and it seems that sometimes, everyone of them has their own interpretaton of what they have read! One might say,"Well, my priest says that the meaning of Matthew 28:19-20, means that we all, as followers of Christ, should go and make disciples, not just priests, etc.