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

[ckempston]

Which was debated and finally found invalid.

Gee, I didn’t think there was a whole lot of debate. I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury just had them taken out in 1885.

 

[JRKH]

I asked it before and I will ask it again. This goes out to all of you, to each catholic.

Is the pope Christ on earth?

NO

 

[JRKH]

I’d like to interject that that’s not what Jesus said, so I’ll personally take Jesus over Ignatius.

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Look a little earlier in Matthew - Just a verse or two and see where Christ tells us to “Tell it to the Church” and look at what he says to do with obstinate wrongdoers.

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, **tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. **18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Look a little earlier in Matthew - Just a verse or two and see where Christ tells us to “Tell it to the Church” and look at what he says to do with obstinate wrongdoers.

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, **tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. **18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Peace
James

So are you saying that the church is equivalent to the Bishop?

 

[JRKH]

As I pointed out before, the term “Catholic” is from the Greek and means “universal” That is the Universal Church. The Catholic Church IS Christian and has been since the days of the Apostles.

Gee - Trying to follow you around a conversation sure is an exersize.
Especially when your responses do not correspond to the items you quote.

Let’s see if we can clear this up.
On another thread you posted the following:

Wrong. The term catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[8] It established catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Wiki encyclopedia

To which you recieved a couple of responses.
First of all pointing out that this decree did not name us catholics but rather “reserved” the name “catholic” to those who are true believers and not part of a heretical group.
Secondly - The very piece you posted undercuts your argument since it declares that only those who adhere to:
"**that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria **
So by the piece that YOU posted, Cathoics are Those who Hold to the faith as delivered by Peter and Preserved by Faithful Tradition.

Of course You haven’t yet provided Any evidence that the Early Church killed those who disagreed with her anyway. So as far as I can know, no such purges ever took place.

There is more blood on the hands of the CC then the that of the muslims. How you can deny it is like the leader of Iran saying the holocaust never happened.

As I said Earlier, if you would like to start a trhead on the supposed “Blood trail” be my guest. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Peace
James

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So are you saying that the church is equivalent to the Bishop?

Augustine makes this quite clear:

“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.”
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t believe there was ever a time I did not believe in God.

He came to me in my dreams even before the age of five. I remember how the women in my kindergarden Sunday school were amazed by my understanding of God. Yet, I only knew what he revealed to me.

When I was in school, I was excited to learn to read so I could read the Word of God. Once I learned to read, I was without understanding. Yet, regardless, reading God’s Word made me feel closer to him.

When I learned God’s commandments, I became aware of my sin and can recall the day my spirit inside me died. For the first time in my life I felt alone, apart from God. Yet, he did not forsake me.

At the age of fifteen, I was invited to a youth for Christ get away weekend at the local YMCA.

On the night we were to leave, on Sunday, there was a church service. It was here I finally understood. For my heart became convicted and I knew I needed to be saved/born again.

The Lord came into my heart like a rushing wind. I wept like never before and when it was all said and done, I was a new creature in Christ. All things had become new to me, as it is written in the Word of God.

What does it mean to be born again?

I use this scripture, John 3:3 thru 7 as a litmus test to see how far
one is in their spiritual growth or to see of they are of God. I want to
know what you all think? Please do not think I am trying to be anything
more than what I am, and that is a sinner, for the only good in me comes
by my yielding to the will of Jesus. Only when my cup of self will is
empty can I truly be filled with the will of Christ.

In verse 3, Jesus is telling Nicodemus except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God…Now as you examine this, look
at the word born again. Does it not make sense that to be born again,
one must first be born. To prove this, examine the next verse.

In verse 4, Nicodemus asks how can a man be born when he is old. Can
he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?..
The important word to examine here is second…
Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about two physical births, but
he was not and the proof lies in the next verse.
In verse 5, Jesus says, except a man be born of water and of spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Here our Lord is
telling of two different births, one by water and one by spirit.
When we are born into this world, we are born in a sack of water or
physical birth. Proof that Jesus is talking about physical birth and
spiritual birth can be found in the next verse.
In verse 6, Jesus says that which is born of the flesh is flesh and
that which is born of the spirit is spirit…physical birth,
spiritual birth
So if a man, who is dead in spirit doesn’t become reborn, he will
never see the kingdom of God. So when Jesus says a man must be born
again, he is talking about our dead spirit being born again. The
above scripture talks of three births. One in the flesh and two in
the spirit.

Adam died in the day he ate the forbidden fruit according to scripture.
Yet, he lived in the flesh hundred of years more after his sin.

When he sinned, he died spiritually. He sold his soul unto death. And
all of mankind is held under the yoke of original sin and unless a man
is born again, renewed in his spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom
of God.

Thank you for this beautiful testimony of your conversion.
Since it would be considerably off topic here, perhaps you would like to start another thread to discuss what “born again” means in the context of your experience and ours.
This may prove more productive than some of our other conversations.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Augustine makes this quite clear:

“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.”
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.

That didn’t answer my question, but thanks for the quote.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That didn’t answer my question, but thanks for the quote.

It answered your question. Read more carefully.

You seem to jump to conclusions.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Which was debated and finally found invalid.

Debated by whom and found invalid by whom?

 

[Always_For_Him]

ARE not the heads of the churches the authority according to the Word of God.
Are not all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord being born again through his blood part of the church, Christ’s Church?

Am I reading this right? The earthly head of CHRIST’S Church was given authority by Christ according to NT Scripture, NOT the head of every single church denomination started by thousands of men on their own self-appointed authority because of pride and ego. Christ founded ONLY one Church. He gave His Deposit of Faith to the Apostles and through His authority and protection, the apostles spread His Word as He commanded. Martin Luther and the other Reformers were around 1500 years AFTER Jesus gave His Deposit of Faith to His Church. Are you saying that He came back and gave it to Luther and has continued to come back and give it to every single man that has ever started his own church?

In the days of the apostles, corruption was already taking place as one apostle warned against others claiming they were preaching the gospel of Christ, but was different from what the apostles had taught.

Read your history. Luther’s initial problem with the Church was for the sale of indulgences and had NOTHING to do with the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. Luther didn’t have ANY issue with the Church’s teaching on faith and morals until he became full of himself through political influence and power and started making his changes. This is historically recorded if you care enough to read it to learn the truth.

So what of these preaching a different gospel? Certainly they could not be lumped in with the true church.

MEN who separate themselves from Christ’s Church to further their own ideology and personal interpretation, teach a different gospel.
Thousands of men have done it. Thousands of men have founded their own churches. It is the people that make up those churches that come to believe in errant teachings.

What I am trying to say is, if an interpretation can be proven using the Word of God to be contrary, how can it be legitmate?

It is the errant interpretation of those who take the Catholic book, misinterpret the contextual meaning, then try to prove the Catholic Church wrong with their errant interpretation.

I could make a list of the many areas the CC err in their teachings.

It is your opinion that the CC errs in Her teachings. You have been taught something else, and have never been taught the fullness of the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave His Church. Just because you have not been taught it in your man-made church, does not prove that the Catholic Church has been teaching error for 2,000 years.

 

[JRKH]

There are many churches in many denominations. There are many churches who are non-denmominational.

ARE not the heads of the churches the authority according to the Word of God.
Are not all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord being born again through his blood part of the church, Christ’s Church?

In the days of the apostles, corruption was already taking place as one apostle warned against others claiming they were preaching the gospel of Christ, but was different from what the apostles had taught.

So what of these preaching a different gospel? Certainly they could not be lumped in with the true church.

What I am trying to say is, if an interpretation can be proven using the Word of God to be contrary, how can it be legitmate?

I could make a list of the many areas the CC err in their teachings.

Yet, in the early life of the church, they did stand on the Word of God.

What you say above is not strange to Catholics. We struggle daily to help others understand the delicate interplay of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial Teachinhg. It is only the point of view that is different.
The Portion that I Bolded above is really the crux of the matter.
you wish to use, “The Word of God” to prove or disprove a particular interpretation. This is fine. But First we have to define what IS the Word of God?

We all agree that Jesus is The Word, and we certainly all pray to Him for guidance, support and wisdom. However, it is difficult to discuss these things without a written source. Even the Apostles, without a NT made reference to the OT books. So, While Jesus Is The Word, we necessarily look to some written documents as divinely inspired texts that help us to understand God’s will for us. Thus we have what we all refer to as, Scripture, or the Bible, or the Holy Bible.

We, as Christians accept the Holy Bible as being the inspired Word of God, written down my men. But I can go into a book store and pick up two books entitled Holy bible and find differences. Not just in the various translations, but in the very Number of books contained therein. This can all be very confusing. How could THE Holy Bible, be so different. Isn’t the Word of God the same now and forever? This is critical if I am to use this book to determine if an interpretation is true or not.

For if I use a Bible with too many books in it (unispired books) then I may be led to the wrong interpretation. If I use a Bible with too few books, the same thing might occur. All of this is BEFORE we get into the issues of translations and how words can change over time or something in Greek having no direct word in English.

So - To determine which Bible is correct, I must have authority that is outside of the Bible. NOW I am into an area that is known as “Faith Tradition”. Every branch of Christianity has it’s faith traditions. Even those who claim “Bible only” - for SS, in itself, is a tradition. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

You have selected, from the Protestant Faith Tradition, the 66 book KJV as the Bible you accept. We Catholics, from the Catholic Faith Tradition accept the 72 book Catholic edition of the Bible. Both books are entitled “Holy Bible” and both contain the Word of God.

As a person investigating these matters I must now determine which of these is correct? My non-catholic friend says 66 books, my catholic friend says 72 books. How do I decide which is correct???
I must do this BEFORE I can judge whether an interpretation is correct or not.

So you see - Even in this it becomes a matter of Authority, and which “Tradition” one chooses to accept - Protestant? or Catholic?

Now, you have given me a rather messy justification and explanation for accepting the 66 book canon. The OT from late first century Jews, - who rejected Jesus and have reason not to accept books friendly to Christians, - and the NT from the Catholics - even though you believe the Catholics were apostate by the time the canon was assembled.
The Catholics on the other hand present a canon that was assembled in council, protected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Promised by Christ. The Catholic Bible has not changed from then till now.
The Protestant Bible, has changed. First by moving the DC’s to a seperate section and then removing them altogether.

So - Which Bible should I trust? You yourself declare it must be te one that has never had a word changed. So it makes sense to look to the Older of the two canons common today. Which canon is that? Why the 72 book canon of course. Older by 1000 years than the 66 book canon.

I travelled this road for many years so I know what I am talking about.
No matter how one slices it - these things always come back to "extra-biblical’ authority. In other words Tradition.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

It answered your question. Read more carefully.

You seem to jump to conclusions.

Explain it for me, please, because I’m missing it.

 

[JRKH]

(snip)
What I am trying to say is, if an interpretation can be proven using the Word of God to be contrary, how can it be legitmate?

I could make a list of the many areas the CC err in their teachings.

Yet, in the early life of the church, they did stand on the Word of God.

The Problem with your desire to check every teaching agains the Bible is this.
It puts the cart before the horse.

The Catholic Church taught for nearly 400 years without an official canon. Even a couple of the teachings you have issues with predate the setting ot he canon in today’s form. It then assembled the canon, both OT and NT, and painstakingly preserved it for 1500 years.
I ask you then -
Would an Apostate Church, teaching contrary to God and thus “against God” put books into it’s bible that taught “truth” against itself???

It certainly wouldn’t make much sense would it.

Yes you can say that “God protects His word”, but he would not have done it through an apostate church and not for 1000 years before correcting it.

Many non-catholics claim the Church teaches things that are not biblical simply because they are using an incomplete bible. That is not a swipe at the KJV, it is just a point of fact.

Also it is necessary to understand that the Bible was assembled within the context of the traditions of The Church and not seperate from it. The Bible was never intended to stand alone and apart from Church Tradition.

So then - If you wish to start threads containing Catholic teaching errors, please be ready to see those errors defended, in part, from the books of the DC’s. For the 72 Book canon is the complete canon and you cannot understand teh fullness of faith in Catholicism without ALL of the books.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

The Problem with your desire to check every teaching agains the Bible is this.
It puts the cart before the horse.

The Catholic Church taught for nearly 400 years without an official canon. Even a couple of the teachings you have issues with predate the setting ot he canon in today’s form. It then assembled the canon, both OT and NT, and painstakingly preserved it for 1500 years.
I ask you then -
Would an Apostate Church, teaching contrary to God and thus “against God” put books into it’s bible that taught “truth” against itself???

It certainly wouldn’t make much sense would it.

It would make a lot of sense if the Scriptures were in a language that the majority of the people didn’t understand for hundreds of years.

Yes you can say that “God protects His word”, but he would not have done it through an apostate church and not for 1000 years before correcting it.

He did it through thick-headed Jews. Why not?

Many non-catholics claim the Church teaches things that are not biblical simply because they are using an incomplete bible. That is not a swipe at the KJV, it is just a point of fact.

Not all Catholic doctrines are in the Bible. Many are 3rd and 4th order inferences, which is a questionable method. You can’t take two scriptures, turn them into a syllogism and then expect to get consistent results. You’d end up with all kinds of absurdities, which is what Catholicism has done.

Also it is necessary to understand that the Bible was assembled within the context of the traditions of The Church and not seperate from it. The Bible was never intended to stand alone and apart from Church Tradition.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, I, I

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

So then - If you wish to start threads containing Catholic teaching errors, please be ready to see those errors defended, in part, from the books of the DC’s. For the 72 Book canon is the complete canon and you cannot understand teh fullness of faith in Catholicism without ALL of the books.

Peace
James

 

[SD_Catholic]

Not all Catholic doctrines are in the Bible. Many are 3rd and 4th order inferences, which is a questionable method. You can’t take two scriptures, turn them into a syllogism and then expect to get consistent results. You’d end up with all kinds of absurdities, which is what Catholicism has done.

.

I almost hate to ask which ones cuz I hate to hear people drive nails into Jesus, especially during Easter… Do these so called non-Biblical doctrines somehow drive a wedge between you and God? If not than why worry about something too “absurd” for you to understand at this time?

SD

 

[ckempston]

I almost hate to ask which ones cuz I hate to hear people drive nails into Jesus, especially during Easter… Do these so called non-Biblical doctrines somehow drive a wedge between you and God? If not than why worry about something too “absurd” for you to understand at this time?

SD

Understanding is not the issue. Are you suggesting that I could be Catholic and deny the Infallability of the Pope? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying.

Right here you have perfectly demonstrated the problem with Catholic mindset. You suggest that somehow, during Easter, it’s worse to “drive nails into Jesus” than at any other time (as if that’s really what I’m doing). How can I be “convinced in my own mind” of anything if someone else dictates every single thing I am allowed or obliged to believe?

 

[1beleevr]

SDcatholic: I guess I chose 2 Samuel 14:14, because I wanted to see iff anyone else saw it as a reference to Jesus;“But God does not just sweep life away; instead He devises ways to bring us back when we have been separated from Him.” Is my interpretation correct?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Explain it for me, please, because I’m missing it.

The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence,…
For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, **it has possessed the crown of teaching authority." **

So if you deny the teaching authority of the apostolic chair as passed down by the bishops, you are denying the that the Church is the work of Divine Providence, according to Augustine.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How can I be “convinced in my own mind” of anything if someone else dictates every single thing I am allowed or obliged to believe?

You are not to lean on your own understanding.