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

[ckempston]

I don’t agree it’s the ‘vast majority’, but I do agree that some of Scripture provides some salvific and moral guidance for someone reading it on their own, under no authority. But here’s a couple things to think about…

1. Scripture is not, as you know, a book written by one person over the course of a few years, or even their own lifetime. It was written over the course of hundreds of years by several persons, all under the guidance of the Spirit. But at the same time, it collectively tells a unified story of salvation, and this entire story is actually what is most important to Christians. So, it is not enough to be satisfied with the fact that some verses or paragraphs are relatively clear and can be universally interpreted correctly. The entire, contextual story must be properly discerned in order to ensure the fullness of God’s message is revealed. And this takes an outside, Christ-appointed authority on earth to help us with.

It certainly takes some thoughtful consideration, study and guidance, but it does not require a Christ-appointed authority on earth.

1. A verse like “baptism now saves you”, would appear to be a commonly interpreted message. But it isn’t. So, even things which “seem” obvious, are not to everyone. This is because people, whether they admit it or not, come to the pages of Scripture under the influence of persuasive erroneous teaching…and it often proves far too difficult to properly cleanse your mind of this influence when you attempt to interpret ‘clear’ messages from the Bible.

Well, the ability to admit we have preconceived notions that might be wrong is one of the first steps in finding the truth. If someone can’t admit he brings preconceived notions to the table, then it’s not really worth debating with that person.

1. The Bible was never meant to be used for this purpose to begin with. It was not to be a do-it-yourself manual of Christianity. It’s not to be used outside of the authority vested in Christ to safeguard and interpret the faith and moral truths revealed within it.

You’re right, it’s not a do-it-yourself manual. I didn’t pick up a Bible and one day decide to repent and be baptized, someone taught me to do so, FROM the Scriptures, and they didn’t even have an infallable Magesterium to guide them. Go figure.

 

[ckempston]

CHESTERTONRULES;5056970:

So clear…

Sad that our separated brethren need to re-invent the wheel… day after day after day

.

Does it comfort you to know that your church creates dogmas out of mistranslations?

 

[ckempston]

ckempston;5056244:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

QUOTE]

How do we trust in the Lord?

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me

; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

As far as I know, I’ve never rejected the Apostles, so I guess I’m good to go.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;5056970:

As far as I know, I’ve never rejected the Apostles, so I guess I’m good to go.

If you reject their church, you are rejecting them.

Do you believe the apostolic Church was defeated?

 

[ckempston]

ckempston;5057007:

If you reject their church, you are rejecting them.

Do you believe the apostolic Church was defeated?

I believe your definition of church is simply wrong.

 

[SteveGC]

You’re right, it’s not a do-it-yourself manual. I didn’t pick up a Bible and one day decide to repent and be baptized, someone taught me to do so, FROM the Scriptures, and they didn’t even have an infallable Magesterium to guide them. Go figure.

But they didn’t teach you to confess your sins to an anointed priest. They didn’t tell you to do penance every Friday, or attend Mass on Sunday, receive the Eucharist, etc. etc. These are essential practices of the full Christian faith.

Permit me to put it a bit more bluntly…

If we all read the Bible correctly, without bias, and with a proper disposition toward the will of God, we’d all be united under the one Catholic Church. That’s the plain truth of the matter. You’d call it my opinion, and that’s OK. I’ll concede that I can’t convince you of it by my mere words here. Time will reveal, however, that the Catholic Church is Christ’s own. People can either accept it now, and come into the fullness, or if they are ultimately saved after death, they will accept it then.

God Bless

 

[MrS]

MrS;5056989:

Does it comfort you to know that your church creates dogmas out of mistranslations?

Name one.

I assume you did not mean “create”. Truth is unchangeable. Church Doctrines are truth. The have always been truth, and thus always existed. God chooses when and how to reveal a Truth.

As to a mistranslation… you are welcome to prefer your translation of The Catholic Book, the Bible.

.

 

[SteveGC]

CHESTERTONRULES;5057022:

I believe your definition of church is simply wrong.

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

That was Matt 18:17

What is your definition of the church in that verse?

 

[ckempston]

But they didn’t teach you to confess your sins to an anointed priest. They didn’t tell you to do penance every Friday, or attend Mass on Sunday, receive the Eucharist, etc. etc. These are essential practices of the full Christian faith.

You’re right, I didn’t get taught to do penance on Friday; I was told to repent daily. Mass is a late creation, and you guys (and most churches, including my own) don’t get it right.

Permit me to put it a bit more bluntly…

If we all read the Bible correctly, without bias, and with a proper disposition toward the will of God, we’d all be united under the one Catholic Church. That’s the plain truth of the matter. You’d call it my opinion, and that’s OK. I’ll concede that I can’t convince you of it by my mere words here. Time will reveal, however, that the Catholic Church is Christ’s own. People can either accept it now, and come into the fullness, or if they are ultimately saved after death, they will accept it then.

Well, since even the Catholics aren’t all united under one Catholic church, this comment rings a little hallow.

 

[ckempston]

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

That was Matt 18:17

What is your definition of the church in that verse?

A gathering of Christians.

 

[SteveGC]

You’re right, I didn’t get taught to do penance on Friday; I was told to repent daily. Mass is a late creation, and you guys (and most churches, including my own) don’t get it right.

penance is not the same as repentance. The Church teaches both, fully.

Mass is in the book of Revelation, and revealed also in the writings of the ECF. Hardly a late creation.

Well, since even the Catholics aren’t all united under one Catholic church, this comment rings a little hallow.

“united” doesn’t mean we all would accept everything right away, nor understand it all. It doesn’t even mean some wouldn’t reject certain teachings (at their own peril). “united” in the sense I used it, meant that everyone would recognize the authority of the Church, and enjoin themselves to her.

 

[SteveGC]

A gathering of Christians.

**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; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. **

So, the church is a “gathering of Christians”. How is that gathering different from the two or three Christians that first go to a sinful brother in verse 16?

What constitutes a gathering?

How would they know which Christians should be gathered, such that if the brother refuses to listen EVEN TO THEM, he would be outcast?

 

[ckempston]

penance is not the same as repentance. The Church teaches both, fully.

Mass is in the book of Revelation, and revealed also in the writings of the ECF. Hardly a late creation.

“united” doesn’t mean we all would accept everything right away, nor understand it all. It doesn’t even mean some wouldn’t reject certain teachings (at their own peril). “united” in the sense I used it, meant that everyone would recognize the authority of the Church, and enjoin themselves to her.

Your comment makes no sense. If we accept the authority of the church, then we implicitly accept everything immediately without question, or else we don’t really accept the authority of the church.

 

[ckempston]

**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; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. **

So, the church is a “gathering of Christians”. How is that gathering different from the two or three Christians that first go to a sinful brother in verse 16?

What constitutes a gathering?

How would they know which Christians should be gathered, such that if the brother refuses to listen EVEN TO THEM, he would be outcast?

Well, it seems to me to be saying that if the brother refuses to be challenged privately by one, and then privately by a few, to publicly humiliate him in the hopes it will cause him to repent.

This passage does not support the Catholic position that the Bishops are somehow the Church either. How is it that there were churches before there were Bishops? Did these churches forego the Eucharist and Confession until Timothy made his way around to appoint them? Somehow that doesn’t add up.

Secondly, Jesus is speaking to the Apostles. Who has more authority than the Apostles? If taking the matter before the church has to do with authority, the Catholic interpetation, once again, makes no sense. If however, it has to do with a public rebuke/shaming before the church in the hope that the person will repent, then it makes perfect sense.

 

[heiscominginthe]

St. Ignatius, who knew the apostle John, wrote this in about 105 AD.

Why do you believe that your opinion should be more valued than his?

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Our brother Ignatius put it quite nicely. Yet, where is the Word pope in this? Then we must wonder why Ignatius’s writings were not used as doctrine in the bible?

And his use of the word catholic was not intended to bring a church denomination called catholic.

Ignatius did well in the above statement to remind us that the positions of the church, the men in these positions are to be the authority.

Yet, what is to be done when that authority teaches or preaches doctrine or interpretation of doctrine and it is contrary to the Word of God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I do, however, think non-Catholic’s lean on their own interpretation of Scripture at times, or at best, they lean on the interpretation of other men and women who themselves lean on their own interpretation.

Yet, if a man does receive revelation from God, he is to go to the bishops, deacons, elders and preachers of the church so that with much prayer and suplication the revelation be deemed if of God or not.

We are to prove and reprove all doctrine to discern if of God or not of God.

Catholics on the other hand do not move from what has already been established by their church. This becoming indoctrinated.

 

[JRKH]

Special pleading. So, when a Catholic makes a personal decision it’s “enlightenment” but when a Protestant does it it’s self-reliance.

Like I said I probably didn’t explain well.
These things are always going to boil down to the question of “Enlightnement vs self reliance” - inspiration vs leaning on own understanding.

Well, this is all well and good, but let’s look at the original scripture mentioned, because it was misused and taken out of context to begin with. I just went along with it to make the point that Catholics have the same problem as Protestants. Proverbs 3 is about personal devotion (i.e. reading and meditating on God’s commands - personally).

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

This is not suggesting that you surrender your intellect to someone else, but that you acknowledge God by following his commands (per verses 1-4). As in many cases, the Catholic interpretation simply doesn’t jive with the rest of the chapter. First Solomon tells “his son” to remember the teaching, keep the commands, meditate on them, etc., and then he tells him not to do these things based on the Catholic interpretation of vs 6?

Overall I think that we all can get a bit too tied up with details - and you know who lives in the details. This is a problem with everyone. Catholic or non-catholic. We do need to spend more time meditating on what the Lord wants of us and less time on the details.

One of the problems that Jesus had with the Jewish leadership was their attention to detail instead of intent of the Law. Another was the difference between what they taught and how they acted.

In spite of this though, He told the Jews, including His own disciples, to obey the Pharasees.
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
So, while Jesus had a problem with the teachings of the pharasees, he acknowledged their God given authority in teaching the faithful Jews. He told His disciples to obey teachings in SPITE of the behavior of the teachers.
I find this interesting.

So, by following the teachings of the Church (the Chair of Peter) originally founded by Christ and as handed down by the Apostles I am following Christ’ own command.

I absolutely don’t see it as surrendering my own intellect.
Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Our brother Ignatius put it quite nicely. Yet, where is the Word pope in this? Then we must wonder why Ignatius’s writings were not used as doctrine in the bible?

And his use of the word catholic was not intended to bring a church denomination called catholic.

That is certainly correct. Since there WERE no denominations at the time, the Word Catholic was used as a despriptor of the ONE Church. That is that it is “Universal” Church.

Ignatius did well in the above statement to remind us that the positions of the church, the men in these positions are to be the authority.

Yet, what is to be done when that authority teaches or preaches doctrine or interpretation of doctrine and it is contrary to the Word of God.

This can be a bit of a sticky wicket.
First of all a person would need to determine if those in authority are, in fact, teaching caontrary to God’s Word and Will as given to The Church. Then the person should determine the best course of action.
Actually the Church has in place processes for dealing with those who are found to be teaching contrary to Magesterial teachings. usually it would involve writing to the Bishop, and if not getting satisfaction there, writing the Vatican itself.
One would hope that, through the use of these channels, some satisfactory solusion can be reached by either, the offending authority being fraternally corrected or, the person making the complaint being convinced of the correctness of the teaching.

The upshot of using this approach is that one is not relying on their own ideas/interpretation, but rather utilizing the full knowledge and authority of the Church to come to a correct understanding.
It is not just a situation where one must just - keep their mouth shut.

Peace
James

 

[1beleevr]

MrS: Perhaps gobbledy gook was a bit strong, but the point is; I asked a simple question(which may have been the problem), you said, a woman named Tekoa was the pre-figure of Mary, and I basically was saying,“How do you know that is true?”> As with other catholic posters, you invoked the authority of the church. I believe that is very exciting, when I am able to read a Bible verse and understand that is a prophecy or announcement of something coming in the future! I don’t know how many times I read 2 Samuel 14, before I was able to discern that it was, as I could see, a reference to Our Lord and Saviour:thumbsup: As we all know, the fall of Adam and Eve, cursed everyone from then on, with eparation from God(Romans 5:12, 3:23); and man created religion, as an effort to get back to God! But all along, God had Jesus “in the wings”, as part of His divine plan to reconcile us back to Him. I also believe that Genesis 3:15, is talking about Satan and Jesus; when Satan tempted Christ, he “struck his heel. When Christ rose from the grave, he"struck Satan’s head”, conquering death, and the grave.Please try to refrain from painting all non-catholics with the same broad brush of ignorance I believe that it is possible for ALL Christians to be led by the Holy Spirit, given the gifts of discernment and understanding(John 14:26) Romans 14:10-13, says that we should not condemn other believers, but it happens on both sides of the fence. I believe that one could search all my posts, and see that I have not launched any willful or blatant attacks on anyone’s beliefs, I just ask questions, about things that I hear. I have met many catholics, some of whom are great friends, and we have our differences, but we still love each other, as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am finally(for the better part of ten years)able to look at each individual, based on their own merits, not which church they are part of or anything else

 

[ckempston]

Like I said I probably didn’t explain well.
These things are always going to boil down to the question of “Enlightnement vs self reliance” - inspiration vs leaning on own understanding.

Overall I think that we all can get a bit too tied up with details - and you know who lives in the details. This is a problem with everyone. Catholic or non-catholic. We do need to spend more time meditating on what the Lord wants of us and less time on the details.

This is about the strongest argument one can make against the Catholic church. Well done.

One of the problems that Jesus had with the Jewish leadership was their attention to detail instead of intent of the Law. Another was the difference between what they taught and how they acted.

See above.

In spite of this though, He told the Jews, including His own disciples, to obey the Pharasees.
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
So, while Jesus had a problem with the teachings of the pharasees, he acknowledged their God given authority in teaching the faithful Jews. He told His disciples to obey teachings in SPITE of the behavior of the teachers.
I find this interesting.

Jesus also taught his disciples to disobey the Pharisees (e.g. picking grain on the sabbath, not washing hands, etc.). He is not talking about obeying them in matters of religious dogma, but in matters of the Torah, which these guys strictly interpreted without adding anything or taking anything away. That’s because not everybody had a copy of the Torah lying around. This scripture, if anything, argues **against **the Catholic position.

So, by following the teachings of the Church (the Chair of Peter) originally founded by Christ and as handed down by the Apostles I am following Christ’ own command.

I absolutely don’t see it as surrendering my own intellect.
Peace
James

That’s an interesting definition of church.