Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II
- Status
C
ckempston
Guest
People who have proven themselves as servants of the Lord; for instance, Elders, with one wife and believing children, who are servant leaders and back up what they say with Scripture.
I don’t really have a problem with that definition. The Bereans seemed to treat Paul in this manner.
Of course, along with all the biases that come with Western Culture.
Because they read it to me as I was sitting in front of them?
I’ve never met anyone that picked up a Bible and got it right by themselves. I have no problem admitting that this would be extremely unlikely, just as Paul pointed out that we cannot know unless someone tells us.
My answer to question 1a is yes.
What is needed to reconcile? Just because you have a human teacher doesn’t mean that you automatically accept everything they say. We are tools in God’s hands. Even Paul said that if he preached something different to reject him and that he would be condemned for doing so. It is not the person who is the authority, but the source of that authority is the Word of God (both the written and the person).
C
ckempston
Guest
I understand your head banging. It’s frustrating whenever you think you’ve asked some unanswerable question that “Bible-only Christians” are totally at a loss to answer because they don’t have some guy in a fancy robe and hat to tell them what to believe, but then it gets turned around and the answer is right there, plain as day in the Scriptures…
Yup.
S
SteveGC
Guest
Ok. Let’s see if this makes sense.
You admit the reality that you learned the faith initially from humans, not the Bible.
The humans you trust to teach you are apparently those who “prove themselves to be servants of the Lord, who back up what they preach with Scripture”. When asked further why you trust them, you said “because they read it to me as I was sitting in front of them?”.
Now, what I gather from all this is…
You trust someone so long as their teaching comes from what the Bible says, even though that someone is, in fact, teaching YOU what the Bible says, so it’s not as if you knew it before they told you, so that you could determine whether or not they were doing it right.
You admit Scripture is not self-evident and is in need of human guidance, but you’re willing to hang your belief on someone whose sole credentials are that they explain to you what Scripture says, and they appear to be a “servant of the Lord” to you…and they appear that way to you because they live their life according to Scripture, which again is understood only as they interpreted it to you.
IOW, they come to you with no claim of authenticity, they give you meanings of Scripture, and hence teachings about salvation, and can show you a verse, or groups of verses, that “prove” the things they teach. And you trust that teaching, simply because their teaching appears to follow what Scripture says…even though THEY told you what Scripture says.
If that’s not a fair summary of what you place your trust in with regard to Christian teaching, please feel free to edit this. If it’s fair, can you not see the problem with it?
God Bless
M
MrS
Guest
Amazing isn’t it? No wonder there are tens of thousands of these groups. And no wonder that not a one of them even has the authority (other than their own) to call themselves a Church.There is only ONE Church which Jesus, Himself, founded.
We can always discuss (again) if that Church is the Catholic Church. But there is NO discussion about all the others founded by a man or woman who appears to follow what Scripture says - they preach a different Gospel and should be rejected.
.
C
ckempston
Guest
Yes.
More or less correct. That was a pretty hasty summary.
I understand where you are coming from here, but it’s based on the mistaken Catholic assumption that scripture requires some extra-super-duper interpretation. Admittedly, some things are not easy to understand and there are areas that are open to debate/interpretation, but when Jesus says “repent” it pretty much means to repent, no?
Your argument sounds strangely similar to atheist arguments against the Bible. When Hilkiah found the Book of the Law and brought it to Josiah, it was obvious they were not obeying the Law, and the solution was pretty simple: repent and obey. It’s really not as complicated as Catholics make it out to be.
Did Philip have some vague claim to authenticity when he shared the Gospel with the Ethiopian Eunuch? There is no appearance; believe, repent, be baptized, give to the poor, share the good news, don’t live a sinful life. Are these things complicated?
They didn’t tell me what Scripture says, they showed them to me, I “searched the scriptures” to see if what they were telling me was true; I found it to be so, so I made my confession, repented, and was baptized. Again, it’s not all that complicated as you are making it out to be. Obviously, I came to the scriptures with some preconceived notions and beliefs. We all do. This “problem” is not unique to non-Catholics and your intimating that it is so is wrong.
Yeah, it’s the same problem Catholics have.
J
JRKH
Guest
Perhaps I do have a “rosy” view of “reality”.
Perhaps that is because I keep my eyes focused on those things that are critical and refuse to be caught up in all of the historical garbage.
However, I AM well aware that History is full of this or that group doing this or that thing to, with. for, or against someone else.
As to whether my view reflects true reality might depend on your “world view” and whether you wish to view it from a secular and worldly perspective or from a Spiritual and Heavenly perspective.
I can understand your concern here, but it semonstrates a lack of understanding of how things were handed down in ancient times when “Oral” history was much more prevailant.
Today we rely on writings for anything we wish to be accurately transmitted but in ancient times this was not feasable. In those days, repeating and getting something right was critical.
I just watched a program last week on TBS that dealt with the “Trail of Jesus in Egypt”. This is a Tradition passed down in the Coptic Church about the route traveled by the Holy Family during their time in exile there.
The person following the Trail is a non-catholic who had a inate distrust of the “Oral Tradition” that held these stories / beliefs for hundreds of years before they were written down. The Coptic Clergy explained to him that they had absolute confidence in the Oral Tradition because of the way it is transmitted.
Oral Tradition was not transmitted like we would play “telegraph” where one person whispers to the next who wispers to the next and so on. The way that Oral Tradition was passed on in the ancient cultures was more like a “mass media” approach. The Teaching/story is told to perhaps a hundred people - They all hear the same story. Then later they tell the story to each other and if one person gets a part wrong he is corrected by the others - AND they take accuracy in this very seriously. This preserves the integrety and accuracy of the oral tradition.
I would even point out that up until fairly recently educators used “memorization” drills in many subjects to ensure that our brains were “hard wired” with certain facts. For example when I was in grade school we learned multiplcation tables. We memorized them. To this day I can still recall these math facts accurately, In another case, I had to learn the latin for serving mass. I learned it all but they changed to english before I ever served a mass. Yet for years after, Even though I did not use it I could still recall significant portions of the Latin responses.
Now I don’t expect the above to convince you of the accuracy of Catholic Tradition, or whether the “Coptic Tradition” regarding Jesus in Egypt is true or not. What I do hope to demonstrate is that, in the early centuries, before the canon of the Bible was set, and even after, Oral teaching was cinsidered an important and serious business and great effort was put forth to make sure it remained pure and correct.
Oral Tradition in those early Days was Indeed important AND accurate.
Well, may I ask what changed in the 16th Century???
So - Why wasn’t it just as easy to “keep unity” then as it was in earlier tims as you suggest?
The fact remains that in the earlier disputes and heresies, the basic idea that the Church and the Bible went TOGETHER remained in force. If you were a Christian you were a member of either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. And it was The Church that taught and kept the Apostolic Teachings and Traditions Alive.
History is a much more complex thing than either of us are being able to put forth here.
My goal was not to set forward a complete Historial overview, but rather to demonstrate that, even with a major Split in the Church between East and West, the Basic tenet of Apostolic Church Authority was not the issue and Basic unity was maintained within the two forms of “Catholic Christianity”.
However - Once that “Authority” was discarded by the “Reformers” look at the result. Is it your contention that The Holy Spirit of the One True God can accurately inspire ALL of the differing protestant denominations??
Certainly you can accuse me of having “Rose colored Glasses”, just as I can accuse you of having “Blinders” on your Glasses. You accuse me of not seeing the methods used to “enforce” unity, and I accuse you of not seeing the obvious flaw in the “no earthy authority” view of things.
Perhaps someday down the road you’ll begin to look more deeply at things and recognize the inconsistancies.
Well - I’m pretty uniformed as regards different liturgies or rites within the Catholic Church, so I will leave this for others to address, or perhaps it should even be it’s own thread.
Peace
James
C
ckempston
Guest
Nobody has the authority to “call themselves a church.” Only Jesus has this authority, and the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, said that we become a part of the church when we are baptized.
True. It’s the one that I’m a part of: Jesus Christ’s.
It’s obvious that it’s not the Catholic church because it has continued to add doctrines that sought to “improve” upon the Apostles since the first (non)ecumenical council.
W
Wildkit
Guest
Yeah, I don’t know what “the same problem Catholics have”? Can you clarify please?
P
pismopal
Guest
The Bible and the United States Constitution are documents which require careful scholorship in order to discern what the authors were actually saying. Both documents have been twisted by those who for one reason or another have an agenda. I believe that the truest interpretations were done by those who were closest to the time in which both documents were written. Men seem to become more and more creative in interpretation as time goes by…for their own selfish interests.
M
MrS
Guest
C
ckempston
Guest
Well, for one, the argument is misrepresenting “Bible only Christians” because nobody is saying that a person with no religious background can pick up a Bible and make sense of it by themselves immediately (granted, you could if you spent enough time); but what does the Apostle Paul say in regard to hearing the message?
Romans 10:14-15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
It’s perfectly Biblical to say that we must hear the message from another human. Catholics are either raised to believe or they are converted for reasons that are probably different for each individual. Either way, they still rely on someone, and not necessarily the Magesterium to lead them to the Catholic church. This doesn’t mean that, for instance, “Catholicscomehome.com” is infallable. God uses fallable, sinful people to lead us to him. This is an undeniable fact.
C
ckempston
Guest
You basically said absolutely nothing above. Empty rhetoric. Fact: you left out significant historical events that would muddy the waters of your “unified” church.
You forgot the part that at some point, someone will think to write it down.
You memorized it out of a book, and so did everyone else. It wasn’t “oral” it was written.
Right, and they stuck to that for a good amount of time until someone decided that the tradition that was “once and for all” entrusted to the saints had to be continually clarified, added to, and “improved upon.”
Then why did Irenaeus feel it important to point out that the Apostles verified their oral teachings with later writings or vice versa?
Because the Roman Empire was dead and secular authority had been fractured for some time.
So, where these two “apostolic” churches disagree, who’s correct?
Nope.
I never said “no earthly authority.” I simply disagree with the form of that authority.
Perhaps someday down the road you’ll begin to look more deeply at things and recognize the inconsistencies.
AFAIK, there are 20 “Rites,” hence my “21 Flavors” (Baskin Robins) comment.
The whole Catholic understanding that “the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” is revealed as a falsehood by the simple fact that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church are not perfectly “one” and they are not “united.” This is conveniently ignored whenever Catholics start throwing around accusations of inconsistency and disunity among Protestants.
M
MrS
Guest
nope, I just think you do not know the difference between the Body of Christ (baptized) and the Church which he founded.
So, becoming a part of the Body of Christ does not automatically mean you are a member of the Church He founded on Peter and the Apostles.
The opposite, however, is true.
.
M
MrS
Guest
who woulda figured,
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
For starters your insults of the Pope can stop anytime… if you think he isn’t a good man that wants the best for all souls than you are an extremely troubled individual.
Many have shown you the reasons and Scripture behind the CCs discipline for unmarried priest but you instead think your opinion out ranks that of the Church… well I don’t plan on taking your opinion over the Church’s anytime soon.
Since Paul said it was best to remain unmarried, and the Church wants whats best for the faithful, I suppose I’ll just roll that way.
What was your service to the military?
SD
M
MrS
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
As I said when I posted, I do not expect to convince you of anything. My post was primarily for those who are looking in and may take away something good from it.
Peace
James
C
ckempston
Guest
You know better than Paul? The Body of Christ is equivalent to the Church. They’re the same thing. You are incorrect.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Colossians 1:18, 24 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy… Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
- Status