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

[ckempston]

talk about discomfort…

Do you care to disagree or offer a rebuttal? Or will you just pretend to be right and change the subject?

 

[ckempston]

Well if you make it to heaven you can tell those Popes that they were a dime a dozen.

I’ll leave your comment about priests alone, but I have no idea what “filtering out” has to do with a celibate priest… the CC doesn’t have a celibacy discipline to “filter out” potential priests… but please don’t explain yourself any further, you’ve downgraded the CC clergy plenty already.

You know maybe your side of the argument is the reason the CC only has it as a discipline rather than a doctrine, but if the Church has decided (like Paul) that it is best to remain unmarried (for those giving fully to the Lord, so that their attention would not be divided between God and family), then I think they’ve did it for the best of the faithful…

You will argue this to no end, and are free to do so, but nothing says they have to marry, and if the CC decides to change it to allow them to someday than I will agree with that also… but until that time I agree that it is best for a leading Church authority to remain unmarried so that they can keep their focus on serving Christ

SD

You and MrS seem to be “arguing” using the same tactic: just change the subject and set up straw men. You can feign offense and point out that I’ve somehow “downgraded” the clergy, but you are clearly in the wrong in applying these passages. Your interpretation creates contradictions. I never said they had to marry. I said, at the very least, they COULD be married. If you want to trust in “improvers of the Apostles” then you are free to do as you will as well.

 

[SteveGC]

Well, your dad is incorrect.

Yes. I agree. But it doesn’t change the fact that he attests to be led by the Holy Spirit, who affirms his beliefs through his reading Scripture, and verifying it against human teaching. Sound familiar? And yet, why is his affirmation wrong? Is it just because YOURS is right? That’s not a sufficient argument. Is it because you are more knowledgable? Perhaps, but my father is an MIT grad, who now heads up a multi-state Men’s Ministry foundation within the SBC, heads up Bible studies, international mission projects etc. So that’s probably not a viable option. I don’t suggest you’re not more knowledgeable, I just make the case that his exposure to (non-Catholic) Christian teaching is quite profound, and he takes it very seriously. Or is it because you have stronger faith than him? I don’t know you, but I know my dad, and I don’t know any non-Catholic with stronger faith …and I know many of them. So, what else could it be? How do we decide who’s right? Because we must decide, right? We can’t let something with salvific consequences just slide by without addressing it, and resolving the conflict. It has eternal implications.

The only problem is, just like the scriptures, everything this entity says is open to…da da daaaah…personal interpretation. For proof of this, just look at the church’s position on how those outside can be saved. At one time, nobody outside the church could be saved. Now they can. Except it’s not supposed to change its teachings. Oh, wait, it didn’t change its teachings, we simply misunderstood them, which means that even the teachings of the “Magesterium” require interpretation, which is bound to change from age to age. Gotcha, so what’s true for one group isn’t true for another. This sounds an awful lot like moral relativism.

You really don’t understand the evolution of Christianity, do you? You think to show evidence of Church authenticity, She would have to look exactly the same and teach things in precisely the same way as it was just after Pentecost. The doctrinal teachings didn’t change. If you had been alive when the earliest decrees were professed, in the language in which they were professed, you wouldn’t have a problem understanding them. Our modern 21st century existence and culture has made it very difficult to understand this early Church decree, and therefore, it must be retranslated for us to understand it as if we WERE alive back at it’s original profession. This isn’t change…this is adaptation. Yes, doctrine itself requires interpretation, because doctrine is extremely old, and society keeps regenerating new.

It says she was a prophetess, so I couldn’t possibly say she was fallable. The problem is the Catholic church doesn’t just lead its faithful through scripture, it has continually added to and “improved upon” the revealed truth for hundreds of years.

It hasn’t “added” or “improved upon” anything. It has expounded upon, and deepened, and enriched, and translated permanent, unchanging teachings. She understands that Christ’s teachings are an organic, animated deposit of faith, and must be understood by an ever-changing body of believers.

The Prophetess also made a very specific prediction, which came true. Josiah would die, and then destruction would come. It did. When’s the last time we something of this magnitude prophesied and then come to pass? All the modern prophecies I’ve seen, Catholic or otherwise, basically say, “evil will increase.” Not a whole lot of depth there, and not very objective either.

Probably because they were “prophets”, whose main gift was to “prophesy”. Whereas Christ’s Incarnation ushered in “apostles”, whose main gift was to “teach”, “guide” and “shepherd”. A gift which was never eradicated simply by the death of their last (John).

And how did we know they were inspired? They performed miracles. The written word, however, needs no such confirmation. Kind of convenient that the successors to the Apostles inherited all of their authority, but none of their miraculous gifts, which were used to confirm the spoken word.

The authority to lead The Church until the end of the age is a miraculous gift in my book. I don’t need to see any other miracles than knowing their role in Christianity.

Because God intended to use individual humans to spread the message? You seem to be just arguing against the scriptures here. The Bereans were called noble for their efforts to confirm Paul’s teachings against the scriptures. I say we should do this, and you seem to be indicating that it’s somehow wrong. Or am I misreading you here?

No, but you are mis-characterizing the Bereans. The Bereans didn’t believe in sola scriputura…far from it.You should read this

God bless

 

[JRKH]

Here’s my :twocents:
Paul said a bishop could be married, but he did not put any restriction on the church by doing so. He did not make a binding decision for the church and it’s not a matter of faith. He gives his instruction but allows the church to decide to allow Bishops to be married or not. The church has decided, at least in the Latin rite, to require for its priesthood “those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God”. This requirement can be modified by legitimate ecclesial authority.

This is very well stated.
In regards of Priestly celebacy it is a matter of “practice” rather than Dogma.
Paul taught one way in the first century, The Church teaches differently in the 21 century.
Both teachings - in the 1st and 21st century are done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
No Problem.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So, what you’re saying is the ecclesial authority could “improve upon” the teaching of the Apostles, eh?

Just where did Scalco say anything about “improving”.
Typical attempt to switch the discussion away from the point.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons said:

Against Heresies 3.1.1 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.

• The Apostles preached in public.
• The Apostles later, by the will of God, confirmed their teachings in the Scriptures.
• They had perfect knowledge before they preached.
• Nobody improves upon the Apostles’ teachings.

If you can demonstrate where it is written in the Bible that Salvation depends upon a Bishop being married, then you might have a case.

The fact is that, in the early Church, as written by Paul, married clergy were fine. They would be just as fine today if the Church so decided to utilize them. However, today, in the Latin Rite, Married clergy are not the norm. The Church, utilizing Her Christ Granted Apostolic Authority has made this determination both then and now.
I don’t know what the problem is.

By the way ckempston, have you decided what you are reverting to??

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Yes. I agree. But it doesn’t change the fact that he attests to be led by the Holy Spirit, who affirms his beliefs through his reading Scripture, and verifying it against human teaching. Sound familiar? And yet, why is his affirmation wrong? Is it just because YOURS is right? That’s not a sufficient argument. Is it because you are more knowledgable? Perhaps, but my father is an MIT grad, who now heads up a multi-state Men’s Ministry foundation within the SBC, heads up Bible studies, international mission projects etc. So that’s probably not a viable option. I don’t suggest you’re not more knowledgeable, I just make the case that his exposure to (non-Catholic) Christian teaching is quite profound, and he takes it very seriously. Or is it because you have stronger faith than him? I don’t know you, but I know my dad, and I don’t know any non-Catholic with stronger faith …and I know many of them. So, what else could it be? How do we decide who’s right? Because we must decide, right? We can’t let something with salvific consequences just slide by without addressing it, and resolving the conflict. It has eternal implications.

Unless his degree is in Philosophy or Religion, being an MIT grad is pretty irrelevant. If someone concludes Baptism is not necessary for salvation, they are reasoning incorrectly or starting out with incorrect premises.

You really don’t understand the evolution of Christianity, do you? You think to show evidence of Church authenticity, She would have to look exactly the same and teach things in precisely the same way as it was just after Pentecost. The doctrinal teachings didn’t change. If you had been alive when the earliest decrees were professed, in the language in which they were professed, you wouldn’t have a problem understanding them. Our modern 21st century existence and culture has made it very difficult to understand this early Church decree, and therefore, it must be retranslated for us to understand it as if we WERE alive back at it’s original profession. This isn’t change…this is adaptation. Yes, doctrine itself requires interpretation, because doctrine is extremely old, and society keeps regenerating new.

Adaptation is change.

It hasn’t “added” or “improved upon” anything. It has expounded upon, and deepened, and enriched, and translated permanent, unchanging teachings. She understands that Christ’s teachings are an organic, animated deposit of faith, and must be understood by an ever-changing body of believers.

If it didn’t improve it, then what is the sense in explaining anything? It is up to believers to change to conform to Christ, not to try to fit the doctrines to what their own “itching ears” want to hear.

Probably because they were “prophets”, whose main gift was to “prophesy”. Whereas Christ’s Incarnation ushered in “apostles”, whose main gift was to “teach”, “guide” and “shepherd”. A gift which was never eradicated simply by the death of their last (John).

The Apostles both prophesied and performed miracles, and Paul said specifically that these gifts existed elsewhere in the early church.

The authority to lead The Church until the end of the age is a miraculous gift in my book. I don’t need to see any other miracles than knowing their role in Christianity.

Don’t you think it’s odd that other miraculous gifts are, well, miraculous, and this is nothing more than an unsupported claim?

No, but you are mis-characterizing the Bereans. The Bereans didn’t believe in sola scriputura…far from it.You should read this

I didn’t say they did, did I?

 

[ckempston]

Just where did Scalco say anything about “improving”.
Typical attempt to switch the discussion away from the point.

Totally false accusation, and wrong. It is an “improvement” to imply that an “ecclesial authority” can change things set down by the Apostles for “the good of the church.”

If you can demonstrate where it is written in the Bible that Salvation depends upon a Bishop being married, then you might have a case.

It doesn’t. You miss the point entirely. Bishops CAN be married according to Paul. Bishops CANNOT be married according to Catholics. = Contradiction.

T

he fact is that, in the early Church, as written by Paul, married clergy were fine. They would be just as fine today if the Church so decided to utilize them. However, today, in the Latin Rite, Married clergy are not the norm. The Church, utilizing Her Christ Granted Apostolic Authority has made this determination both then and now.
I don’t know what the problem is.

The problem is you are question begging. Nobody was given any authority to change what the Apostles implemented.

By the way ckempston, have you decided what you are reverting to??

To trying to be like Jesus.

 

[SCALCO]

This is very well stated.
In regards of Priestly celebacy it is a matter of “practice” rather than Dogma.
Paul taught one way in the first century, The Church teaches differently in the 21 century.
Both teachings - in the 1st and 21st century are done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
No Problem.

Peace
James

I can’t take credit and I can’t “improve upon” what you said.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by ckempston
Well, your dad is incorrect.

Steve - Well Put indeed.

No matter how long this debate goes on it will always come down to this one issue.
Authority
For some reason this issue just sticks in the throat of many non-catholics and ckempson is no exception.
I know non-catholics who have no problem with other non-catholics of different denominations. Yet they cannot understand why I would be a “Catholic” (oh my). They have no problem with the idea that different “Christian” Churches have different teachings and dogmas. As long as they are “Bible believers” it’s OK.
But they can’t understand that we too are “Bible Believers”. We Believe in the Bible AND in the Ancient Church that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the Bible that we, and they, have today.
Why Don’t they Accept the Catholic Church as a “Bible” Church?
Because we have a unified teaching Authority headed by the Pope?
Because we “interpret” the Bible Passages giving authority to the Apostles as givign them authority to Shepard and Govern a Church?
Because we believe, as the 1st and 2nd Century Christians believed, that the Church was indeed the unified Body of Christ under teh authority of the Apostles and their Successors?

These are our interpretations from our readings of the Scriptures. Now - Tell me that my interpretation is less valid than anyone elses. - Tell me that I am wrong in my interpretation and the SS folks are right. SS doctrine may give the individual the right to interpret scripture on his own, but in so doing it removes his right to tell someone else they are wrong.
Why??
Authority

Once the intelligent non-catholic begins to seriously look at the state of the protestant churches with their differing beliefs and constant splitting - All under the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, and after “prayerful meditation on Scripture”, they quickly become disillusioned with SS. They begin to discern the truth of Mt 18:15-19 where Christ tells us how to settle disputes by “Tell it to the Church” and then admonishes us to obey the Church’s decision.
The Church and Her Authority is not a negative “invention” of greedy men, though greedy men have made use of her. Rather the Church and Her Authority are the Gift of a Merciful God who wishes the faithful to ready recourse to His truths in a form that is familiar to us. That of an earthly authority.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Steve - Well Put indeed.

No matter how long this debate goes on it will always come down to this one issue.
Authority
For some reason this issue just sticks in the throat of many non-catholics and ckempson is no exception.

And what Catholics don’t get is that no matter what you call it, it’s change, improving upon, and contradicting the teaching of the Apostles to constantly add new doctrines.

I know non-catholics who have no problem with other non-catholics of different denominations. Yet they cannot understand why I would be a “Catholic” (oh my). They have no problem with the idea that different “Christian” Churches have different teachings and dogmas. As long as they are “Bible believers” it’s OK.
But they can’t understand that we too are “Bible Believers”. We Believe in the Bible AND in the Ancient Church that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the Bible that we, and they, have today.
Why Don’t they Accept the Catholic Church as a “Bible” Church?

Maybe because it teaches some obviously unbiblical things?

Because we have a unified teaching Authority headed by the Pope?

Who, according to Catholics doesn’t do very much. Ask a Catholic how many times “Papal Infallability” has been used, and it’s like, twice or something. Seems kind of lax.

Because we “interpret” the Bible Passages giving authority to the Apostles as givign them authority to Shepard and Govern a Church?
Because we believe, as the 1st and 2nd Century Christians believed, that the Church was indeed the unified Body of Christ under teh authority of the Apostles and their Successors?

But you don’t believe, as they believed, that you can’t add to the teachings of the Apostles. Oops, forgot that one, eh?

These are our interpretations from our readings of the Scriptures. Now - Tell me that my interpretation is less valid than anyone elses. - Tell me that I am wrong in my interpretation and the SS folks are right. SS doctrine may give the individual the right to interpret scripture on his own, but in so doing it removes his right to tell someone else they are wrong.

You are misunderstanding “SS” as badly as some Protestants misunderstand Catholicism.

Why??
Authority

Belongs to Jesus Christ.

Once the intelligent non-catholic begins to seriously look at the state of the protestant churches with their differing beliefs and constant splitting - All under the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, and after “prayerful meditation on Scripture”, they quickly become disillusioned with SS. They begin to discern the truth of Mt 18:15-19 where Christ tells us how to settle disputes by “Tell it to the Church” and then admonishes us to obey the Church’s decision.

And what is the definition of church? Why, as I have pointed out, all Baptized believers.

The Church and Her Authority is not a negative “invention” of greedy men, though greedy men have made use of her. Rather the Church and Her Authority are the Gift of a Merciful God who wishes the faithful to ready recourse to His truths in a form that is familiar to us. That of an earthly authority.

All this time I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be different. Now I finally figure out it’s just more of the same. Great!

 

[SD_Catholic]

You and MrS seem to be “arguing” using the same tactic: just change the subject and set up straw men. You can feign offense and point out that I’ve somehow “downgraded” the clergy, but you are clearly in the wrong in applying these passages. Your interpretation creates contradictions. I never said they had to marry. I said, at the very least, they COULD be married. If you want to trust in “improvers of the Apostles” then you are free to do as you will as well.

Well then we must be 2 faithful idiots… Although I’m not sure where the subject has changed:shrug:

Clearly we are in the wrong in thinking that you will accept any teaching that isn’t understood by you through your interpretation of Scripture.

What contradicts?.. you say they could be married… we agreed

The CC just determined it was best they remained unmarried (like Paul) so that their focus could be fully on serving Christ through his Church (wasn’t Paul an Apostle)… OH NO!!! a discipline that best serves the faithful that God did not demand even though Paul said it was best… The earth begins to tremble as the CC’s authority has been shattered by a man 2000 years after it was established… I guess the CC, MrS, and I just don’t get it like you… perhaps you can go convince someone else, but after hearing your same arguments for 10 pages of posts, I really don’t get what your problem is, especially since it has absolutely no affect on you (or I for that matter). Since it concerns the Priests and Bishops why don’t you go complain to them about how deprived of rights they are.

TIP OF THE DAY… sometimes the CC will put in place a discipline that they think is best suited to serve the faithful… it may not even be fully defined in the Bible… ex… celibate priesthood and not using ABC… how sad is it that they try to serve the faithful in a way that is in their best interest, and sometimes even demand they obey it… ex… not voting for a pro-abortion president.

SD

 

[ckempston]

Well then we must be 2 faithful idiots… Although I’m not sure where the subject has changed:shrug:

Clearly we are in the wrong in thinking that you will accept any teaching that isn’t understood by you through your interpretation of Scripture.

What contradicts?.. you say they could be married… we agreed

Wrong tense: they CAN be married.

The CC just determined it was best they remained unmarried (like Paul) so that their focus could be fully on serving Christ through his Church (wasn’t Paul an Apostle)… OH NO!!! a discipline that best serves the faithful that God did not demand even though Paul said it was best… The earth begins to tremble as the CC’s authority has been shattered by a man 2000 years after it was established… I guess the CC, MrS, and I just don’t get it like you… perhaps you can go convince someone else, but after hearing your same arguments for 10 pages of posts, I really don’t get what your problem is, especially since it has absolutely no affect on you (or I for that matter). Since it concerns the Priests and Bishops why don’t you go complain to them about how deprived of rights they are.

So, they improved upon the Apostles teaching. Got it. It doesn’t serve the faithful to say you must be celibate to serve in a certain capacity. It obviously works about as well as Protestantism with the paedophile priests and cases like the recent Bishop in Latin America who fathered a child as a Bishop on one of his parishoners and then went into politics. Good move for him.

TIP OF THE DAY… sometimes the CC will put in place a discipline that they think is best suited to serve the faithful… it may not even be fully defined in the Bible… ex… celibate priesthood and not using ABC… how sad is it that they try to serve the faithful in a way that is in their best interest, and sometimes even demand they obey it… ex… not voting for a pro-abortion president.

How convenient, you can change things but still keep the claim that you don’t change things. Very clever.

 

[SteveGC]

Unless his degree is in Philosophy or Religion, being an MIT grad is pretty irrelevant. If someone concludes Baptism is not necessary for salvation, they are reasoning incorrectly or starting out with incorrect premises.

Again, the point was not to suggest his degree is better, it’s a backdrop which when associated with his other Christian endeavors, reveal that we’re talking about a very learned man, very logical and studious, careful in the development of his knowledge, and a very reasonable man. What if his degree was in Christian Religion? Would you then change your tune? The point is, a PhD in Christianity can read Scripture on his own and discern that baptism is unnecessary (there are plenty of this type roaming around, in fact)…and a high school dropout can read Scripture on his own and discern that it IS necessary. Conversely, there are PhD’s who proclaim the need for baptism, and highschool dropouts that refute it. Now, how precisely do we explain HOW one should approach Scripture to discern the actual teaching within it? Should they even be trying to extract doctrinal teaching at all, given the fact that this true teaching has already been revealed to The Church in the deposit of faith?

Adaptation is change.

a⋅dapt   /əˈdæpt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-dapt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object) 1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly: They adapted themselves to the change quickly. He adapted the novel for movies.

–verb (used without object) 2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.: to adapt easily to all circumstances.

This is the context in which I use ‘adaptation’. It’s the manner in which a teaching is made more understandable (suitably translated) for a changing world. It’s the world that has changed, not the teaching.

If it didn’t improve it, then what is the sense in explaining anything? It is up to believers to change to conform to Christ, not to try to fit the doctrines to what their own “itching ears” want to hear.

We’re not talking about the problems people have with conforming their lives to Christ, we’re talking about their capacity to absorb and understand revealed Truth. The translation and deeper meaning of permanent, unchanging truth is adjusted to provide proper guidance to modern incapacities to understand centuries-old teachings.

The Apostles both prophesied and performed miracles, and Paul said specifically that these gifts existed elsewhere in the early church.

I could expound upon verified modern age healings and miracles which reside within The Church, but I doubt you would give them credence.

Don’t you think it’s odd that other miraculous gifts are, well, miraculous, and this is nothing more than an unsupported claim?

Yes. Other miraculous gifts are just that, miraculous. But the claim of the gift of authority to The Church is not unsupported. It’s both biblical and historical.

I didn’t say they did, did I?

No, you didn’t explicitly say the Bereans believed in SS. But it’s inferred. I know the difference between “true SS” and errant SS doctrine. I believe you hold to the SS that says that scripture is not open to private interpretation, but it is the final authority to validate any human teaching. IMO, there is no difference in these two version of SS, because if you say Scripture is the final authority, you allow for private interpretation, because everyone has the right to validate anyone else through their own understanding of Scripture. At some point, it always comes back to private interpretation, because you take the Christ-appointed human authority out of the equation. There’s no other way around it.

God Bless

 

[SD_Catholic]

Wrong tense: they CAN be married.

So, they improved upon the Apostles teaching. Got it. It doesn’t serve the faithful to say you must be celibate to serve in a certain capacity. It obviously works about as well as Protestantism with the paedophile priests and cases like the recent Bishop in Latin America who fathered a child as a Bishop on one of his parishoners and then went into politics. Good move for him.

How convenient, you can change things but still keep the claim that you don’t change things. Very clever.

If you say so

It’s our imagination you belittle the CC clergy… you bet! (how does this comment fit the discussion)… it doesn’t, it just shows your lack of class and charity and I’ve heard enough.

I guess since the Apostles didn’t say anything about flying a 747 into a building then it must be alright? Surely added moral teachings can be useful, whether you like them or not.

This will be my last post… you won the battle of me leaving first… I guess when/if we get to heaven we can find out who won the war.

SD

 

[ckempston]

Again, the point was not to suggest his degree is better, it’s a backdrop which when associated with his other Christian endeavors, reveal that we’re talking about a very learned man, very logical and studious, careful in the development of his knowledge, and a very reasonable man. What if his degree was in Christian Religion? Would you then change your tune? The point is, a PhD in Christianity can read Scripture on his own and discern that baptism is unnecessary (there are plenty of this type roaming around, in fact)…and an high school dropout can read Scripture on his own and discern that it IS necessary. Conversely, there are PhD’s who proclaim the need for baptism, and highschool dropouts that refute it. Now, how precisely do we explain HOW one should approach Scripture to discern the actually teaching within it? Should they even be trying to extract doctrinal teaching at all, given the fact that this true teaching has already been revealed to The Church in the deposit of faith?

Like all things: we find the error in reasoning, if it exists, and we correct it.

a⋅dapt   /əˈdæpt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-dapt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object) 1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly: They adapted themselves to the change quickly. He adapted the novel for movies.

–verb (used without object) 2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.: to adapt easily to all circumstances.

This is the context in which I use ‘adaptation’. It’s the manner in which a teaching is made more understandable (suitably translated) for a changing world. It’s the world that has changed, not the teaching.

The world has indeed changed, but so has Catholic teaching.

We’re not talking about the problems people have with conforming their lives to Christ, we’re talking about their capacity to absorb and understand revealed Truth. The translation and deeper meaning of permanent, unchanging truth is adjusted to provide proper guidance to modern incapacities to understand centuries-old teachings.

The Magesterium doesn’t use some miraculous gift to do this, it uses God-given reason, and votes. Anybody can do that.

I could expound upon verified modern age healings and miracles which reside within The Church, but I doubt you would give them credence.

I would give them credence if they merited credence and did not contradict the Scriptures.

Yes. Other miraculous gifts are just that, miraculous. But the claim of the gift of authority to The Church is not unsupported. It’s both biblical and historical.

If Jesus proved he had authority to do what he did by miracles, so should the Pope.

No, you didn’t explicitly say the Bereans believed in SS. But it’s inferred. I know the difference between “true SS” and errant SS doctrine. I believe you hold to the SS that says that scripture is not open to private interpretation, but it is the final authority to validate any human teaching. IMO, there is no difference in these two version of SS, because if you say Scripture is the final authority, you allow for private interpretation, because everyone has the right to validate anyone else through their own understanding of Scripture. At some point, it always comes back to private interpretation, because you take the Christ-appointed human authority out of the equation. There’s no other way around it.

I don’t “allow” for private interpretation. Interpretation is either correct or incorrect. Following the basic rules of inference and having a little background information, we can arrive at valid conclusions, just like the Catholic Magesterium sometimes has (e.g. Baptism is necessary for salvation).

 

[JRKH]

And what Catholics don’t get is that no matter what you call it, it’s change, improving upon, and contradicting the teaching of the Apostles to constantly add new doctrines.

Maybe because it teaches some obviously unbiblical things?

Who, according to Catholics doesn’t do very much. Ask a Catholic how many times “Papal Infallability” has been used, and it’s like, twice or something. Seems kind of lax.

But you don’t believe, as they believed, that you can’t add to the teachings of the Apostles. Oops, forgot that one, eh?

Everything you have said above is “By your interpretation of Scripture”
Mine is different.
We Both believe that our understandings stem from a prayerful and Spirit Guided reading of Scripture.
You can no more prove to me that mine is wrong, than we have been able to prove to you that yours is wrong.
There by affirming the need for an Earthy Authority to settle the matter. The Bible alone is simply not sufficient in this matter.
Christ foresaw this and His intructions are contained in Matthew Chapter 18:15-18
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.

Now You state in your response that I don’t understand the definition of “Church” You say:

And what is the definition of church? Why, as I have pointed out, all Baptized believers.
(bolding mine)

Would you like to substitute your definition for church in the above Bible passage and see if it makes sense?
"…tell it to All baptized believers and if he refuses to listen even to all baptized believers let him be as a tax collector.

Now “All Baptized Believers” includes How many people? I know that there are over a Billion “Baptized Believers” in the Catholic Church alone. How many “baptized believers” of other denominations are there?
And Where ARE all of these “Baptized Believers”? Can we gather them All Together to resolve a given issue??

Clearly we cannot. So what is Christ telling us to do? Who is this “Church” we are to listen to? Surely we can find a clue in Acts 15:1-29, the Council of Jerusalem where a local matter was brought before the magisterium of the Church, the Apostles and Elders then gathered in Jerusalem.
The local matter was unsolvable locally (steps one and two in the above passage) and was refered to “The Church” (step three), who rendered a decision that was binding upon all the faithful regardless of what postion they held before the decsion was reached by “The Church”.

You are misunderstanding “SS” as badly as some Protestants misunderstand Catholicism.

Maybe -

Belongs to Jesus Christ.

Who, in His mercy Provided us with an Earthly Guide.
Praise God for His mercy.

All this time I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be different. Now I finally figure out it’s just more of the same. Great!

The new covenent IS different, it is man who remains the same. Just as “Stiff necked” as in the days of Moses. Christ, in his Love and Mercy has provided for Both.
Praise God for His Love and Mercy.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Hello, JRKH IMHO ckempston is doing a fine job and I have been enjoying this thread…however, I thought I would add a short bit.

These are our interpretations from our readings of the Scriptures. Now - Tell me that my interpretation is less valid than anyone elses. - Tell me that I am wrong in my interpretation and the SS folks are right. SS doctrine may give the individual the right to interpret scripture on his own, but in so doing it removes his right to tell someone else they are wrong.

As far as I know there is no Magisterium that determines what is the correct interpretation of history/historical documents, but that doesn’t prevent one historian from arguing that another historian’s interpretation is wrong. Likewise, I am still able to argue that your interpretation (or the RCC’s interpretation) of scripture is wrong…I just won’t claim that I possess infallibility when doing so.

Once the intelligent non-catholic begins to seriously look at the state of the protestant churches with their differing beliefs and constant splitting - All under the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, and after “prayerful meditation on Scripture”, they quickly become disillusioned with SS.

I think you should do better than this James…it sounds as if you are suggesting that SS can only be held by the unintelligent or by those that ignore the differences between protestant beliefs. That thought might be comforting, but it is hardly valid.

 

[ckempston]

Everything you have said above is “By your interpretation of Scripture”
Mine is different.
We Both believe that our understandings stem from a prayerful and Spirit Guided reading of Scripture.

You believe what the church tells you to believe. Or are you speaking hypothetically here?

You can no more prove that mine is wrong to me, than I can prove yours is wrong to you.

Sure I can.

There by affirming the need for an Earthy Authority to settle the matter.

Is this your personal interpretation of the situation?

Christ forsaw this and His isntructions are contained in Matthew Chapter 18:15-18
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.

The church is all baptized believers and any gathering of the same. I’ve proven that Catholics are wrong in their understanding of church, and that I, and all Baptized believers, are a part of it regardless of what the Pope says.

Now You state in your response that I don’t understand the defineition of “Church” You say:

Would you like to substitute your definition in the above Bible passage and see if it makes sense?
"…tell it to All baptized believers and if he refuses to listen even to all baptized believers let him be as a tax collector.

Apples and oranges. “The Church” proper is all baptized believers. The church locally is a gathering of the same (Baptized believers). This definition is consistent with the New Testament usage, unlike the Catholic definition.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Colossians 1:18 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.

Romans 16:5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.

1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Philemon 1:2 To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home:

Now “All Baptized Believers” includes How many people? I know that there are over a Billion Baptized Catholics alone. How many “baptized believers” of other denominations are there?

You’re totally misrepresenting my position.

And Where ARE all of these “Baptized Believers”? Can we gather them All Together to resolve the issue??

No.

Clearly we cannot. So what is Christ telling us to do? Who is this “Church” we are to listen to? Surely we can find a clue in Acts 15:1-29, the Council of Jerusalem where a local matter was brought before the magisterium of the Church, the Apostles and Elders of the Church.

Christ was not telling us anything, for one. He was telling the Apostles. If the Apostles had authority to bind and loose in Christ’s name, what on earth would they go to someone else for? They wouldn’t. Christ is talking about shaming a person publicly before a gathered group of believers to try to get them to repent.

The local matter was unsolvable locally and was refered to “The Church”, who rendered a decision that was binding upon all the faithful regardless of what postion they held before the decsion was reached by “The Church”.

So, Jesus told the Apostles to take it before the church, and the Apostles in obeying Jesus took the matter before…themselves. yeah, that makes tons of sense!

Who, in His mercy Provided us with an Earthly Guide.
Praise God for His mercy.

Indeed: The Spirit and The Word.

The new covenent IS different, it is man who remains the same. Just as “Stiff necked” as in the days of Moses. Christ, in his Love and Mercy has provided for Both.
Praise God for His Love and Mercy.

It’s different in that nobody else offers sacrifices on our behalf or stand between us and God. We are all priests.

 

[agbasinger]

ckempston,

You wouldn’t happen to write Chick tracts would you?

 

[ckempston]

ckempston,

You wouldn’t happen to write Chick tracts would you?

Please, agbasinger, find where I have said Catholics are going to hell, are not Christians, or are an apostate church, and then when you don’t find these things, feel free to retract your statement comparing me to Jack Chick.