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

[guanophore]

All through biblical history, we find that those ‘in charge’ of God’s word, have changed His word in some way. I personally believe, that this is also so today.

So… it seems your personal “belief” is more valuable that Jesus promise that He would lead His Church into all Truth?

When we start ‘chasing a church’, instead of ‘chasing God’s Word’, we are in fact straying fom the truth. If we are in doubt about any scripture, we should ask God for an understanding. This alleviates the possibility of ‘vanity’ entering God’s Word.

All this is true. The part that is missing is the part where He gave His Apostles His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail. The teaching of error result in passing the gates of hell.

Of course, He, and His followers, with Him being the head. This means, those that believe in every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, as is spoken and written under His authority, by whom He, Himself, and His Father, have authorized to do so.

Who are we, to decide for God, as to who He chooses to carry out His work? It has nothing to do with any specific faith. Let Him decide.

I agree! And He did decide. He placed His Apostles in authority, and charged them to train faithful men, who would be able to teach others also. This they did and we call it the Apostolic Succession. On the contrary, though, it has EVERYTHING to do with a specific faith. The faith that was taught to the Apostles has been preserve intact (by His grace) from the beginning

 

[guanophore]

Any meeting place that provides an opportunity to hear God’s Word and discuss it, is His Church, providing that His Word has not been changed.

This is an exceedingly deficient view of “church”. The Church is the Body of Christ, those who have been members of Him. Not all those to whom God’s word is proclaimed are “church”.

Basically what you are saying is that God was too weak …

Jer 1:12
12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.”

He was unable to reveal and teach, because He could not really watch over His word.

You are evidently so hung up on this ‘catholic’ thing,

Indeed, we are. The Apostles taught that the Church is Catholic. Being zealous to embrace all they taught, we are most certainly hung up on the One, Holy, Catholic, and apostolic faith.

We have to remember, that even the ‘small’ act of adding incense to an offering, resulted in the death of Aaron’s two sons, because God had not commanded them to do so.

Amen!

There are many passages in the Bible, that require some form of thought, in order to interpret them properly. If you believe that God is your Father, why are you afraid to ask Him for the proper interpretation of His Word? Why are you relying on another person’s interpretation?

We ask for the understanding to be revealed to us daily. We rely on the Sacred Tradition because we know it comes from God. Yes, it was delivered through fallible men, just as was the New Testament. But we trust in Him to reveal His word to us:

1 Thess 2:13-14
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

If you want examples of what I am trying to say, take a look at my thread “Rev. Chpt 4.-Who is on the Throne?”. There are many possible improper interpretations of the scriptures listed in this thread.

P.S. The Holy Ghost has always made intercessions for us.

I came, I saw, I was enlighted. I decided to follow the teachings of Jesus, committed to His Apostles.

 

[po18guy]

You are evidently so hung up on this ‘catholic’ thing,

You are 100% correct that I’m “hung up” on this Catholic thing! It is about Jesus Christ, Who I am in love with. From His real presence in the Eucharist to 1,976 years of consistent teaching, all handed on reliably, and the original bible. In fact, she produced the bible, too! I find her simply amazing! I often wonder why on earth someone who truly loves Christ would even think that the fulness of truth could possibly be found anywhere else. Ask any of the converts to the CC. They are the most fervent lovers of Jesus Christ on this earth. They felt the “dead end” that so many experience when their faith tradition can take them only so far. Just ask one.

that you cannot see nor understand the whole word of God. I belong to no specific faith group. I have listened to many ‘preachers’ and attended many different churches, all of which believe in Christ as their saviour. I have yet to find a single minister, that has not somehow changed the written word in order to follow his own faith’s beliefs and understanding.

If you have been to ANY church other than Catholic or Orthodox, you have never even seen the entire word of God. You have never read those seven reformer-deleted books of inspired words that give even more hope than you currently have. Any church that has come into being in the last 500 years simply CANNOT be the true church, no matter how much they love Christ. Make no mistake: those churches have truth in them. But not all of it. Food for thought.

We have to remember, that even the ‘small’ act of adding incense to an offering, resulted in the death of Aaron’s two sons, because God had not commanded them to do so.

As with all scripture, it must be read in the proper context.

There are many passages in the Bible, that require some form of thought, in order to interpret them properly. If you believe that God is your Father, why are you afraid to ask Him for the proper interpretation of His Word?

Because I don’t want to be lead by a demon. God, the Father, established a Church for us and gave it the Holy Spirit to preserve it from error and to keep the teaching as He wants it.

Why are you relying on another person’s interpretation?

Because the Lord God placed him in that position, that’s why. If I go off on my own, I will be subject to the demons that await, and I risk eternity in hell. That is the demon’s job - to gain souls for the evil one. I will not abide them.

“Rev. Chpt 4.-Who is on the Throne?”. There are many possible improper interpretations of the scriptures listed in this thread.

And all except one are wrong and lead the faithful astray.

P.S. The Holy Ghost has always made intercessions for us.

WHAT??? You use an intercessor other than Jesus? I’m floored! Actually not, since we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

As much as you love the Lord, I ask you not to write off His Church, which He founded out of unfathomable love for you. She’s still there, just as Christ promised - and we know how trustworthy His promises are.

 

[JRKH]

Your whole response (above) shows your own vanity & ignorance.

I will readily admit my own vanity and ignorance before the Lord and my fellows here. For man is vain and ignorant creature.
I pray that you will someday be given the same gift of humility that you may freely admit your own vanity and ignorance.

Solomon was ‘rewarded’ by God, because Solomon did not want to lead God’s chosen people in error. He was afraid that his own understanding and vanity (and that of others), would result in him governing God’s people in a way that would be against the glorification of God. He humbled himself before God and his chosen people, seeking to please God, rather than man (including himself). This is why God was pleased, and rewarded him. This is written in the O/T scripture. Your response, is exactly the opposite.

Now that you have responded so eloquently to the first two sentences of my post, would you like to address the rest? Or do you consider me too ignorant?

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Greetings, quanophore

Would you not agree that embracing wrong doctrine prevents the teaching of Truth,….

Not totally. The RCC teaches much truth, but doesn’t teach just the truth and where it teaches wrong doctrine it is prevented from teaching truth wrt that matter to the extent of its wrong doctrine.

….a nd would cause the church to enter the gates of hell?

First the RCC does not equal the church….nor does the EOC and nor does the RCC and EOC together equal the church.
Second, the interpretation that equates “gates of Hades will not prevail” with “will not fall into doctrinal error at any time” seems forced at best. Gates serve a defensive purpose by keeping the enemy outside. The church entering Hades would then indicate success as opposed to failure by the church. In any event, we can agree that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church. IMHO it is extremely disingenuous to suggest, on one hand, that teaching wrong doctrine would count as being defeated by the gates of Hades, and then to suggest that going directly and blatantly against the teaching of Paul (wrt the qualifications of an overseer) and appointing a corrupt and unqualified person to rule (what is believed to be) the universal church would not count as being defeated by the gates of Hades, on the other hand.

Why would you not agree? Is it not clear from the example in the book of Acts that the HS makes the council infallible?

It is clear from the example in the book of Acts that the HS spoke on that occasion.

They were closer to the Apostles, and had many original and early documents that no longer are available to us.

I can see how that would be the case in the earlier centuries, but also note that my translation of the OT would be superior to the one possessed by Augustine. In some regards they would be in a better position and in some regards not…. and weight should be given to their decisions in accordance with the advantages and the disadvantages that would have affected the quality of their decision(s). For example, with respect to matters of history we don’t simply say that, b/c Eusebius was closer in time to the Apostles, and had many original and early documents that are no longer are available to us, his version of early church history is to be totally accepted w/o any question.

And, in fact, this is what we see in the NT. What did the Apostles do? When they were offended by inaccurate teaching, they took the matter to the Church, and the Apostles made a ruling. The method has not changed.

You could be right if the Apostles were still available…but they aren’t and those who claim to be “successors” are just that…people who claim to be successors. The validity of that claim is in question.

I agree. Luther did not start by working through appointed channels, though. He was arrogant, and nailed his grievances on the door. This was a common action taken to stir controversy.

well if we are pointing fingers, what about a church that purports to trade in grace as if it was a common commodity. …seems to be a bit of a cause for controversy, and yet a fellow claiming to be a successor to the apostles was often the fellow receiving the proceeds of the sales.

This is a falsehood.

Please then, point me to the words where the church at Jerusalem claimed infallibility for itself.

Even if individuals were in error, the findings of the council were promulgated by the HS, and are therefore, infallible. this is the case with all the ecumenical councils.

So you say wrt all ecumenical councils…but then the NT doesn’t even consider the possibility of any post-apostolic ecumenical councils and, as such, doesn’t make any promise that these unconsidered things would be infallible

A little study of history will easily solve this for you. You will see that local councils were held prior to that time, from the one recorded in Acts onward.

so then the established precedent was merely a local council (which would correspond to Acts 15)

However, since it was illegal before 325 to be a Christian,….

It was a large empire and law and the enforcement thereof was not always uniform from one place to the next or from one decade to the next…I guess we could both do with a little more reading.

 

[Radical]

JRKH, sorry I seem to be falling behind….hopefully you can still remember what your post was about,

Thank you. Unfortunately we are on a long road into Alzheimers, with only two possible outcomes. Divine intervention and cure or, a prayerful laying of my Darling Wife into the Arms of Our Lord.

My father (dementia) and step-mom (alzheimers dementia) are on a similar path…you have my deepest sympathies.

If you consider that a Church council can err, particularly on something as central to Christiantiy as setting the Bible Canon, then you have no standing upon which to accept Any of the Scriptures contained in the Bible - in either the Catholic or Protestant version.

why? What creates standing? I know how it is achieved in the courts of my land, but how is it achieved or lost in this matter?

Funny - But I don’t see teh word “personal” in the text.

a sin by one person against another person sounds personal to me

I would be the first to admit that the way the Church functioned in the 1st Century is far disserent than the way it functioned later. However that does NOT change the basic facts of the matter in so far as the implications for Church authority.
In Matthew Christ confirred authority upon The Church - To Bind and Loose.
In Acts we see that Authority in action. Simple as taht.

It seems far from certain that the binding and loosing power given to all Christians in Matt 18 is what was seen in play at Acts 15 (I say all b/c if the “take it to the church” direction is addressed to all the it would follow that the binding and loosing empowerment is also addressed to all)

I would be interested in the source matterial for this.

Acts 15 ….sorry I had typed Acts 19 in the post

I have not proposed that the model be applied directly to Luther - I have asked for an example of a time when all of the “Local” protestant Churches held a council on a perticular issue of doctrine, reached a conclusion and applied to to ALL of their Churches ala the Council of Jerusalem.

pick any number of conservative protestant denominations that belong to a conference…likely, in the last couple of decades they have had a conference to determine their collective policy concerning such matters as the ordination of women, remarriage after divorce etc.

As to Luther, it is my understanding that He did place his case before the Church and was ruled against. Then instead of submitting as he should have, he rebelled and was excommunicated.

well, if it was a choice between following God and submitting to that church, then he did the right thing

Peace

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, sorry I seem to be falling behind….hopefully you can still remember what your post was about, My father (dementia) and step-mom (alzheimers dementia) are on a similar path…you have my deepest sympathies.

You have my deepest sympathies as well. It is a hoorible cross, but one that really teaches a great many lessons.
May God be with you and your dad and stepmom.

why? What creates standing? I know how it is achieved in the courts of my land, but how is it achieved or lost in this matter?

Standing may not be the right word.
My point is that by rejecting the inerrant nature of the Church, and Her councils that established the canon of the Bible, you fatally undercut any logical consent to the inerrant nature of the product of that Church.
(This assumes of course that you believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God.)
So you are left only with a Bible that YOU believe is correct only on your own authority. And most likely, only because this happens to be the Book “Everyone uses”.

a sin by one person against another person sounds personal to me

Indeed and the sin of teaching false doctrine, thus fomenting discord in the Body of Christ sounds like, “sin by one person against another person” to me. That is why Matthew 18 is binding even in areas of Doctrine.

It seems far from certain that the binding and loosing power given to all Christians in Matt 18 is what was seen in play at Acts 15 (I say all b/c if the “take it to the church” direction is addressed to all the it would follow that the binding and loosing empowerment is also addressed to all)

Well said. All Does relate to All, but what does that mean in the practical applications of the Kingdom. For in order for someone to be held up for censure before The Church, (as in the entire assembly) That Church had better be of “One Mind” on the matter. How well do you think it would go over in the “One Church” if I go and tell my brother he is wrong and sinning, then have others tell him and then finally take it before the whole congregation of say - 500 only to have 300 side with me on the issue and 200 side with him?
Binding and loosing within the Kingdom has to come from somewhere, and once something is doctrinally bound or loosed it needs to be evenly applied across ALL the Church. In other words the Church in Cincinnati cannot bind a thing and the Church in Houston Loose the same thing. So in order that The Gospel remain Pure and Correct the Early Church took pains to see that Doctrinal issues were dealt with as needed and applied universally within the Church.
This what we see at play within the Church in Acts. The decision taken at Jerusalem was seen as applicable to the whole of the Church and not just to Antioch. Thus it is that “The Church” “loosed” the Gentiles from needing to keep the Mosaic Law.
Was this decision made in a “cause I said so” draconian way? No it was not. The matter was discussed and debated in a very lively manner. And I am sure that even after the decision was made, there were probably die-hard judaizers who had doubts, but the decision stood and ALL the Churches in whatever city abided by it.
The same thing is true today in the Church - catholics engage in lively debate over issues around the world. Finally the Magisterium will issue some document on a given subject and the entire church is expected to abide by that teaching.
The same today as in Acts.

pick any number of conservative protestant denominations that belong to a conference…likely, in the last couple of decades they have had a conference to determine their collective policy concerning such matters as the ordination of women, remarriage after divorce etc.

But this is not what I am asking for. Where is the Council representing ALL the Protestant communites where a decision was reached that was excepted by ALL protestant communities as the will of God.
Your example only demonstrates that Protestants cannot agree even among themselves. For if you do look at some of these “conservative confrences” and the decisions they reach you will find, I’ll warrent, members leaving that conference and either joining another conference or setting up a new one.

well, if it was a choice between following God and submitting to that church, then he did the right thing

Peace

God will Judge him.
But your answer is not a proper answer to the context of the discussion. If I recall correctly, you said that Martin Luther did not have the chance to make his case before the church ala the council in Acts. I responded that Luther did indeed have the opprotunity to place his case before the Church authorities. When the Church ruled against him he refused to abide by Matthew 18 and thus incurred the biblical injuction of being treated like a “Tax collector”. He was excommunicated for he refuesed to listen"Even to The Church".

Peace
James

 

[Always_For_Him]

I am doing a little reading into Martin Luther. I am by no means a scholar, so there are many on this thread who will be able to enlighten us to much more than I can provide, but it is pretty apparant when reading how Luther’s theology was changing, his ex-communication from the Church was warranted. The new doctrine and new teaching that he was teaching were not Apostolic teaching. It also seems to me that the explanations today by non-Catholic churches to their members of the “reasons Luther made changes” have nothing to do with the actual truth. Over the last 500 years, these changes have been rationalized, justified, taught as truth and have become truth to those who learn them in these churches. I learned some of them. Man mucks it all up, and to deny historical truth and facts to “go ahead and believe what you feel is truth” is plain wrong, prideful and full of ego. Just read the changes. Luther had no authority to make changes to Christ’s Deposit of Faith and found a new church teaching that error. No man has that authority. We are supposed to (and have always been required to) follow the teachings and traditions as they were handed down from the Apostles and not change anything - certainly not by believing our own interpretation or teaching our own interpretation as truth. The authority was given to Christ’s Church, specifically to certain men to establish and lead Christ’s Church on earth, not to every one of us. We are to follow, not invent new truth and lead others into error.

 

[po18guy]

I am doing a little reading into Martin Luther. I am by no means a scholar, so there are many on this thread who will be able to enlighten us to much more than I can provide, but it is pretty apparant when reading how Luther’s theology was changing, his ex-communication from the Church was warranted. The new doctrine and new teaching that he was teaching were not Apostolic teaching. It also seems to me that the explanations today by non-Catholic churches to their members of the “reasons Luther made changes” have nothing to do with the actual truth. Over the last 500 years, these changes have been rationalized, justified, taught as truth and have become truth to those who learn them in these churches. I learned some of them. Man mucks it all up, and to deny historical truth and facts to “go ahead and believe what you feel is truth” is plain wrong, prideful and full of ego. Just read the changes. Luther had no authority to make changes to Christ’s Deposit of Faith and found a new church teaching that error. No man has that authority. We are supposed to (and have always been required to) follow the teachings and traditions as they were handed down from the Apostles and not change anything - certainly not by believing our own interpretation or teaching our own interpretation as truth. The authority was given to Christ’s Church, specifically to certain men to establish and lead Christ’s Church on earth, not to every one of us. We are to follow, not invent new truth and lead others into error.

If there is a genetic flaw in all of Protestantism, it is that it appeals to the ego - to personal preference, rather than denial of self. Denial of self is the first thing we are to do if we desire to follow Christ. Look at the denial of self that is inherent in Judaism. Is not a fulfillment of this tradition the continuation of that same self-denial? Christ is our example, denying even Himself for our sake. As He denied Himself, we are to deny ourselves in following Him.

I heard recently a critique of Deepak Chopra’s book on Christ. The reviewer thought that, in Chopra’s book, the Jesus that he described came out looking an awful lot like Chopra himself. And, this is the tragedy of modern Christianity. It has introduced the “designer Christ” who is molded and formed into whatever shape the believer desires. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what we are called to do.

Draw back and examine the big picture. Is this not exactly how the evil one divides and conquers - by appealing to the ego? Eve wanted to be like a god, so she disobeyed the very God Who gave her life. She cared not one bit for all of her posterity, so long as she could gain the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[MDK]

If there is a genetic flaw in all of Protestantism, it is that it appeals to the ego - to personal preference, rather than denial of self. Denial of self is the first thing we are to do if we desire to follow Christ. Look at the denial of self that is inherent in Judaism. Is not a fulfillment of this tradition the continuation of that same self-denial? Christ is our example, denying even Himself for our sake. As He denied Himself, we are to deny ourselves in following Him.

I heard recently a critique of Deepak Chopra’s book on Christ. The reviewer thought that, in Chopra’s book, the Jesus that he described came out looking an awful lot like Chopra himself. And, this is the tragedy of modern Christianity. It has introduced the “designer Christ” who is molded and formed into whatever shape the believer desires. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what we are called to do.

Draw back and examine the big picture. Is this not exactly how the evil one divides and conquers - by appealing to the ego? Eve wanted to be like a god, so she disobeyed the very God Who gave her life. She cared not one bit for all of her posterity, so long as she could gain the knowledge of good and evil.

The father of Protestantism is pride and fear. They fear the Catholic truths, and end up creating their own version of a god whom they feel comfortable with. They tell God what they will and will not believe about Him, and create a god in their own image and likeness. Protestantism is pride fostering idolatry by putting their own intellect above the will of God.

 

[1beleevr]

Much to the chagrin of catholics on this forum, I agree with yahsoul and other non-catholics, in regards to each of us Christians being able to be led by the Holy Spirit:thumbsup: If we steer clear of twisting the scriptures, we could understand that Jesus’s words apply to US as well as the original audience Otherwise, why would we bother reading the Bible? It is easy to say that He was only speaking to His disciples, hence strengthening the argument for apostolic succession. For example, when I read Jeremiah 29:11, I know that God is talking to me, not just the Israelites! So, if we can’t agree, let’s at least be civil to each other(Romans 14:10-13)

 

[Radical]

Ecumenical councils are a very Good tool as it allows all sides to be heard and wise decisions reached.

I agree that they are a good tool…but good isn’t infallible and they aren’t always practical. When you point to Acts 15 as an example, can’t help but note that the whole congregation at Jerusalem appears to be actively involved in the whole process…and that is something that the current monarchical hierarchy doesn’t do.

I see it played out every day here at the boards. Catholics and non-catholics discuss and debate back and forth this or that bit of belief. Usually to no avail. So we are left with a “fractured” and “wounded” Body of Christ. Is this what Christ Prayed for when He prayed that we “be one as the Father and I are one”? Is this what Paul exhorted us to when he asked in several letters that we “be of One mind”?

I share your concern and frustration regarding the fractured and wounded body……the only solution I can envision would require more liberal RCs to take over the hierarchy of the RCC. By more “liberal”, I mean those who are prepared to acknowledge that the RCC is not infallible. It would seem that such a change is at least a few popes away and, no doubt, should such happen hardliners would split off from the new RCC. Once that acknowledgement is achieved, then a meaningful attempt at unification can take place. A meaningful dialogue is not possible when one side believes that it is justified in simply declaring that it is the Church Christ founded, that it is infallible and that unification is merely another word for full submission to the Pope. If such was at all acceptable to the other side, there wouldn’t be division in the first place. No doubt the only solution you can envision would require us separated brethren to see the error of our ways and become RC.

There is a need for authority. Christ Provided that through His Church - Visible and Authoritative. It was visible and Authoritative at Jerusalem and is still visible and authoritative today.

I agree that there is a need for authority and that one should submit to that authority (except in cases where it goes against God’s will, such as when it claims infallibility for itself).

might also mention that it seems that St Paul also thought that the wider canon was fine.

again, if there was good evidence that Paul treated the dc as scripture, then that would be good enough for me.

Many Non-Catholics hold up the Bible as the sole rule of faith, but one of the first things they did was to change it. That in itself makes no sense.

I would say that many Non-Catholics hold up the Bible as the sole rule of faith, but to do so, one must ensure that only inspired works are included in the canon

You see I recognize that Jesus, in telling His disciples who were Jews to obey the Pharasees, was illustrating that, we are to be obedient to the rightful authorites placed over us by God. In the OT case it was the Pharasees.

correct

That is why it makes much more sense to accept the fuller canon of the Bible, because it was arrived at by the Authority of the Church Jesus Founded and Promised to Protect, instead of trying to say that Jesus’ Church got one part right and one part wrong.

the part I put in bold is what is in question.

It would indeed be nice if we still lived in an age and place of such times and wonders. But alas …
I don’t see all of the non-catholic pastors, bishops, etc possessing this ability either so it seems a poor point to raise.

Not at all….if the non-Catholics pastors made the same claims for themselves as do the RC bishops then it would be a bad point to raise.

No - they sought a true resolution to the issue so as to maintain unity and be of “One Mind”.
Thus it was that they sent to the “Church Leadership” in Jerusalem.

and I agree that it was a perfect solution….and you keep pressing Acts 15 as the example to follow and don’t appear to understand why I might say that Luther wasn’t given an “Acts 15” option. I’ll try another approach. Here is a hypothetical, where the situation is reversed:

On an isolated island, forever cut off from the rest of the world, live you and a bunch of other Catholics including a bishop. Over time the beliefs of the other RCs evolve and after awhile you find yourself faced with the situation that the bishop and all others on the island have come to the belief that the Eucharist is merely symbolic and they have rejected all Marian doctrine, Papal supremacy and infallibility (the “Teachings”)…alas they have essentially become protestants. You object by copying out bits of the Catechism of the RCC and posting them on the door of the island’s church and by trying to convince a few others that the Teachings are false. The bishop calls you over to meet with him and a few of his elders. After hearing you make your case the bishop tells you that a trouble-maker can not be tolerated on the island and that, although he won’t instruct anybody to do so, if you don’t stop trying to overturn the Teachings you will be killed. In that situation, what would you do? Would you obey the bishop and watch them just throw the remaining Eucharistic elements into the garbage bin after the Eucharist? Think of why you wouldn’t submit to the bishop’s decision as if it was following the precedent of Acts 15. I suspect Luther would enjoy a counterpart to whatever reason(s) you can produce.

Peace.

 

[po18guy]

Much to the chagrin of catholics on this forum, I agree with yahsoul and other non-catholics, in regards to each of us Christians being able to be led by the Holy Spirit:thumbsup: If we steer clear of twisting the scriptures, we could understand that Jesus’s words apply to US as well as the original audience Otherwise, why would we bother reading the Bible? It is easy to say that He was only speaking to His disciples, hence strengthening the argument for apostolic succession. For example, when I read Jeremiah 29:11, I know that God is talking to me, not just the Israelites! So, if we can’t agree, let’s at least be civil to each other(Romans 14:10-13)

We pray that it is the Holy Spirit. He will lead you to humility, obedience and unity, rather than separation.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[MDK]

Much to the chagrin of catholics on this forum, I agree with yahsoul and other non-catholics, in regards to each of us Christians being able to be led by the Holy Spirit:thumbsup: If we steer clear of twisting the scriptures, we could understand that Jesus’s words apply to US as well as the original audience Otherwise, why would we bother reading the Bible? It is easy to say that He was only speaking to His disciples, hence strengthening the argument for apostolic succession. For example, when I read Jeremiah 29:11, I know that God is talking to me, not just the Israelites! So, if we can’t agree, let’s at least be civil to each other(Romans 14:10-13)

You have the right to be wrong. It’s just sad that you desire to be wrong with such fervor, as is your right. There is not embarrassment or vexation in the least. We are performing Spiritual works of mercy in admonishing those who are sinning by rejecting those Christ sent, and His Church…, and also we are performing spiritual works of mercy in teaching the ignorant.

Those who listen to those Christ sent, will know what applies to Christ’s Apostles, and what is meant for the lay person.

Importantly, Christ sends the Holy Spirit to those who are obedient to Him. How will Christ send you the Holy Spirit when you are rejecting those whom He sent, thereby rejecting Him as well? If you are disobedient to the authority He established, how will He send you the Holy Spirit? The arrogant do not see this as an issue. Those truly and humbly seeking Christ will be obedient to Him, and thereby receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveGC]

Much to the chagrin of catholics on this forum, I agree with yahsoul and other non-catholics, in regards to each of us Christians being able to be led by the Holy Spirit:thumbsup: If we steer clear of twisting the scriptures, we could understand that Jesus’s words apply to US as well as the original audience Otherwise, why would we bother reading the Bible? It is easy to say that He was only speaking to His disciples, hence strengthening the argument for apostolic succession. For example, when I read Jeremiah 29:11, I know that God is talking to me, not just the Israelites! So, if we can’t agree, let’s at least be civil to each other(Romans 14:10-13)

Indeed, the Spirit of God, dwelling within those who are baptized and, more so, those who respond with faith/obedience, leads them in righteousness, in understanding, and in virtue, assisting them in the unique pathway of each persons state in life, a pathway ultimately leading to God Himself, if cooperatively acted upon by the believer.

However, He does not deposit within a believer, absolute truth regarding faith and morals. This is a unique gift, reserved for The Church …the deposit of faith. Catholics don’t deny an individual relationship with the Spirit within each of us…on the contrary, we embrace that beautiful reality…for it is the essential instrument of our faith, and our works. He also is with us as we ask for His guidance through Scripture, but not to reveal Truth. Rather, to help us understand Truth and Christ’s teachings, which has been revealed, and entrusted, to The Church.

To believe the Spirit can reveal absolute Truth to you through prayer and reading of Scripture is necessary for the Bible-only Christian, because they have denied the Church’s authority, and therefore must replace it with something that authenticates their faith journey. This is, unfortunately, an empty pursuit, with high probability of leading one astray, because the Spirit was always, is now, and forever shall be, first and foremost tied to The Church of Christ.

 

[ckempston]

So… it seems your personal “belief” is more valuable that Jesus promise that He would lead His Church into all Truth?

Correction: Jesus said he would lead the Apostles into all truth. Either Jesus lied, and the Catholic church has continued to reveal truths to us over the millenia, or Jesus told the truth and Catholics are wrong in many of their doctrines. Not a difficult choice.

All this is true. The part that is missing is the part where He gave His Apostles His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail. The teaching of error result in passing the gates of hell.

If there were two baptized believers left on the earth, there would still be a church, regardless of the existence of a Pope or succession of Bishops.

I agree! And He did decide. He placed His Apostles in authority, and charged them to train faithful men, who would be able to teach others also. This they did and we call it the Apostolic Succession. On the contrary, though, it has EVERYTHING to do with a specific faith. The faith that was taught to the Apostles has been preserve intact (by His grace) from the beginning

Disagree. The RCC has added much that does not belong. It has been verbose when silence and clinging to the Scriptures would have been a better option.

 

[MDK]

Correction: Jesus said he would lead the Apostles into all truth. Either Jesus lied, and the Catholic church has continued to reveal truths to us over the millenia, or Jesus told the truth and Catholics are wrong in many of their doctrines. Not a difficult choice.

If there were two baptized believers left on the earth, there would still be a church, regardless of the existence of a Pope or succession of Bishops.

Disagree. The RCC has added much that does not belong. It has been verbose when silence and clinging to the Scriptures would have been a better option.

What it really boils down to is authority. Authority was given to the Apostles, including the Chief Apostle, and has been handed down in God’s one Church which has never taught error. On the other hand, you have absolutely no authority given by Christ, are teaching error, and are therefore disobedient to Christ and pushing with the gates of Hell… but, you’ll never be successful in the direction you’re going now. One must humbly do what Christ asked, otherwise you’re just another disobedient and prideful person on the wrong track, claiming the light is dark and the dark is some shade of gray.

 

[JRKH]

I agree that they are a good tool…but good isn’t infallible and they aren’t always practical. When you point to Acts 15 as an example, can’t help but note that the whole congregation at Jerusalem appears to be actively involved in the whole process…and that is something that the current monarchical hierarchy doesn’t do.

Your view of the “monarchial heirarchy” wielding dictitorial power really does not reflect the reality of the way the church functions.
Actually there is far more involvement by the general catholic population than you might suspect. You see, the “Magisterium” is not some “kitchen cabinet” to the Pope but rather is a Body made up of All the Bishops of the World, along with other people who work at the Vatican. The Bishops around the world are in touch with the “People in the Pews”. Thus as various issues come up, it is often the “Grass roots” discussions that start the ball rolling and then the issues “move up the line” being further discussed researched and clarified before any decision is reached or document released. Further you may not be aware that when a document is prepared for release by the Vatican, it is reviewed by top theologens for accuracies etc.
Please note that this description is very rough in nature, and if I’ve made any errors I hope my fellow catholics will correct me.

I share your concern and frustration regarding the fractured and wounded body……the only solution I can envision would require more liberal RCs to take over the hierarchy of the RCC. By more “liberal”, I mean those who are prepared to acknowledge that the RCC is not infallible. It would seem that such a change is at least a few popes away and, no doubt, should such happen hardliners would split off from the new RCC.

Such a proclamation will never occur. It cannot. So you may as well not get your hopes up. The Church IS infallable in matters of faith and morals and is protected by the Holy Spirit in this regard as promised by Our Lord.

Once that acknowledgement is achieved, then a meaningful attempt at unification can take place. A meaningful dialogue is not possible when one side believes that it is justified in simply declaring that it is the Church Christ founded, that it is infallible and that unification is merely another word for full submission to the Pope. If such was at all acceptable to the other side, there wouldn’t be division in the first place. No doubt the only solution you can envision would require us separated brethren to see the error of our ways and become RC.

I’m afraid you are right. The only way that “re-unification” can be achieved in most cases is by individual conversions.

I agree that there is a need for authority and that one should submit to that authority (except in cases where it goes against God’s will, such as when it claims infallibility for itself).

So it is OK to submit to Authority so long as they don’t disagree with what you believe to be God’s will. So you will reject the Church’s “infallibility” in favor of your own, thus the Church is not the final arbitor - You are. That is what you are saying above.

again, if there was good evidence that Paul treated the dc as scripture, then that would be good enough for me.

Paul preached and set up Christian communities in many many places outside Judea. Those areas were Greek speaking and would have used the Greek OT.
The Greek OT included teh DC’s
Paul told Timothy that ALL Scripture is useful…
Therefore Paul must have receognized the DC’s as scripture.

I would say that many Non-Catholics hold up the Bible as the sole rule of faith, but to do so, one must ensure that only inspired works are included in the canon

The Christian Church did that at the end of the fourth century. Please remember that there was only one Christian Church at the time.

That is why it makes much more sense to accept the fuller canon of the Bible, because it was arrived at by the Authority of the Church Jesus Founded and Promised to Protect,

instead of trying to say that Jesus’ Church got one part right and one part wrong.
the part I put in bold is what is in question.

Well, as I said Above, there was ONLY one Christian Church at the time that the canon was set and the Vulgate translated. That Church is the Root Church for every Western Christian Church that exists today.
So - No matter what problems you might have with the Church today, the fact remains that protestants today are rejecting Canonical books that were approved by their own Church (The Root Church) in the fourth century and reapproved several times by the “Root Church”, BEFORE the reformation.

(Continued below)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont from above)

and I agree that it was a perfect solution….and you keep pressing Acts 15 as the example to follow and don’t appear to understand why I might say that Luther wasn’t given an “Acts 15” option. I’ll try another approach. Here is a hypothetical, where the situation is reversed:

On an isolated island, forever cut off from the rest of the world, live you and a bunch of other Catholics including a bishop. Over time the beliefs of the other RCs evolve and after awhile you find yourself faced with the situation that the bishop and all others on the island have come to the belief that the Eucharist is merely symbolic and they have rejected all Marian doctrine, Papal supremacy and infallibility (the “Teachings”)…alas they have essentially become protestants. You object by copying out bits of the Catechism of the RCC and posting them on the door of the island’s church and by trying to convince a few others that the Teachings are false. The bishop calls you over to meet with him and a few of his elders. After hearing you make your case the bishop tells you that a trouble-maker can not be tolerated on the island and that, although he won’t instruct anybody to do so, if you don’t stop trying to overturn the Teachings you will be killed. In that situation, what would you do? Would you obey the bishop and watch them just throw the remaining Eucharistic elements into the garbage bin after the Eucharist? Think of why you wouldn’t submit to the bishop’s decision as if it was following the precedent of Acts 15. I suspect Luther would enjoy a counterpart to whatever reason(s) you can produce.

Peace.

I’m afraid I can’t address your hypothetical because it is a bogus comparison.
In Luther’s case he was protesting a Practice.
In your hypothetical we are dealing with a Dogmnatic belief . Which NO Bishop would EVER consider changing for the Eucharist is Central to Catholic Belief.

As far as Luther’s options go, it seems to me that a person of Luther’s education and ferver could have submitted to the Authority of the Church for unity’s sake, thus averting this horrible wound to Christ. He could have then sought change more quietly from INSIDE the Church, just as many others were doing at teh time.
Christ has always raised up saints from WITHIN the Church when she has been in danger. Two that I can think of are St Francis of Assisi and St Catherine of Seina. Other folks here can probably give you names of many others.
It is even be possible that Christ hoped that Luther himself might have been and agent for positive change in the Church, but unfortunately the devil succeeded in corrupting Luther with pride.

Peace
James

 

[1beleevr]

MDK: And you also, have the right to be wrong, and arrogant! And , if you need any help getting that plank outta yer eye, just holler! And I think it is admirable that you are performing acts of mercy in the catholic community:thumbsup:Are you sure they don’t mind being called ignorant? To listen to the pope or others, whom youse guys claim were sent by God, would mean that we accept that they were sent by GodI still believe that Matthew 28:19-20, applies to ALL christians; we should make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit(Ghost). That’s how I was baptized Smiles everyone smiles! Was talking to a woman a few months ago, and she told me that she was a former catholic. I asked her why she would leave the perfect church? She laughed and said,“It’s far from perfect, and besides, I found the Truth!”