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

[jahsoul]

How can you be sure that it is the Holy Spirit that leads you?Paul claims that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15). Again, how can you be so sure that it is the Holy Spirit leading you?Did God speak through Moses? Was Moses a sinner? Did Jesus say to the Apostles “He who hears you hears me” and “He who rejects you rejects me”? (Luke 10:16) It sure sounds like you reject those whom He sent. The Lord clearly uses humans to lead by the Holy Spirit and to teach. What do you suppose Christ was thinking in Matthew 28 when he gave the great commission to the Apostles?

Because I confessed my sins before God, believed in my heart and spoke that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, turned from my wicked way, was baptized and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance…that’s how I know. How do you know?

Paul did state that but read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and see what he says about the Word of God. And again, refer to my first paragraph.

God spoke TO Moses. And Moses was a angry, murderer…lol. I’m not rejecting anyone that the Lord has sent. Teaching is a gift of the spirit. Also ministry, prophecy, and even giving. You don’t have to be in the pulpit to teach but with ministry comes more. Teaching and ministry are two different gifts. I don’t know what Jesus was thinking but what he said was pretty clear. But don’t you think that the disciples to the people they witnessed to that, and the then the people told other people?

 

[IWillBeHeard]

Let me tell you about the new rules on here…

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

 

[guanophore]

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.

I suppose that my curiosity about what you imagine “wrong doctrine” is beyond the scope ofthe thread.

The Catholic church cannot teach any wrong doctrine, because it is prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit. This is what Jesus meant when He said the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. When one begins to teach error, one passes through the gates of hell.

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.

I agree with you about the defensive purpose of gates. IT is by teaching the Truth that we assail the gates. If we embrace error, we will not storm the gates, but instead the gates of hell will be open and we will be waived inside!

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.

Here you are confusing disciplines with doctrines. I think this is also an important topic, but also beyond the scope of this thread.

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

When Jesus promised that He would lead His Church into “all Truth”, this is what He promised would happen. The Church is not infallible because of the councils of men, but because Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. It is these divine elements that prevent error in the Church.

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.

I agree, but to the extent that Eusebius is in agreement with the unchanging teaching of the Church, and the other documents available,then his writing is reliable.

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.

It is not questioned by those who accept the faith that was handed down by them. This is the manner in which Jesus ordained that authority should be passed. It is question by those that have reason to rebel against His authority.

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.

Human corruption is rampant throughout history. The Truth taught by Jesus is not invalidated by men who depart from it. That is like saying that what Jesus taught is not right, since Judas betrayed him and acted in an evil manner. Sinners don’t define the teaching of the Church, the HS does.

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

If you believe the decision of the council was fallible, then I think there is nothing I can say to help you.

Acts 15:27-28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

If you believe that a decision that seems good to the HS can be in any way fallible then your theology is fatally flawed. The HS is the third person of the Trinity - God Eternal, and therefore, cannot make mistakes.

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

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Isn’t it interesting that all the Christians that existed prior to the Protestant Reformation believed differently? What you are saying is that Jesus was too weak or lacking in care to reveal to His Holy Bride that He wanted something different.

 

[jahsoul]

MDK,

On the day of Pentecost, the church was founded in Jerusalem with over 3000 joining. Jesus could have sent Peter to Pakistan, the fact that the first church was started in Jerusalem is pretty evident. To discuss matters of Jew/Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas met the “pillars” (yeah, the Bible said there were 3 pillars) where? Yep, the Church at Jerusalem. I never once argued that Christ didn’t send Peter to Rome. I don’t know but what about it being Paul’s mission to make it to Rome also. I think he got there a little after Paul. (Why you say that Joey?) Because in Romans, Paul made no mention of him. He always mentioned Peter when he was around but made no mention of him. I’m not doubting that Peter never made it to Rome but wasn’t a church there already?

Again, I don’t look at myself nor the church as the final authority. God and His Word is. If you read, I always say that. I also said that the same Holy Ghost that was in Peter is the same one that is in me. It’s true. And that is a false statement. God will always make a way for his Word to be read. God’s word will never go void. If they weren’t canonized, they would have still been read. That is something that you can rest assured on. And I depend on God for understanding. God is not an author of confusion, so he won’t give me something contrary to the meaning. But the thing is I get instruction from church also and they both line up. I don’t just hear at church, but I read at home. But again, when it comes to understand the Word, James 1:5-6. Read it…

And I don’t believe in Purgatory. (Why you say that?) Because Jesus dying on the cross paid all the debt for my sins, not some of it. If the sacrifice was not a complete sacrifice, then it was not purpose for it. It is either all or nothing, with no in between. If that’s the case, Paul said that the flesh and the Holy Spirit coexist within us, so until we are in our transformed body, we will always have a hint of sin within us. We don’t have to act on it but some do. This is one of the “laws” that Paul mentioned.

Like I said, it is no pride nor arrogance. But you feel how you feel. You’ve been the only one calling me arrogant.

The Bible also tells us that we have a High Priest in Heaven that intercedes for us. And think about what you said, I’m not the final authority of anything. God and His Word. And I have nothing to fear. I don’t fear Satan and I surely don’t fear man. And to rebuttle, read 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

Peter could have been the head apostle, whatever, but the Bible states that there was 3 pillars of the church. What does that mean? So my interpretation isn’t wrong, go to who gives you instruction and ask about it. I want to know.

And you keep saying infallible. Peter wasn’t considered infallible, why should another man be. The only time the bible used infallible was talking about the works of Jesus.

And Catholic is a denomination, just like Protestant. It is a subgroup of Christianity, therefore it is a denomination. look up the definition

I’m sorry for the delays between post but I’m doing homework at the same time…

 

[guanophore]

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

No, the decisions made by the council in Jerusalem applied to the whole church throughout the world. If you do not believe in the infalllible authority of the Church councils, then you are in deep trouble. You have no Trinity, no Bible,no hypostatic union, no excuse for celebrating Sunday and not Saturday as the Sabbath. I recommend some Church history.

Here is a testimony from an early disciple:

Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.

1. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. Against Heresies (c. 180)

This has been the unbroken teaching of the Church since the beginning.

 

[jahsoul]

No need to interject a straw man arugrment since you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s quite clear that simply quoting Scripture is not under discussion, and I believe you know this.

What is being debated is your interpretations, which are pretty much all wrong since they start out in your own context of the Bible is all you need, you are your final interpreter, the Holy Spirit was promised to you to override what the Apostles taught, if it’s not in the Bible then it isn’t true, the Bible is easy to read and is plain as day… all of these contexts are false, no matter who is employing them.

The true context is that the Bible is a Catholic Church document and only makes sense in the context of Catholicism, as it was written by inspired Catholics for Catholics. God sends His Holy Spirit to protect the Church from teaching error to the faithful. The faithful are obedient to Christ by listening to those whom Christ sent. We can read the Bible, but must give right of final interpretation to the Pope and Magisterium, whom Christ established. This is the proper context of the Scriptures.

I said that to show, that you don’t give scriptural references to back up your claims. You can talk about context or whatever. And it’s not about the Apostles, it’s about Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost doesn’t override, in all actuality, it is equal to what they had. I’ve already gave you reference to this. The Holy Spirit lies within all of us who truly believe and there are several scriptures in the Bible that describes what the Holy Spirit does in us, not the church. Again, I don’t take away nothing from the church, but again I emphasize, the church doesn’t save. And a lot of the bible is clear. I don’t need a 4 paragraph explanation for “Jesus wept.”

You keep talking about Catholicism but you never talk about Christianity, which is the actually church (body of believers). And Christ can send anyone. God sent a donkey to speak to Balaam. If it is the truth, then I listen. But how can we know the Truth, unless we inquire of God, read and know his word. This isn’t the Bible day where there was very little access to the scripture. The word is readily available. The church gives instructions but when you read the Bible, it is a lot of self (not corporate) evaluation. Do you read the Word outside of church?

 

[po18guy]

You are correct in saying that in order to make an informed decision about Adventists, or any other denomination, including Catholics, you need to stay away from the anti movements, and go directly to the original source in question.

As far as the belief about “Michael” I haven’t time right now to dig up some notes I have on that, but I will come back in a day or so to post that info. I will say though that much of what I have seen here about what Adventists believe on this topic is mainly activist rhetoric and patently false.

Good to hear from you again, 101. I see you now claim Adventist in your profile, rather than Protestant. It is good to name it and claim it. As to claims about the SDA beliefs being falsely represented here, bring it on! Bring on the Jewish Sabbath, the “national Sunday Sabbath law”, the soul sleep, the soul annihilation, the temporary hell. Bring it on, so that all may be brought to light. Please relate it to how you know the SDA to be true to the exclusion of all other denominations.

 

[po18guy]

Because I confessed my sins before God, believed in my heart and spoke that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, turned from my wicked way, was baptized and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance…that’s how I know. How do you know?

Oh. I follow the teaching of the Church that is lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised in your bible.

Paul did state that but read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and see what he says about the Word of God. And again, refer to my first paragraph.

Well, also see what Jesus said as far as deciding disputes between believers (Matthew 18:15-17). He said to take it to the Church for the final determination. He did not say “let the Holy Spirit decide for you”! He gave final authority to the Church which He founded. You certainly rely on some spirit to lead you, but it has lead you into division. Is that really the Holy Spirit, or some other?

The Holy Spirit always unites.
The demon always divides.

God spoke TO Moses. And Moses was a angry, murderer…lol. I’m not rejecting anyone that the Lord has sent. Teaching is a gift of the spirit. Also ministry, prophecy, and even giving. You don’t have to be in the pulpit to teach but with ministry comes more. Teaching and ministry are two different gifts. I don’t know what Jesus was thinking but what he said was pretty clear. But don’t you think that the disciples to the people they witnessed to that, and the then the people told other people?

God spoke directly to Moses - not through His Spirit. Thus, Moses could not mistake the voice for any other. Spirits, however, can be mistaken for the Holy Spirit. They have lead Christendom into an almost fatal division. No way that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jahsoul]

Good to hear from you again, 101. I see you now claim Adventist in your profile, rather than Protestant. It is good to name it and claim it. As to claims about the SDA beliefs being falsely represented here, bring it on! Bring on the Jewish Sabbath, the “national Sunday Sabbath law”, the soul sleep, the soul annihilation, the temporary hell. Bring it on, so that all may be brought to light. Please relate it to how you know the SDA to be true to the exclusion of all other denominations.

Wow @ po18guy putting on the gameface.

 

[jahsoul]

Oh. I follow the teaching of the Church that is lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised in your bible.

Well, also see what Jesus said as far as deciding disputes between believers (Matthew 18:15-17). He said to take it to the Church for the final determination. He did not say “let the Holy Spirit decide for you”! He gave final authority to the Church which He founded. You certainly rely on some spirit to lead you, but it has lead you into division. Is that really the Holy Spirit, or some other?

The Holy Spirit always unites.
The demon always divides.

God spoke directly to Moses - not through His Spirit. Thus, Moses could not mistake the voice for any other. Spirits, however, can be mistaken for the Holy Spirit. They have lead Christendom into an almost fatal division. No way that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

You need to show me how you quote within the quote…but

We agree on the first…but as far as “tell it to the church,” he didn’t say the church was the final determination, Jesus said that it was the last resort. And this has nothing to do with scripture. This is just about disputes. Paul also talked about disputes in the church also. (1 Corinthians 6).

As far as the Holy Spirit, it also gives us discernment. If a spirit isn’t like God, you would know. You can tell a tree from its fruit.

And God spoke directly to Moses to speak to the rock and he hit it. The spirit can talk to us but what we do is on us.

 

[po18guy]

Wow @ po18guy putting on the gameface.

Oh, how I wish it was only a game…

 

[po18guy]

We agree on the first…but as far as “tell it to the church,” he didn’t say the church was the final determination, Jesus said that it was the last resort. And this has nothing to do with scripture. This is just about disputes. Paul also talked about disputes in the church also. (1 Corinthians 6).

Well, Jesus did make the Church the final say in such matters. He mentioned no higher authority on earth, and made it clear that we were to use His method in resolving disputes.

As far as the Holy Spirit, it also gives us discernment. If a spirit isn’t like God, you would know. You can tell a tree from its fruit.

However, the Holy Spirit still leads always to Christian unity. That is the true fruit of the Holy Spirit. Christ sent the Spirit, and also prayed fervently that we be “one, as the Father and I are one”. Unity is the primary fruit of the Spirit.

And God spoke directly to Moses to speak to the rock and he hit it. The spirit can talk to us but what we do is on us.

Still, I ask how you can be 100% certain that the spirit you follow is actually the Holy Spirit. The deceiver has many lying spirits who come to us disguised as holy, but are actually spirits of division. If the fruits of what you hear lead to division, then how can it be the Holy Spirit leading you? Remember that you will not like the leading of the Holy Spirit in many cases, because He is truth and our flawed human nature does not like the truth. If you are lead to division, or the fruit of what you do leads to division, how can that be God’s Holy Spirit?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No. there would be two gathered in His name, but Church requires structure. Jesus appointed that structure. Do you think He intended for the structure to collapse after the Apostles? When He said “I will be with you to the end of the age” do you think He just meant the Apostolic age? If that is the case, then none of us have any basis for pretending to be church at all. No such thing exists.

 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.

Now we are back to the question of the OP. Since you are not among those appointed by Christ as a teaching authority in the church, by what authority do you make such a statement? How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one.?

 

[guanophore]

Your church, however, considers anyone who doesn’t agree with them to be not only wrong, but ignorant, deluded and separated! Why can’t you just accept the gact, that we don’t believe that your pope is infallible, Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and that we don’t believe in purgatory? Sheesh!

We are not permitted to accept another gospel than the one which was delivered to us by the Apostles. In that Gospel, we received the instructions on infallibility, that Mary was a perpetual virgin,a nd that purgatory exists. Since these doctrines are part of the once for all deposit of faith that Christ gave to the Church, we are not at liberty to abandon them.

By the way, we see evidence of all these doctrines in Scripture. So the question remains, how do you know that your interpretation is correct, and the one passed on to us from the Apostles is wrong?

 

[Protestant101]

Good to hear from you again, 101. I see you now claim Adventist in your profile, rather than Protestant. It is good to name it and claim it. As to claims about the SDA beliefs being falsely represented here, bring it on! Bring on the Jewish Sabbath, the “national Sunday Sabbath law”, the soul sleep, the soul annihilation, the temporary hell. Bring it on, so that all may be brought to light. Please relate it to how you know the SDA to be true to the exclusion of all other denominations.

For three years I have had “Adventist” in my profile here. Where have you been? And in my post I mentioned that our belief about “Michael” is misrepresented here. I did not refer yet to any other of our beliefs. Therefore; I will address our interpretation on that point, when I get time to be here more than a minute or two.

 

[po18guy]

We are not permitted to accept another gospel than the one which was delivered to us by the Apostles. In that Gospel, we received the instructions on infallibility, that Mary was a perpetual virgin,a nd that purgatory exists. Since these doctrines are part of the once for all deposit of faith that Christ gave to the Church, we are not at liberty to abandon them.

By the way, we see evidence of all these doctrines in Scripture. So the question remains, how do you know that your interpretation is correct, and the one passed on to us from the Apostles is wrong?

Indeed! We are certainly seeing mountains of personal opinion here - most based upon snippets of scripture. Lots of “I think” and “I believe” and “I am lead by the spirit” and “I” this and “I” that, but very little “I am obedient” or “I denied myself”.
There is precious little that actually addresses the question: “How do you know?” Only the authority of self approves of most opinions here.

Jesus commanded: us to be in denial - of ourselves. What does appear is a lot of indulgence of the self - and from those who condemn indulgences!

 

[po18guy]

For three years I have had “Adventist” in my profile here. Where have you been? And in my post I mentioned that our belief about “Michael” is misrepresented here. I did not refer yet to any other of our beliefs. Therefore; I will address our interpretation on that point, when I get time to be here more than a minute or two.

Well, I very clearly remember “Protestant” as your specified religion. In spite of your protestations to the contrary, we are adequately aware of Adventist teaching.

The question is: How do you know that your (SDA) interpretation of scripture is correct and is exactly what Jesus taught us to follow?

 

[Protestant101]

Well, I very clearly remember “Protestant” as your specified religion. In spite of your protestations to the contrary, we are adequately aware of Adventist teaching.

The question is: How do you know that your (SDA) interpretation of scripture is correct and is exactly what Jesus taught us to follow?

There’s nothing to argue about. I have always called myself an Adventist here, in my profile. I have done this for over 3 years.

 

[po18guy]

There’s nothing to argue about. I have always called myself an Adventist here, in my profile. I have done this for over 3 years.

I defer to my brother in Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

You are correct in saying that in order to make an informed decision about Adventists, or any other denomination, including Catholics, you need to stay away from the anti movements, and go directly to the original source in question.

There’s a novel idea.