Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[Matariel]

Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one? the Holy Spirit

I guess that’s why there are so many divided and constantly splintering sects and denominations in Protestantism (which is condemned in the Epistles of St. Paul) and they disagree on all kinds of major issues and minor issues and then all blame the Holy Spirit for leading them to their conclusions? The Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos. And that’s what Protestantism, unfortunately, has sunk into. Even as a Protestant it greatly bothered me…

 

[elvisman]

I might agree that proclaiming the Holy Spirit is our guide constitutes a vague response (though I would add that colorizing half of your words makes responding to your posts unnecessarily difficult … LOL).

The Holy Spirit opens our hearts to Christ and through His workings God initiates our faith. However, we are still endowed with reason and intelligence, so we should never undervalue good old fashioned reading comprehension.

To say the Holy Spirit enables our ability to interpret scripture isn’t wrong, but to deny the role our rational intelligence plays is a fallacy (and can even be dangerous and overly divisive). After all if you have numerous parties who all disagree with one another … and they all claim superior spiritual insight, then what rational basis would we have to figure out who is right? Moreover, you will inevitably have people charging others who disagree with their views with false profession of faith.

Didn’t Paul say that we can only say Jesus is Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit? If that is true (and I believe it is) then all the faithful in Christ are endowed with the Spirit. Hence, saying the spirit is our guide doesn’t really add anything right? Yes the spirit is our guide, but when the spirit enters us He does not erase our intellect.

**That’s funny!! **
People on the board usually attack the color when they can’t offer a good response.

The question remains unanswered so I’ll ask it in a different way:
If you get your interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit - and not the Church to whom the Authority was given - how can yours be right and at the same time, the tens of thousands of Protestant sects be right as well?

PS - Oh, I almost forgot. Ummm . . . LOL . . .

 

[Hisalone]

That’s funny!!
People on the board usually attack the color when they can’t offer a good response.

The question remains unanswered so I’ll ask it in a different way:
If you get your interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit - and not the Church to whom the Authority was given - how can yours be right and at the same time, the tens of thousands of Protestant sects be right as well?

PS - Oh, I almost forgot. Ummm . . . LOL . . .

People object to the colors because **they are hard to read **and **you are obnoxious **with them.
Let me ask you this. If you hear from God and it is different than what soemone else says. who will you believe. Elvis the tens of thousands line has been disproved on a number of times why do you continue to spread untruths?

 

[elvisman]

People object to the colors because **they are hard to read **and **you are obnoxious **with them.
Let me ask you this. If you hear from God and it is different than what soemone else says. who will you believe. Elvis the tens of thousands line has been disproved on a number of times why do you continue to spread untruths?

That’s a silly argument. Most people are going to follow what they believe God told them - so we’re back at square one.

Secondly, those numbers haven’t been disproved but for the sake of argument, lets just say it’s 500.

Did the Holy Spirit reveal 500 differing, squabbling “truths”? 500 differing, squabbling translations? The answer is a resounding, “NO”.

Which one of those 500 “truths” will YOU believe, Hisalone?

 

[jlhargus]

JL: What was that fruit of the vine if not the blood of Christ, who said, Jn15:1 "I am the true VINE, and my Father is the gardener
christian1;4968884:

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING me.

He is also called ‘The Lion of Judah’ am I to think Him a literal lion?

The lamb of God… a literal lamb?

He said that we would have rivers of living water flowing out of our bellies too. Was that literal?

WHERE do you get off calling this ONE particular thing LITERAL, when all other such symbolism, you understand as symbolic???

He did just about EVERYTHING in parables which was prophesied. The bread was bread and a SYMBOL of His flesh. The wine was 'the fruit of the vine; JUST AS JESUS CALLED IT, right after He called it His blood.

Do you guys have any idea what SYMBOLIC means???

JL: No Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion, Christ was not a literal lamb and rivers of living water do not literally flow out of our bellies. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ said any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many FOLLOWED HIM NO MORE, when he said these things? NONE STOPPED following him, because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically.

When Christ said in Jn6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and THE BREAD that I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 THE JEWS therefore strove among themselves, SAYING, HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT? [They questioned HOW? because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal. Had I been there I would have thought he meant to eat and drink his blood after he died.]

Jn6:53 Then JESUS SAID unto them, VERILY, VERILY, I say unto you, EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON man, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. [Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. It was a hard saying, because they understood perfectly. His meaning was literal, not symbolic. A symbol would not have been A HARD SAYING, but an easy saying to accept.

Jn6:60 MANY therefore of his DISCIPLES, when they had heard this, SAID, THIS IS AN HARD SAYING, WHO CAN HEAR IT?

Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? [It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing HOW I was to eat his body and drink his blood. That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust. We know HOW now. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus did, Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, HE TOOK BREAD, and BLESSED it, AND BRAKE, and GAVE TO THEM. 31 And THEIR EYES WERE OPENED, and THEY KNEW HIM; and he vanished out of their sight. Lk24:35 And THEY TOLD what things were done in the way, and HOW HE WAS KNOWN of them IN BREAKING OF BREAD.]

Jn6:63 IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they ARE SPIRIT, AND they are LIFE. 64 But THERE ARE SOME of you THAT BELIEVE NOT. For JESUS KNEW from the beginning WHO they were that BELIEVED NOT, and WHO SHOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And HE SAID, Therefore said I unto you, that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT it were GIVEN unto HIM OF MY FATHER.

[Many Protestants say this proves, Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was after saying this that many of HIS DISCIPLES walked no more with him. Why would they leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They didn’t, they left because they knew and took him, at his WORD, literally. Our Lord says, “no man can come unto me, EXCEPT given him OF MY FATHER”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh. Thinking in a fleshy carnal way one cannot see as our Lord says, [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH THE SON, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.] How do we see our Lord? by faith taking him at his literal WORD. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus.

Jn 6:66 FROM THAT TIME MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WENT BACK, and WALKED NO MORE WITH HIM.

Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY? [Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone not even the apostles, not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? 62 WHAT and IF YE shall SEE THE SON of man ASCEND up WHERE HE WAS before?]. Peter seems to have taken it as a literal hard saying, not knowing HOW, we were to eat and drink Christ’s flesh and blood. Yet Peter accepted by faith knowing who Christ really was.]

Jn6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? THOU HAST THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. 69 And WE BELIEVE and are sure that THOU ART that CHRIST, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

70 JESUS ANSWERED them, HAVE NOT I CHOSEN YOU TWELVE, and ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL? 71 HE SPAKE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. [The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ. Judas turned away from the Lord, not believing in the literal meaning of transubstantiation.]

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

To substitute “highly favored” for “full of grace” presents a problem. The former, in English, could suggest levels of favor, and imply only “a” and not the ultimate level. Protestants prefer this, obviously.

And Cathlolics prefer the latter, obviously.

MrS:

But the original Greek word which Luke used, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is a perfect past participle. It does not “suggest” anything… rather it declares Mary as one who always had, and will continue forever to have a fullness of grace. This is not possible with original sin (Catholics believe that Mary’s Savior, Jesus, removed her sin prior to conception). This is not possible without God’s grace to keep her sinless.

It’s not a perfect, “past,” participle, but a “perfect, passive, participle. The same construction used in Eph 2:8, by grace you have been saved.

Therefore, each one who has been justified/saved by God, is also "declared {by God} as one who always, had, and will continue forever to have been saved” by God, and that is not possible without God’s grace to keep him saved.

Additionally, the word used to describe Mary in that passage is used only one other time in the NT in Eph 1:6 in the aorist, (a past completed act), and Eph 2:8 further confirms that the grace of salvation “freely bestowed” in Eph 1:6, is forever bestowed.

 

[MrS]

And Cathlolics prefer the latter, obviously.

It’s not a perfect, “past,” participle, but a “perfect, passive, participle. The same construction used in Eph 2:8, by grace you have been saved.

Therefore, each one who has been justified/saved by God, is also "declared {by God} as one who always, had, and will continue forever to have been saved” by God, and that is not possible without God’s grace to keep him saved.

Additionally, the word used to describe Mary in that passage is used only one other time in the NT in Eph 1:6 in the aorist, (a past completed act), and Eph 2:8 further confirms that the grace of salvation “freely bestowed” in Eph 1:6, is forever bestowed.

“passive” correction noted. Your followup is distorted however.

By grace you have been saved does not teach that you were always saved before the declaration of grace.

Your use of “declared” is the typical protestant argurment of a judical act… nowhere found in the Scriptures. But, it is a variation on many interpretations evolved in the last 500 years (most in the last 50).

A past completed act, is not quite the same as
a past began,
present still occuring,
and future to continue
act.

 

[SteveGC]

I might agree that proclaiming the Holy Spirit is our guide constitutes a vague response (though I would add that colorizing half of your words makes responding to your posts unnecessarily difficult … LOL).

The Holy Spirit opens our hearts to Christ and through His workings God initiates our faith. However, we are still endowed with reason and intelligence, so we should never undervalue good old fashioned reading comprehension.

To say the Holy Spirit enables our ability to interpret scripture isn’t wrong, but to deny the role our rational intelligence plays is a fallacy (and can even be dangerous and overly divisive). After all if you have numerous parties who all disagree with one another … and they all claim superior spiritual insight, then what rational basis would we have to figure out who is right? Moreover, you will inevitably have people charging others who disagree with their views with false profession of faith.

Didn’t Paul say that we can only say Jesus is Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit? If that is true (and I believe it is) then all the faithful in Christ are endowed with the Spirit. Hence, saying the spirit is our guide doesn’t really add anything right? Yes the spirit is our guide, but when the spirit enters us He does not erase our intellect.

You’re confusing reason, intelligence and intellect with authority. All have some degree of these first three gifts, some more than others. We are to use these talents in our lives, to absorb knowledge, communicate with others, function charitably in the world, etc. But these gifts are NOT intended to be used to discover revelation of truth. This has already been done. It was done through the gift of earthly Christian authority.

We seem to forget that the FIRST action of the Holy Spirit was to inspire specific humans. Without this happening first, no Bible would ever have been written. But we also forget that BEFORE there was inspired pen put to paper, an equally inspired act was entrusted to those given the Holy Spirit…and that was to teach the Truth which was already revealed to them…they didn’t have to go to Scripture (much of it not yet even written) to find it, although the OT supplemented what was orally taught to them by Christ. No. They, the originally inspired humans (apostles) were the key instruments of teaching the truth. When there were instances where they would reference the existing Scriptures, they would be the translators and interpretors…THEM ALONE. No one else interpreted Sacred Scripture. The Ethiopian Eunich is but one example.

So, the order in which things transpired…

• Christ teaches specific men all truth
  -Christ annoints specific men as authoritative
  -Holy Spirit comes to specific men to guard the truth
  -These men go out and teach what Christ taught them, using some existing inspired scripture to supplement their teaching (which they interpret)
  -These men, and others, write down much of what they taught
  -These men ordain, or lay hands on, other specific men (thus transmitting the original protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit as given to them by Christ)
  -These men continue the apostolic mission of teaching and interpreting
  -The writings (and the existing OT) get compiled by these other men who the original specific men laid hands on
  -Bible is canonized
  -These men lay hands on other men, to do the same function as the original did, (teaching, interpreting and shepherding, for all the faithful
  -Christ Himself, along with all of these men (from the original to today’s successors), along with all the faithful who acknowledge them as authoritative, are collectively known as The Church
  -1500 years later, it all gets messed up
  -But the Church will prevail, as promised

This doesn’t detract from the fact that the Holy Spirit is still the guide of all Christians. He certainly IS. But He’s guiding us TO the Truth, not guiding us to DISCERN it for ourselves. Seek and ye shall FIND…not…seek and ye shall define it through a book. To find something means it already exists, it’s not up to US to figure out what IT IS.

The only question remaining is…where is it? Who is the authority as granted by Christ Himself?

God Bless

 

[Howie01]

“passive” correction noted. Your followup is distorted however.

By grace you have been saved does not teach that you were always saved before the declaration of grace.

Then neither does it say that about Mary.

Greek grammar preceded the RCC; therefore, the RCC doesn’t define grammar, and grammar doesn’t bend simply because the RCC declared the IC an “infallible” dogma.

MrS:

Your use of “declared” is the typical protestant argurment of a judical act… nowhere found in the Scriptures. But, it is a variation on many interpretations evolved in the last 500 years (most in the last 50).

And yours is, IMO, the typical uninformed RC argument that it’s not a judicial act. Justification is logidzomaied, “to think,” “to impute,” “to reckon”, “to count,” “to account,” “to reason.”

Sanctification is the process of making one Holy, and righteous, not justification.

Again, you want to change the meaning of the word on the basis of an “infallible” teaching. Words are like grammar, they don’t change meaning because the RCC has made an “infallible” pronouncement.

MrS:

A past completed act, is not quite the same as
a past began,
present still occuring,
and future to continue
act.

A perfect, passive, participle describes the timing of a thing, the manner of receiving the thing, and the continuous action of the thing. It does that equally in every case. It doesn’t change what it states concerning those points from one person to another.

 

[MrS]

Then neither does it say that about Mary.

Greek grammar preceded the RCC; therefore, the RCC doesn’t define grammar, and grammar doesn’t bend simply because the RCC declared the IC an “infallible” dogma.

And yours is, IMO, the typical uninformed RC argument that it’s not a judicial act. Justification is logidzomaied, “to think,” “to impute,” “to reckon”, “to count,” “to account,” “to reason.”

Sanctification is the process of making one Holy, and righteous, not justification.

Again, you want to change the meaning of the word on the basis of an “infallible” teaching. Words are like grammar, they don’t change meaning because the RCC has made an “infallible” pronouncement.

A perfect, passive, participle describes the timing of a thing, the manner of receiving the thing, and the continuous action of the thing. It does that equally in every case. It doesn’t change what it states concerning those points from one person to another.

Yes, James White makes many of the same arguments… refuted at every turn by the more informed, Catholic and not Catholic.

By the way… Happy and Holy Feast Day

Today marks the day we are reminded of the single greatest event in the history of Mankind… as recorded in Luke, if you remember.

The Incarnation,… " and the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us…"

An assoc. pastor of the Calvinist persuasion said today, at a Bible study on ACTS…

“What? Incarnation? We don’t even know the day that Christ was born, much less when he was conceived”

Guess he will be doing other things on Good Friday and Easter too.

As to the authority to interpret and teach, well the Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church (there was no other), and the early Christians…(again there was no other faith community) into all Truth.

He also preceeds all grammer and current distortions of same. I do not claim to be the expert in Greek. I defer to others. Some can spin the language to sorta support what you say. They are current. They are wrong. Are you listening to them?

,

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

Yes, James White makes many of the same arguments… refuted at every turn by the more informed, Catholic and not Catholic.

What does James White have to do with the grammar in Lk 1: 28 and Eph 2:8? Nothing.

But what you show in the rejection of my argument is that you’re inconsistent in yours.

You can’t deny the grammar, my friend. Putting aside the fact that Lk 1:28 says nothing concerning an immaculate conception of Mary, or a sinless existence for her, a perfect, passive, participle isn’t one thing regarding the grace shown to Mary, and another regarding the salvation given to men.

Either you apply the grammar in the same way to both passages, or, you’re inconsistent, and your argument should be rejected by anyone reading it.

 

[MrS]

 

[SteveGC]

You can’t deny the grammar, my friend.

Perhaps he can’t. Perhaps he can. Guess it’s your word against his. Let’s see. I know zero Greek. I’ve heard both sides now. Who will I go with? Hmm. Both are convincing arguments.

Oh, I know. The one who has the backing of something infinitely larger than debates over grammar.

You see, Howie. THAT’s how disputes are SETTLED. It’s not about who’s the most convincing, or who sounds better educated…or even who actually IS better educated. None of that holds a candle to apostolic authority, which I’m sorry to report, has no link to the Reformers. Disputes are settled by the Church - but what Church do YOU go to do this? Or, are all disputes just settled by YOU?

 

[josie_L]

**That’s a silly **argument. Most people are going to follow what they believe God told them - so we’re back at square one.

Secondly, those numbers haven’t been disproved but for the sake of argument, lets just say it’s 500.

Did the Holy Spirit reveal 500 differing, squabbling “truths”? 500 differing, squabbling translations? The answer is a resounding, “NO”.

Which one of those 500 “truths” will YOU believe, Hisalone?

An exerpt taken from Adv. Haeres written by St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

“Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples . . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul, and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth.”

"For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world. . . " The Church’s message “is true and solid in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world.”

If only we can see this happen in our lifetime.

 

[josie_L]

What does James White have to do with the grammar in Lk 1: 28 and Eph 2:8? Nothing.

But what you show in the rejection of my argument is that you’re inconsistent in yours.

You can’t deny the grammar, my friend. Putting aside the fact that Lk 1:28 says nothing concerning an immaculate conception of Mary, or a sinless existence for her, a perfect, passive, participle isn’t one thing regarding the grace shown to Mary, and another regarding the salvation given to men.

Either you apply the grammar in the same way to both passages, or, you’re inconsistent, and your argument should be rejected by anyone reading it.

Do you agree that Jesus was sinless?

 

[elvisman]

An exerpt taken from Adv. Haeres written by St. Irenaeus of Lyons:

“Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples . . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul, and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth.”

"For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world. . . " The Church’s message “is true and solid in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world.”

If only we can see this happen in our lifetime.

Yes, if only.

---

Unfortunately, too many rebellious people seem to think they have a better way than God’s way . . .

 

[Soutane]

“And you believe that Catholics earn their salvation, don’t you, even though it is directly stated in the Cathecism that we believe and do no such thing (probably one of the reasons you are no longer Catholic). The grace which opened our heart, soul and mind in accepting Jesus was a purely unmerited gift, a gift, however, that entails bearing a cross in imitation of Christ. It is my opinion that those who believe in OSAS, do not want to carry the Cross.”

I had never considered that subscribers to the man-made recent heresy and presumptive sin of OSAS were in fact denying their responsibility of picking up their cross and carrying it.I see it now,clearly.Thank you Josie.A perfect and succinct apologetics response.

 

[SteveGC]

Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one? the Holy Spirit

And, therefore, there are literally HUNDREDS of “right ones”. Great theology.

**rel·a·tiv·ism (rěl’ə-tĭ-vĭz’əm)
*noun ***
A theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

 

[josie_L]

“And you believe that Catholics earn their salvation, don’t you, even though it is directly stated in the Cathecism that we believe and do no such thing (probably one of the reasons you are no longer Catholic). The grace which opened our heart, soul and mind in accepting Jesus was a purely unmerited gift, a gift, however, that entails bearing a cross in imitation of Christ. It is my opinion that those who believe in OSAS, do not want to carry the Cross.”

I had never considered that subscribers to the man-made recent heresy and presumptive sin of OSAS were in fact denying their responsibility of picking up their cross and carrying it.I see it now,clearly.Thank you Josie.A perfect and succinct apologetics response.

Thank you, Soutane. I try always to speak from the heart. God bless.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

well by you alls statement to my answer of interpretation, which should be yours as well cause Jesus said, "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you (John 14:26).

well if you don’t believe this then i can’t say much cause this is a promise to all believers. now go ahead with your argument who is right? you be the judge.

God bless you all