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

[christian1]

To MrS

A. Basil wrote in 370 AD:

“What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Basil, Letter 189, 3)
B. Our comments on what Basil wrote in 370 AD:

What a “flagship passage”! Every Roman Catholic and Orthodox priest should be required to hand scribe this text by Basil on parchment, rolled up and placed in a little clear bottle and hung around their neck!
For the Roman Catholics who refuse to believe that such words could fall from the lips of a Catholic bishop, the Pope describes Basil as, “one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church”.
One side of the debate cried, “my tradition is right”. The other side replied, “No, our tradition is right”.
But Basis says something far more important, “custom is to be taken in proof of what is right”, except in those cases when the opponent rejects this custom. Basil continues, in this case, “let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
We do not dispute that Basil clearly believes that “church tradition” is authoritative, (ie. something that has been practiced for a long time should take precedence over some new doctrine.) But Basil’s next statement should send chills up the spine of Orthodox and Catholic leaders. Basis says that when unity cannot be attained by first appealing to “church tradition”, then the highest court of appeal is to debate the matter directly from scripture!
This is exactly what Protestants have been saying all along! Furthermore, Catholic and Orthodox bishops are forbidden to even debate Protestants! Sure some powerless but ambitious pew-dwelling Catholic might want to debate, but what’s the point, when they don’t even believe they can even understand the scriptures themselves! But Protestants know just how easy it is to defeat such “defenders of Orthodoxy” in scriptural debates.
In the end, Basis gives good advice to all Catholics who just say, "the Pope is right, forget the scriptures

 

[christian1]

To MrS

taken from same site I believe as have the previous

Orthodox leaders accuse the Roman Catholics of heresy!

A. Clark Carlton, Orthodox defender, wrote this about Catholic doctrine:

"In defending sola Scriptura, Protestant apologists invariably use Roman Catholic theology as a foil. It is asserted that Roman Catholics accept two sources of authority-Scripture and tradition-and that tradition is given equal weight with Scripture. Second, it is asserted that Roman Catholic reliance on tradition has resulted in the modern doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. From these premises, Protestants conclude that sola Scriptura is the only safeguard against aberrant doctrinal developments. First of all, the doctrinal aberrations of the Roman Catholic Church are manifestly not part of the universal tradition of the Church. The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church has never accepted the Roman Catholic assertion that there are two sources of authority. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine Scriptures are part-albeit the most important part-of that tradition. To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 135)
B. Our comments about what Clark Carlton said:

First, we completely agree with Clark Carlton’s criticism that the Catholic doctrines of “universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception” are false because they violate the record of history. In other words, they are doctrines that clearly never entered the minds of the apostles. The earliest Apostolic Fathers also knew nothing about them. But Carlton misses the most important proof they are false: Forget tradition, they are not taught in the Bible and if they are not in the Bible, they are false man-made theology!
Carlton is walking a very fine tightrope in his criticism of the Catholic false doctrine. Carlton really shows his true colours when he says: “To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog.” Wrong Carlton, the Bible is the dog and the church is the tail! You have it all backwards!
Yet the Roman Catholic church will argue with the Orthodox church over whose tradition is the pure apostolic bloodline! Notice that while Carlton criticizes the Catholics for being untraditional (a charge Catholics accuse of the Orthodox) he still can’t let the scriptures be the king of the hill! He still has to squeeze in his tradition… which in the orthodox case, as i the Catholic, is whatever the Orthodox church is teaching today.
While Carlton says, the “Immaculate Conception” of the virgin Mary, is “not part of the universal tradition of the Church”, he knows that the doctrine of praying to the saints and Mariolatry are also as untraditional as they are unscriptural.

 

[MrS]

What does your doctrine really say about that? Are the ones that will be saved predestined? If so, how are they predestined?

help… what do you understand by “pre-destined”

The Catholic Church does teach predestination… but not “double” predestination.

God did make us all with His “intent” that we all be saved. He gave us the free will in His design of us to cooperate with Him.

but not to the point that he intended (predestined?) some to fail.

.

 

[christian1]

To MrS

Because these verses so clearly contradict Catholic doctrine, Catholic interpreters will insist these are cousins, kinsmen, or from a supposed earlier marriage of Joseph. Of course, the Bible proves all these things wrong. The Catechism gives this ridiculous and incorrect explanation:

“The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500).

Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3

Cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word. John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother.

The Catholic Catechism says of these verses: “The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ…” Pg. 126 #500).

The Catholic church teaches that the Mary in these passages is the mother of Jesus, but Jesus brothers and sisters are children of another woman also named Mary. The children are so clearly the offspring of the “Mary” of this passage, that the Pope has come to the conclusion is must be a different Mary! Incredible!

Now read it for yourself from the scripture and see if you agree with the Catholic church that the Mary of these passages is both the mother of Jesus and the mother of James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”
Are you still Roman Catholic after reading that?

 

[christian1]

To MrS

Same site. Please read and consider. Sorry so long.

John 2:12 & John 7:1 & Acts 1:14 & Galatians 1:19 & 1 Corinthians 9:5

These verses prove beyond any question that Jesus had literal blood brothers through Mary. Notice that brother cannot refer to “brethren in the church” kind of usage because other “brethren in the church” are listed beside “Jesus brothers”. Of the 20+ times “Jesus brothers” are referred to. NEVER are they called cousins or relatives. How could the Holy Spirit say it to make the fact any clearer?

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.
John 7:1 And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here, and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may behold Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. 6 Jesus therefore *said to them, "My time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune. 7 "The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil. 8 “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.” 9 And having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. 10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret.
Acts 1:14 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
Galatians 1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
1 Corinthians 9:4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Colossians 4:10

Cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word.

Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him);
The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsios or sungenis in reference to Jesus brothers. For Catholic doctrine to be true,

Greek Dictionary: cousin/Relative:

anepsios (ajneyiov" , (431)), in Col. 4:10 denotes a cousin rather than a nephew (A.V., “sister’s son”). “Cousin” is its meaning in various periods of Greek writers.¶ In this sense it is used in the Sept., in Numb. 36:11.¶ In later writings it denotes a nephew; hence the A.V. rendering. As Lightfoot says, there is no reason to suppose that the Apostle would have used it in any other than its proper sense. We are to understand, therefore, that Mark was the cousin of Barnabas.
sungenis (suggeniv" , (4773)) in Luke 1:36 (so in the most authentic mss.) and sungeneµs in ver. 58 (plural), A.V., “cousin” and “cousins,” respectively signify “kinswoman” and “kinsfolk,” (R.V.); so the R.V. and A.V. in 2:44 and 21:16. The word lit. signifies ‘born with,’ i.e., of the same stock, or descent; hence kinsman, kindred. See Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinswoman.
Note: In Col. 4:10, A.V., anepsios (cp. Lat., nepos, whence Eng., nephew), a cousin (so, R.V.), is translated “sister’s son.” See Cousin.¶
John 1:41

the term brother is never used in the New Testament to denote a cousin or relative or anything other than a literal BROTHER.

John 1:41 He *found first his own brother Simon, and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah”

 

[elvisman]

You also read RC out of context, elvisman, I know first hand, that RC agrees with me, and not with you.

Paul is not using Israel as a warning, but is explaining why the Roman Christians ought not to boast that they’re better than Israel—had there been no secure promise to Israel, there would have been no secure promise to Gentiles. Read the chapter in its context.

IYO.

So RC told you this*** personally*****, did he? That’s what “first hand” means.**
Anything else is secondary.

---

Boy, if this conversation with you has proven anything, it’s that there are so many Protestants out there who twist the scripture to their own destruction. 10,000 different interpretations mean 10,000 different denominations. 20,000 means 20,000 and so on . . .

---

One last question for you because no Protestant I’ve asked seems to be able to answer this:
If your interpretation is right and the thousands of different, bickering denominations believe theirs to be right - who is right?
You can’t ALL be . . .

---

PS - Before you answer with, “We all agree on the main things”, you don’t. Show me the list that you all agreed upon.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Part II

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=324962

 

[Howie01]

To Howie again:

I see your busy. I just didn’t want you to forget my question in the mix.

I’ll post it again.

What does your doctrine really say about that? Are the ones that will be saved predestined? If so, how are they predestined?

Here’s a link for you with some things to read. Predestination.

 

[Howie01]

elvisman:

Boy, if this conversation with you has proven anything, it’s that there are so many Protestants out there who twist the scripture to their own destruction. 10,000 different interpretations mean 10,000different denominations. 20,000 means 20,000and so on . . .

And how do you view the SSPX, sedevacantists, liberals, traditionals, cafeterias in your own faith tradition, and those Catholics who disagree with you on what it is that constitutes RCism?

elvisman:

One last question for you because no Protestant I’ve asked seems to be able to answer this:
If your interpretation is right and the thousands of different, bickering denominations believe theirs to be right - who is right?
You can’t ALL be . . .

I’m not concerned with what others believe, but with those who are in the Reformed tradition. Those outside do not follow SS.

elvisman:

PS - Before you answer with, “We all agree on the main things”, you don’t. Show me the list that you all agreed upon.

 

[josie_L]

I have answered the question, Josie.

No, you have not, you keep vacillating back and forth while rearranging definitions to suit your heretical OSAS.

God justifies sinners.

**God justifies sinners (not the sin), and then what, are we to continue to live in our sins? **

Entrance into heaven is not based upon the perfection of the redeemed sinner, but upon the perfection of Christ.

Wrong, entrance into Heaven entails that the redeemed sinner is or has been sanctified, that is, holy, as no unclean thing can enter into Heaven. We are not to rely on Christ’s perfection to gain us entrance into Heaven, otherwise every Christian no matter how sinful would get into Heaven. This is not why Jesus died for us.

P.S. You make no sense, previously you wrote that our (our obedience in) faith justifies us, and now you state we are justified by God through Jesus which basically means we only have to believe in Jesus with our words to be justified. .

 

[Jerry_Marino]

How is it that you are not already judged if you are already saved?

Also, if you agree you must confess sin, which you stated above, why do you not believe this confession (repentance) is necessary for your salvation?

i am justified my friend and so are you if you put your faith in Christ.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith James 2:18] apart from works of the law.

James 2: 18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

as for judgement: which one are you talking about?

 

[Howie01]

P.S. You make no sense, previously you wrote that our (our obedience in) faith justifies us, and now you state we are justified by God through Jesus which basically means we only have to believe in Jesus with our words to be justified. .

I’m certain I’ve not said that Josie. If you think I have, give the post number to which you’re referring.

 

[josie_L]

And how do you view the SSPX, sedevacantists, liberals, traditionals, cafeterias in your own faith tradition, and those Catholics who disagree with you on what it is that constitutes RCism?

They do not define Catholic doctrine, so no matter what you say of individual Catholics they do not have to power to change the truth given to us by the Apostles.

 

[Howie01]

No, you have not, you keep vacillating back and forth while rearranging definitions to suit your heretical OSAS.

I don’t vascillate in my theology, Josie, you’re confused on that, IMO.
josie L:

God justifies sinners (not the sin), and then what, are we to continue to live in our sins?

The regenerate do sin, but will not live in a continuous pattern of sin.
josie L:

Wrong, entrance into Heaven entails that the redeemed sinner is or has been sanctified, that is, holy, as no unclean thing can enter into Heaven. We are not to rely on Christ’s perfection to gain us entrance into Heaven, otherwise every Christian no matter how sinful would get into Heaven. This is not why Jesus died for us.

You’re relying on the Rev 21 passage as an apologetic from someone else without understanding what’s being said.

Only Christians, specifically those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of Life, will enter the kingdom.

“Unclean” is another way of saying “unbelievers.”

Entrance into the kingdom is not based upon your righteousness, but Christ’s (2 Cor 5:21).

 

[josie_L]

I’m certain I’ve not said that Josie. If you think I have, give the post number to which you’re referring.

Earlier, you stated that we are justified by faith (which entails obedience), logically then we are justified by how we live out our faith, then you stated in your last post that we are justified by God (through Jesus) implying that we are not justified by how we live out our faith but by Jesus’s own perfection.

Quite frankly its getting harder and harder to understand your posts because you confuse words such as redemption, salvation, and justification simultaneously.

 

[Howie01]

Earlier, you stated that we are justified by faith (which entails obedience), logically then we are justified by how we live out our faith, then you stated in your last post that we are justified by God (through Jesus) implying that we are not justified by how we live out our faith but by Jesus’s own perfection.

Give me a post number where I’ve said that, Josie.

I think what you’re doing is imposing your framework of justification onto mine. For you, your works are not merely an outward showing of faith, but contribute to your justification per Trent, sixth session, and per the CCC.

I believe scripture presents justification as a once-for-all-time, never to be repeated event, in which no one is more justified than any other, and that one is never anymore justified before God than He is when God first declares Him to be justified.

Many justified are certainly more mature, and holy than others who are justified, but that’s sanctification, and not justification.
josie L:

Quite frankly its getting harder and harder to understand your posts because you confuse words such as redemption, salvation, and justification simultaneously.

I understand. You believe that Christ redeemed all, but that one must believe, and be baptized for justification, and must continue in that justification, dying in a state of grace, and that the final outcome of one’s salvation cannot be known until the time of his death. So, you believe that justification can be lost, that’s why you can’t know until death whether or not you’re saved. I don’t believe justification can be lost.

 

[elvisman]

And how do you view the SSPX, sedevacantists, liberals, traditionals, cafeterias in your own faith tradition, and those Catholics who disagree with you on what it is that constitutes RCism?

**This is what I can say about any so-called Catholic who does not believe in Catholic Doctrine: **
They are not Catholic - they are Protestant. When it comes to being in full communion with the Church - the cafeteria is closed.

I’m not concerned with what others believe, but with those who are in the Reformed tradition. Those outside do not follow SS.

Just what I thought - another cop-out.
So everybody who doesn’t adhere to your tradition is eternally lost?

 

[josie_L]

I don’t vascillate in my theology, Josie, you’re confused on that, IMO.

The regenerate do sin, but will not live in a continuous pattern of sin.

Are we too free ourselves of sin, are we not to be sanctified through our faith?

You’re relying on the Rev 21 passage as an apologetic from someone else without understanding what’s being said.

No I am not.

Only Christians, specifically those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of Life, will enter the kingdom.

And how do we know whose names are written in the book of life, did you take a look at it?

“Unclean” is another way of saying “unbelievers.”

And another way of saying impure believers.

Entrance into the kingdom is not based upon your righteousness, but Christ’s (2 Cor 5:21).

No it is not based on Christ’s righteousness, otherwise we are justified by his perfection alone and not by our faith working in love.

If you believed in Purgatory this conversation would make much more sense.

 

[Howie01]

This is what I can say about any so-called Catholic who does not believe in Catholic Doctrine:
**They are not **Catholic - they are Protestant. When it comes to being in full communion with the Church - the cafeteria is closed.

Of course.

Just what I thought - another cop-out.
So everybody who doesn’t adhere to your tradition is eternally lost?

A presumptive “jump to conclusion.” Wrong again, elvisman.

 

[Howie01]

If you believed in Purgatory this conversation would make much more sense.

I would believe in purgatory if the scripture taught it; but it doesn’t.