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

[Howie01]

MrS:

The Bible is no more a “supplement” to the Magisterium for the Church, than the Holy Spirit is a supplement to the Father and the Son.

They all work in unison, and they all support each other.

I see. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one God. Is your use of comparison between them to demonstrate that the Bible and the magisterium are one as well?

MrS:

All the Truth was given to the Apostles, not to everyone. They became the conduit or the teaching Authority in the One Church to [t]hose who by grace came fully to the Lord in that One Church.

Over time, erroneous letters crept in to join the authentic letters coming from the early Church leaders… not the followers.

I see, and do you hold that the letters of the ECFs are on par with inspired Scripture?

MrS:

In time … Much, not all, of the original ORAL teaching was written down, and MUCH, not all of those written letters were determined by the Catholic Church (under the guidance of that same Holy Spirit) to be the canon of Scripture.

OK. Can you authentic the ORAL teaching that was not written down as having been indeed taught by the apostles to certain writers, orally, by citing writings of ECFs who attribute this or that oral teaching as having been taught specifically to them by this or that apostle?

**Why would the Holy Spirit inspire **Catholic writers

…Again, ISTM that you are saying that after the apostles, God raised up other writers whose writings are on par with the inspired writings of the apostles; is that what you’re saying? If so, how do you support that?

MrS:

Fact is that He did just that. Then along came men and women who rejected authority, chose to be outside the Catholic Church… and now verse-pick and mis interpret to “justify” their erroneous teaching.

Sad.

Please explain to me how your “verse picking” is different from the “verse picking” of others, if, as it’s being posited by Catholics on this thread, ordinary humans have no real authority to interpret Scripture? If that’s what you believe, how is that you, an ordinary human, has arrived at an authoritative understanding of something which you have no authority to discern?

MrS:

Their error is that they should tell you that you have to join Jesus’ Church. It is not ours.

That’s not the Gospel, MrS; is it?

 

[Scarred]

In all honesty, I don’t care to much for Denominationalism. As long as you have all your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, your ok (imo). So I don’t know if my denomination’s (go to a Baptist Church and a Non-denominational Church) interpretation of the Bible is “Correct” but I do know that we all believe in the Word of Christ.

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Let’s rephrase then. The Bible is Sacred, and held to the highest level of importance, ALONG WITH Sacred Tradition, which is founded upon the oral teachings of Christ, as administered unto all the earth by the HUMAN teachers He appointed.

How do you authenticate Sacred Tradition founded upon oral teachings of Christ as truly being oral teachings of Christ? Is there any statement in Scripture concerning these oral teachings?

SteveGC:

As such, Tradition is fully supported by Scripture, and Scripture fully supplements the Tradition of the Church.

To which oral teachings, fully supported by Scripture, are you referring?

SteveGC:

You don’t submit to the truth I just proclaimed, which is that The Church is guardian of The Truth. It’s found in His written word, AND the teaching Traditions of His apostles and their ordained successors.

But how do you know “it’s” found in His written word if you don’t have the authority to determine what the written word says? And if you do have the authority to determine what the written says, why do you deny that authority to me?

SteveGC:

Power lies in Christ. But Christ is not confined to a Book. His teachings were not just written. This is why He had apostles, and not dictation secretaries. He never commissioned a book to be compiled and canonized for the masses, but rather, humans to go out and teach - teach that which was ORALLY taught to them.

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures AGAINST TREACHEROUS ERRORS, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers FROM THE SCRIPTURES, for He [Christ] foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch BUT would have something to read.

Augustine, In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. See NPNF Series I. VII:469.Augustine says nothing here about Christ wanting to lay a firm foundation against error in Tradition, but in Scriptures. And Augustine also says nothing about Christ wanting to confirm the heart of believers from Tradition, but from the Scriptures.

SteveGC:

You think about that the next time you pick up your Bible. It’s in your hands because the ordained humans wanted you to have it.

It’s in my hands because God wanted me to have it, my friend.

SteveGC:

Look, both of our authorities lies in Christ Jesus. But your preachers do not claim, nor can show, their unbroken line of succession to the Apostles themselves, who received Christ’s authority. They cannot show this historically. So how is it you can trust their authenticity? How can you comfortably be swayed by what they teach you, if they come not from apostolic origin?

How do you know about apostolic succession if human beings have no authority to discern what the Bible states about that, if anything?

SteveGC:

Respectfully, No sir. Retrace the origin of this discussion. I asked about teaching authority…you responded with the passage about faith, not teaching. Seems you might be steering. Or innocently misunderstanding the points of this discussion?

Steve, the quote to which you’re referring wasn’t directed to you, but to josie L. You’re steering.

SteveGC:

That’s productive. What’s THAT got to do with anything? I was well aware from the first moment you responded to a post of mine weeks ago that you couldn’t care less about my thoughts. For it was clear you weren’t here to partake of the purposes of this website (learning the Catholic faith)…but rather, your intent is clearly to refute Catholicism and perhaps proselytize Catholics out from The Church.

ISTM you’re poisoning the well. Ignore me then, Steve, if what I’m saying upsets you.

 

[MrS]

Is there any statement in Scripture concerning these oral teachings?

.

Are you familiar with any statement in Scripture that states not everything Jesus taught will be found in Scripture?

/

 

[SteveGC]

Howie, since you like Augustine, let’s go ahead and look at something else you might be interested in…from* De Doctrina Christiana Book III 2:2:
*
But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things

What are we to make of this authority of The Church to which Augustine refers?

But how do you know “it’s” found in His written word if you don’t have the authority to determine what the written word says? And if you do have the authority to determine what the written says, why do you deny that authority to me?

I don’t claim authority. I align myself with authority. I deny authority to myself, not just you.

It’s in my hands because God wanted me to have it, my friend.

Perhaps, but you got it from the Church, which is God’s own.

Steve, the quote to which you’re referring wasn’t directed to you, but to josie L. You’re steering.

This petty ‘steering’ dispute detracts from our other (apparently pointless) debate. But for the record, if you carefully move forward from post #853, you will clearly see that FAITH was never brought up…not even by you. It was always about teaching authority. You steered the topic toward faith ONLY when I called you out on it on post 877, when you pasted in Romans 10:17 on post 862. Nuff said?

ISTM you’re poisoning the well. Ignore me then, Steve, if what I’m saying upsets you.

Poisoning the well? With what? I do not ignore posters who work toward purposefully refuting Catholicism through ignorance and bias. I don’t get upset. I defend the faith.

God Bless

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

Dear Protestants,

Whence do you have authority to interpret the Bible as you do, since it is certainly a text which requires interpretation (Acts viii, 31), and it does not admit private interpretation (II Peter i, 20)? Do you believe that you are right as a “holy man of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 21), and if so, why? How do you know that your interpretation is the right one, above that of the other several thousand denominations equally assured of the veracity of theirs, which they in contradiction to all the others?
Reply With Quote

Romans 10:9-10 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

Does this text need to be interpreted for you or do you have enough common sense to understand what you read? I am not trying to attack you or anything like that, but it seems like a fair question. Philip says ‘guide’. We all need someone to guide us that knows more than we do, just as Christ guided His apostles. It does not say ’ interpret it for me and I will believe anything that you say it means". This was especially a problem when the Catholic church banned everyone from owning a copy of the bible. The people were dependent on what the priest told them it means. How were they supposed to know if what they were being taught was the truth?

Actually, Peter is speaking about prophesies specifically but I understand what you are trying to say. The question to ask is this: Are the differences between Catholics and Protestants ( or even the differences between Prots and Prots) salvation issues?

Look at it this way:

Jesus is the one that saves us, right? Mary does save us, the pope does not save us and a priest does not save us. It is the blood of Christ that saves us. So, whether you ‘venerate’ Mary, confess to a priest in a box or believe that a man in a robe is infallible, doesn’t really matter. The real question is: What must we have to obtain salvation?

 

[MrS]

Look at it this way:

Jesus is the one that saves us, right? Mary does save us, the pope does not save us and a priest does not save us. It is the blood of Christ that saves us. So, whether you ‘venerate’ Mary, confess to a priest in a box or believe that a man in a robe is infallible, doesn’t really matter. The real question is: What must we have to obtain salvation?

All normal dialogue we seen consistently from those outside the Catholic Church.

How are we saved? Catholic deny Sola Fide and Sola Scripturea. Perhaps the simply explanation is we are saved Sola Gratia…

However it is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, working in Love.

God will not save us without our cooperation. It is His plan that gives us His Son, and His Son who gives us the “tools” and the path… and The Holy Spirit who gives us the grace and guidance to attain eternal companionship with God.

But we have to cooperate.

So, yes, there are differences between The Gospel of Jesus Christ found only in the Catholic Church… and the Gospel Of Jesus Christ which tens of thousands of non Catholic faith communities are satisfied with.

In your short statement above you have made 3 common errors concerning the Catholic Church. So what you are saying is not only wrong, it is misleading. And the “fruits” of your statement all have one thing in common… authority.

Protestants have that in common… a denial of some or much authority that Jesus gave in His own words to His one Church.

Who is saved? That is God’s judgment, not ours. The Catholic Church exists to help everyone to be saved. Every other faith community actually is an obstacle, a barrier, to the fullness of the Truth.

.

 

[jlhargus]

so according to your argument that Jesus is only speaking to his eleven then how do you all get the eucharist cause He only spoke to the eleven so you cup doesn’t hold much water.

1 corinthians 12:13

as for the Holy Spirit only for the elite eleven, in the book of Acts, the day of pentecost.

JL: We get the eucharist cause the aposles ordained by laying on of hands and SENT men for this purpose, so our cup runeth over. All Christians receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, but all do not receive the same gift. Are you a pastor and preacher, if not why? Don’t you have the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t one have to be called, ordained and SENT with that gift of ministy? Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT? [Can an invisiable church SEND anyone?] Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES; JN 17:18 As you have SENT me into the world I also SENT them into the world 1Cor12:28 And IN THE CHURCH GOD HAS APPOINTED first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? [Mt 28:16 the eleven disciples 18 Jesus spoke to THEM ALL POWER IS GIVEN TO ME in heaven and in earth 19 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 TEACHING to observe ALL things whatever I have COMMANDED you I AM WITH YOU always even TO THE END.]

The apostles were SENT to TEACH ALL NATIONS ALL CHRIST COMMANDED, TILL THE END. The apostles pass on their ministry and authority by laying on of hands in ordination, called the sacrament of holy orders and this will continue till the end as Christ promised. [2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER. Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. ACTS 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. ACTS 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. 1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.] I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not ordained and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained. Except false teachers, who may even have been ordained by laying on of hands, but not SENT by the FELLOWSHIP. They go out on their own authority, I have no doubt they used and thought scripture supported their theology. Acts15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that CERTAIN which WENT OUT FROM US have troubled you with words SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT Jer23:21 I DID NOT SEND these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied [Those not sent are false teachers.] 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR

 

[jlhargus]

Romans 10:9-10 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

JL: So now that I have read this one scripture, I can ditch the church and also the bible. All I need is a holy leaflet of Romans 10:9-10 to be saved, nothing more.

Does this text need to be interpreted for you or do you have enough common sense to understand what you read?

JL: I don’t need this interpreted for me, but would you interprete for me 1Tm3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is **THE CHURCH **of the living God, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH.

This was especially a problem when the Catholic church banned everyone from owning a copy of the bible. The people were dependent on what the priest told them it means. How were they supposed to know if what they were being taught was the truth?

JL: Could you produce a Church document banning everyone from owning a copy of the bible? I would really like to see that, or are you simply passing on a myth?

Jesus is the one that saves us, right? Mary does save us, the pope does not save us and a priest does not save us. It is the blood of Christ that saves us. So, whether you ‘venerate’ Mary, confess to a priest in a box or believe that a man in a robe is infallible, doesn’t really matter. The real question is: What must we have to obtain salvation?

Right, Jesus and only Jesus saves, but he uses people, prayer, preachers, his word, his ministers, etc., read 1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in **DOING THIS ****YOU SHALT **you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.] James5:20 remember this: WHOEVER TURNS A SINNER from the error of his way **WILL SAVE HIM **from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

others to accomplish this also.

 

[christian1]

Part 1

It’s me Christian1, I’m back. The last post I read referred to someone accusing me of taking credit for someone elses writing. I wanted to apologize for neglecting to put the link, thought I had, but I believe (mabybe I’m wrong) that all those who were involved in the conversation at the time of the post knew I had pasted such a lengthy article. I also figured it was obviously put together by somebody other than myself. Oh well, apologies to the guy who was offended over it.

I read the links given by…I can’t remember who, but they know who they are and I just wanted to say thanks for the tip. I also was sorry to learn that the majority of the evidence points outside of scripture and truly that is not the major problem. I also noted that the particular scripture that proves Mary wasn’t a virgin:

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not **till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I just want to say something here. In all other places in scripture, the word ‘till’ and ‘until’ both bearing the same meaning, denote a place in time.

Also, to know her, meant to have sex.

I cannot fathom, why this plain meaning has been overlooked by you guys and your authorities to mean something than it plainly states.

An assumption is drawn that Joseph **‘must have been’ **old in age and widowed with children. Hence is where his brothers and sisters came from. Then we learn later, that the words used for brother and sister were interchangable with cousin. Thus came the new justification proof for Mary’s evervirginity. And the catholic church **‘doesn’t mind’ **if it’s followers hold to ‘either’.

This is one of those examples of division. The Catholic Church claims to be like minded and in unity. But it is not. And if we divided them by these differences of opinion concerning doctrine and dogma and discipline, it would probably reflect the sort of division one sees in the protestant religions.

But even if it wasn’t as greatly divided as the protestants are, even if it was divided only once, the infallable dogma would be a lie.

You see, protestants don’t believe that we cannot error. We believe that we can sin, we can twist scripture and thus is why the heart of every believer is accountable to itself. If we trust a mans interpretation of scripture, then we no longer rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us out of error.

I believe to error, is not uncommon scripturally. Christ reprimanded the churches in revelation. That was your church. They were ‘in sin’. And if they did not repent, they would be removen from their position in Christ.

If then, they could sin and be removed from their position, where is the infallability? They were embracing false teachings ‘contrary’ to the gospel they were first given.

You say he was speaking to small individual churches, and not to the ‘main mother church’.

And then you claim ever unity of the catholic church. There were seven churches mentioned. Six of them were found wanting, in different areas.

You say the church is the authority. Then Christ was speaking then to the authorities of those churches. They were responsible for allowing this sin. They were responsible to stop it.

How can such a unified group of believers be so divided? When I look at it, I tell you, it looks as though I’m looking at the diversity of the protestant religion. But you say the first churches were Catholic. Therefore you agree that your first churches from very early were already participating in rebellion and disobedience to the doctrine of the gospel. That means, they were teaching, preaching and embracing ANOTHER doctrine in order to forsake the first.

How can this be? You say, only the pope has infallable authority over matters of morals and faith. Therefore the authorities of all the other churches under it are subject to infallability. And indeed they are. But the infallability of the pope has not been scripturally found or supported. But error in the church from the beginning has.

Why would Paul go throug such great lengths to warn the saints of falling into error if the Holy Spirit would not allow it? Why?

Sin is not restricted from tempting especially those who are in Christ. The heart of every man is a kingdom. Satan comes for every mans kingdom and every man is responsible for his own kingdom ultimately. My next post will show this.

 

[christian1]

Part 2

Read the scirptures below **in light **of deception in the church.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

Peter was speaking to the saints. The future teachers of the word being passed to them.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Again to the saints. The future teachers of the word being passed through them.
Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Act 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
Act 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Again to the saints, the teachers of the word being passed to them.

Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

To the disciples, warning them of the false doctrines taught by the authority ordained by God in Jesus day. If those who were ordained by God unto authority could be decieved and teach false doctrine, what exempts us? Is not the ordination of the priests as binding in the old testament as the ordination of yours?

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

To the disciples. False prophets. If it were not something they could fall into, why warn against it?

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

To the saints. Plainly teaches here that one can fall away after having the fullness of God.

Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

**To the church, it plainly shows that they must hold fast to what He taught till HE COMES BACK. **

This also shows that the letters to the church are not just for the churches then, but for those who would be here when He returns.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

**To the saints, the teachers after the disciples, shows that one can sin after having received the knowledge of the truth. Why did you remove the possibility of error when the scriptures plainly teach there can, would, and will continue to be such a possibility until Christ return?

If then, those teachers after the disciples were being warned of such things, why then, are your popes beyond the possibility of error in matters of moral and faith when the authorities of the first churches were not? Your claim goes against all scripture and has not one to support that we would be infallable in** ANYTHING.

To MrS:
**
you said:**
Those who claim the authorithy (not the expertise, not the high degree of intelligence) include the Catholic Church and all the faith communities that came after and continue to sprout up. Since they differ on some very major areas, we have got to agree that AT LEAST ALL BUT ONE are wrong.

We can surely agree that there is error. But what we cannot agree on, is that your church alone is exempt from it. No scripture supports this, and Christ reprimanding the churches (your churches) in revelation proves this.

 

[christian1]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie01
It’s in my hands because God wanted me to have it, my friend.

Perhaps, but you got it from the Church, which is God’s own.*

---

I must compare. Were not the holy oracles of God in the old testament entrusted to the priests. A long line of succession I might add.

And were these priests found to be infallable? No. They were not as Jesus clearly taught the disciples.

These were ORDAINED priests, distributing the HOLY ORACLES. They were THE AUTHORITY of the Old Testament, ORDAINED by God, but NOT EXEMPT from the sin of error. The oracles themselves did not have error. But the deliverer’s, the keepers, the writers, those who passed them on, as they were commanded to, DID. In fact, these ORDAINED AUTHORITIES, even created THEIR OWN DOCTRINE, REQUIRING the followers to submit to them.

What did Jesus teach us about these ordained teachers of the law. He taught us, that we should indeed follow the law they teach, but not the laws they create that did nullify the written oracles.

This is where the catholic church comes into error. Beginning with the sinless birth of Mary, and the evervirginity of Mary. I won’t include the assumption of Mary since there is no scripture directly violated with this “assumption”.

 

[SteveGC]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie01
It’s in my hands because God wanted me to have it, my friend.

Perhaps, but you got it from the Church, which is God’s own.*

---

I must compare. Were not the holy oracles of God in the old testament entrusted to the priests. A long line of succession I might add.

And were these priests found to be infallable? No. They were not as Jesus clearly taught the disciples.

These were ORDAINED priests, distributing the HOLY ORACLES. They were THE AUTHORITY of the Old Testament, ORDAINED by God, but NOT EXEMPT from the sin of error. The oracles themselves did not have error. But the deliverer’s, the keepers, the writers, those who passed them on, as they were commanded to, DID. In fact, these ORDAINED AUTHORITIES, even created THEIR OWN DOCTRINE, REQUIRING the followers to submit to them.

What did Jesus teach us about these ordained teachers of the law. He taught us, that we should indeed follow the law they teach, but not the laws they create that did nullify the written oracles.

This is where the catholic church comes into error. Beginning with the sinless birth of Mary, and the evervirginity of Mary. I won’t include the assumption of Mary since there is no scripture directly violated with this “assumption”.

First, error is not necessarily sin, but human limitation.
Secondly, you left the Holy Spirit out of the equation.
Third, the Holy Spirit is what protects the Church from error.

There are many things we learn from the OT, primarily prophesy and typology (foreshadowing). But a comparison of priests and elders from the OT, to the apostles of the NT, is not a valid comparison whatsoever. For Christ’s existence and mission completely recreated the role of humans in the promulgation of God’s Plan. Christianity set in motion the Church, vastly different from anything before its time. This is not to say members of The Church did not error, nor sin. Not at all. Error and sin was not protected. But what was (and is, and always will be) protected, is teaching of faith (God’s complete plan of salvation) and morals (what is sin).

 

[SteveGC]

I also noted that the particular scripture that proves Mary wasn’t a virgin:

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not **till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I just want to say something here. In all other places in scripture, the word ‘till’ and ‘until’ both bearing the same meaning, denote a place in time.

Also, to know her, meant to have sex.

I cannot fathom, why this plain meaning has been overlooked by you guys and your authorities to mean something than it plainly states.

From the CA Article “Brethren Of The Lord”
*Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

 

[SteveGC]

You see, protestants don’t believe that we cannot error. We believe that we can sin, we can twist scripture and thus is why the heart of every believer is accountable to itself. If we trust a mans interpretation of scripture, then we no longer rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us out of error.

But you DO trust man’s interpretation. Guess what? So do we. We ALL do. It’s all human interpretation. Even if you read it by yourself, it’s YOUR (a human) interpretation.

What’s so funny is that you give yourself (a human) the capacity for the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for you, but you DON’T allow the Holy Spirit to do the same for the Apostolic Church (full of humans). What’s funnier, it’s scriptural that THEY (not you) received the Holy Spirit to guide them unto all Truth.

You don’t allow The Church to do it for Catholics (or for the world) because you say The Church’s interpretation is false…why? Because it doesn’t match YOUR interpretation, which you would claim is Holy Spirit inspired, as opposed to the Church’s interpretation, apparently NOT Holy Spirit inspired??

You don’t have your own personal Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation, by the way. You cling to a mosaic of dozens of human interpretations, all starting when you were probably just old enough to walk, or go to school. We’re ALL reared this way…learning Christianity from the “inspired” interpretations of other humans. By the time you’re old enough to make an individualistic stand for yourself, and don’t want anyone to tell YOU what’s right or what’s wrong, it’s too late to pick up Scripture on your own and read it without bias, without a framework built by someone else, or several others. Don’t worry, though. This is the way we’re all supposed to get our Christian development. Except…

Except we need to get it from the RIGHT Humans. The “SENT” humans. Not any old human will do. This is why apostolic succession is critical. A clever sounding non-denom pastor might be convincing and talk a good game, but when the dust settles, he brings no authority to the pulpit. He’s not SENT, He’s not Called to teach. Maybe to spread the Gospel, but not interpret the Gospel on his own. We must all align ourselves with Christ’s appointed teachers (APOSTLES and their successors) to ensure we learn it the way Christ intended us to learn it.

So, right now you THINK you can use Scripture as the litmus test to determine false doctrine, false churches, false gospels. But you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Your litmus test is tainted by a large mosaic framework of un-inspired human teaching.

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

Are you familiar with any statement in Scripture that states not everything Jesus taught will be found in Scripture?

Yes, I’m very familiar with that.

Is it your contention the Holy Spirit deliberately left out of Scripture things necessary for the believers to know concerning salvation, faith and morals?

Also, you’ve not addressed the questions posed to you. Here they are again:

I see. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one God. Is your use of comparison between them to demonstrate that the Bible and the magisterium are one as well?

I see, and do you hold that the letters of the ECFs are on par with inspired Scripture?

Again, ISTM that you are saying that after the apostles, God raised up other writers whose writings are on par with the inspired writings of the apostles; is that what you’re saying? If so, how do you support that?

OK. Can you authentic the ORAL teaching that was not written down as having been indeed taught by the apostles to certain writers, orally, by citing writings of ECFs who attribute this or that oral teaching as having been taught specifically to them by this or that apostle?

Please explain to me how your “verse picking” is different from the “verse picking” of others, if, as it’s being posited by Catholics on this thread, ordinary humans have no real authority to interpret Scripture? If that’s what you believe, how is that you, an ordinary human, has arrived at an authoritative understanding of something which you have no authority to discern?

 

[josie_L]

Thanks for the clarification.

Acts 17:2

2 And according to Paul’s custom, he…for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:28

28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.What did Christ reason from, with the two, on the road to Emmaus?

The O.T. has the ability to bring one to the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15).

The NT scriptures quoted above are refering to the OT scriptures used by Paul and others in order to validate Jesus as the Christ to the non-believers. However, in order to preach about Jesus’s ministry (which is found in the NT) and death/resurrection, they had to have transmitted their message mostly through word of mouth. As I said most of the NT was not composed until much later (after three to four decades and onwards till the end of the 1st century preceding Jesus’s death).

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Howie, since you like Augustine, let’s go ahead and look at something else you might be interested in…from De Doctrina Christiana Book III 2:2:

But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things

What are we to make of this authority of The Church to which Augustine refers?

Make what you’d like of it. I have no questions concerning proper words, punctuation or pronounciation. :shrug”

My point in the quote offered from Augustine is the the foundation against treacherous errors, viz. the Scripture, and the source of the confirmation of the believer’s heart, again, the Scripture, with no mention of “Tradition.”

SteveGC:

I don’t claim authority. I align myself with authority. I deny authority to myself, not just you.

You’re not addressing the question posed to you on that point. Here it is again:

How do you know about apostolic succession if human beings have no authority to discern what the Bible states about that, if anything?

SteveGC:

Poisoning the well? With what? I do not ignore posters who work toward purposefully refuting Catholicism through ignorance and bias. I don’t get upset. I defend the faith.

You’re poisoning the well, Steve, in your remarks about my refutations of Catholicism, and alleged “proselytizing of Catholics to take them out of the Church.”

And I’m not upset by that, but pointing out what you’re doing.

 

[judechild]

This is why I’m a catholic; I know I’m not smart enough to figuare out God perfectly. With that knowledge, I trust the Church which Christ himself gave to us as a gift, guide, and mother to help me to form my conscience and practices; I wouldn’t even know which books belong in the Bible with out her. Do the deuterocanonicals belong there - those seven books that Protestants don’t have? In answer to that, I chose to trust the Church who has always included them, over Martin Luther who arbitrarily decided to get rid of them. I don’t have the time or energy to read though everyone’s super-long posts, but I fully support the Church’s teaching on all matters; I think I would be an atheist without her.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I’m very familiar with that.

Is it your contention the Holy Spirit deliberately left out of Scripture things necessary for the believers to know concerning salvation, faith and morals?

Also, you’ve not addressed the questions posed to you. Here they are again:

Point 1:

Scripture and Tradition are equally bound to each other, if you forsake one or the other, you depreciate the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles.

Point 2:

The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and those associated with the Apostles into writing the Scriptures as it guided them (and through apostolic succession) orally into the Truth. The Holy Spirit works through both mediums.

Point 3:

Tradition does entail matters pertinent to our understanding of Scripture which Scripture alone does not delineate.

Hope this helps.