Protestants: Hypothetical Question

[gap51]

sandusky:

This does not say that one cannot interpret Scripture. It says that no prophecy was a matter of personal interpretation, but came as the Holy Spirit moved the prophet/writer.

This is not a prohibition against interpreting Scripture

Ok brother! Here’s another passage to discern: 2 Peter 3:16
“There are certain passages in them (in Paul’s letters) hard to understand. The ignorant and unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of scripture) to their own ruin.”

Nothing to do with prophecy only; but … the rest of scripture.

 

[But_for_Grace]

Mystophilus, roadrunner570 - why is it when the person: removing books from the canon of scripture, regulating other books to an unpaginated appendix, altering verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion, and teaching his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon is Martin Luther it is okay.

Would you listen to the pastor at your church if he walked in on sunday and told you to get rid of the minor prophets (for example) saying that they are not inspired and therefore must be removed from the canon. Then told you that the letters of Paul (once again for example) were of uncertian inspiration and should not be regarded as equal to the rest of scripture. And then he proceeded to preach from this butchered mess. Would you listen to him, or would you regect him (yes, quite possibly as a heritic).

Mystophilus - you said “First, this is because the term is self-contradictory: morals are not objective.” in responce to my question of whether this is an objective moral evil. Please consider the following from the definition in webster’s dictionary

“Objective certainty, is when the proposition is certainly true in itself; and subjective, when we are certain of the truth of it. The one is in things, the other in our minds.”

So the question is, is it always wrong? and yes morals can be objectively wrong (abortion, divorce, and murder for example)

 

[jusher7281]

roadrunner570:

I never said I was the correct interpetor of scripture. But I’m confident that my beliefs line up with what scripture says and for what it was intended.

roadrunner,

How do you know that your beliefs “line up” with what Scripture says and for what it was intended? How can you be sure? Are you simply relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or do you have another, more reliable method to ensure you don’t get it wrong? And if you are relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can you be sure it’s Him who’s guiding you?

God bless you,
JU

 

[roadrunner570]

So let me clarify something here, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

Catholics can read their Bible, but not interpret it?

Catholics must take the word of their priests or whoever on what a passage means, even if they don’t understand it, they must still believe it?

All Catholics must be Notre Dame fans (If this isnt’ a rule, it should be :bounce: )

Oh, and how come no one has addressed any of the nice things I said?

 

[RobNY]

Mystophilus:

The fact that I could lock you within or outside of my house does not give me authority over you, only a very limited kind of power. Keys are a device/symbol of access, which is a certain kind of power, but not a power of governance per se.

With all due respect, not in the Bible, they aren’t.

Matthew 16:18-19 reads:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The NAB footnote to the passage reads:

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery…

So, Isaiah 22:22 reads

226 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

The NAB footnote reads:

6 [22] Key: symbol of authority; cf Matthew 16:19; Rev 3:7.

Rev 3:7 reads:

7 4 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, 5 write this: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this:

Within the NAB footnote for this passage, it notes:

Key of David: to the heavenly city of David (cf Isaiah 22:22), “the new Jerusalem” (Rev 3:12), over which Christ has supreme authority.

Keys are the symbol of authority.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

-----“So let me clarify something here, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Catholics can read their Bible, but not interpret it?”

It’s already been done! The Apostles preached and explained Christ’s truths and the early Christians accepted the teachings–no problem until Luther came along and decided he knew better than the Apostles ----

“Catholics must take the word of their priests or whoever on what a passage means, even if they don’t understand it, they must still believe it?”

There is no need–the interpretation has been done already and it stands for ever–unchangeable–as it’s supposed to be. If a priest or anyone teaches anything contrary to Catholic teaching he has God to answer to. This doesn’t mean that it has never happened----Luther is living proof of that.

God bless

Jan

 

[roadrunner570]

angelmessenger:

Hi,

-----“So let me clarify something here, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Catholics can read their Bible, but not interpret it?”

It’s already been done! The Apostles preached and explained Christ’s truths and the early Christians accepted the teachings–no problem until Luther came along and decided he knew better than the Apostles ----

“Catholics must take the word of their priests or whoever on what a passage means, even if they don’t understand it, they must still believe it?”

There is no need–the interpretation has been done already and it stands for ever–unchangeable–as it’s supposed to be. If a priest or anyone teaches anything contrary to Catholic teaching he has God to answer to. This doesn’t mean that it has never happened----Luther is living proof of that.

God bless

Jan

So how do you know what the interpretation is? And when and where was it interpreted

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,
—“So how do you know what the interpretation is? And when and where was it interpreted”

To make sure that the apostles teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles Paul told Timothy–“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who wil be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy.2.2 These "faithful men"are the Bishops stretching back to the apostles.

There are also the Church fathers who are our witnesses too
Irenaeus----“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189])."

Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"The Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues.’

God bless

Jan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mystophilus:

The fact that I could lock you within or outside of my house does not give me authority over you, only a very limited kind of power. Keys are a device/symbol of access, which is a certain kind of power, but not a power of governance per se.

Your thesis does not line up with Is 22:22 and what Bible scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic say about the “keys” and what that means.

In OT Davidic Kingdom, the keys were worn on the shoulder of the prime minister, the steward of the household of the Lord. It signified that the King had one guy, the guy with the keys, who was in charge of all the other ministers. That guy had the authority to speak on the King’s behalf. It was a governing office. This is the significance of the keys given to Peter.

You can read more about that from Protestant Bible scholars here:

Bind and Loose and the Keys of the Kingdom - View

 

[itsjustdave1988]

roadrunner570:

Catholics can read their Bible, but not interpret it?

No. Catholics can read the Bible and interpret it, and laity and clergy alike have been encouraged to do so.

However, our personal interpretation does not define Christian doctrine. Instead, our personal interpretation helps us to better understand Christian doctrine.

Christianity is something that started in the first century and has been passed on to us. It is not up to us or any other to revise it. If we wish to start some novelty, then we ought to call it something other than Christianity, cuz that word is already spoken for, and had been from 1500+ years prior to Luther’s novel version.

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” And according to Scripture, when one sins against another (and make no mistake, heresy is a sin against the entire Church), then we are to correct that person. If they do not listen, then we are to bring the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they STILL do not listen, then we are to TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH. You see, the CHURCH is the FINAL ARBITER on such things, according to the Bible.

BTW, heretics are almost always priests or theologians, like Luther, sometimes bishops.

Thus, personal interpretations are fine, so long as they remain in the bounds of Christian doctrine. Once personal interpretations assert something contrary to that which was taught everywhere, always, and by all of Christianity, as handed on by the lawfully ordained pastors having historical succession from Christ through Peter and the apostles, then they are called BY SCRIPTURE to defer to the judgment of the Church.

Now, did Luther defer to the judgment of the Church? Did he obey Heb 13:17? When the Church rejected Luther’s claim, what does Scripture say we are supposed to do? Hmmm? What does Titus 3:1 say? How about Titus 3:10??

Catholics must take the word of their priests or whoever on what a passage means, even if they don’t understand it, they must still believe it?

The priests are ordained to teach in accord with the Bishop. The Bishop is ordained to teach in accord with the Pope. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from formally teaching contrary to Truth. So, I am to defer to the teaching office of the Church on matters religious, because that is what ordination confers. It confers the authority to teach, sanctify, and govern. In contrast to Protestant ordination, our comes through actuall successsion from Christ. I can’t just get my MA in Theology and print out a certificate of ordination. That’s not in accord with the NT. Simon Magus tried to buy the episcopal office. Peter scolded him for it. You don’t get to choose to be a bishop. Instead, you are chosen by other bishops. Same with the ministerial priesthood. To do otherwise is the sin of Korah’s rebellion warned against in Jude 11 and described in Num 16.

I have to respect the teaching of my pastor by virtue of the Divine authority conferred upon him. However, I don’t have to “take the word of the priests” because I don’t live ignorant of the teachings of the Bishop or the Pope. When the priest teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine as taught by the Bishop and Pope, I have the obligation to manifest my opinion, according to the Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium. But I must do so charitably, respecting the judgment of the lawful pastors appointed over me wihtin the Church.

Same with the Bishop. If he teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine, I am obliged to manifest my opinion to him. If such disputes are unresolved at the one-one-one level, there exists a Divinely established hiearchical Church that I can work within to resolved the dispute. Just as it teaches in Scripture, the CHURCH is the final arbiter. I have ultimately the right to appeal to the Holy See in Rome, as that final arbiter.

Oh, and how come no one has addressed any of the nice things I said?

They were very nice. I don’t think all Protestants are hellbound either.

 

[roadrunner570]

itsjustdave1988:

No. Catholics can read the Bible and interpret it, and laity and clergy alike have been encouraged to do so.

However, our personal interpretation does not define Christian doctrine. Instead, our personal interpretation helps us to better understand Christian doctrine.

Christianity is something that started in the first century and has been passed on to us. It is not up to us or any other to revise it. If we wish to start some novelty, then we ought to call it something other than Christianity, cuz that word is already spoken for, and had been from 1500+ years prior to Luther’s novel version.

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” And according to Scripture, when one sins against another (and make no mistake, heresy is a sin against the entire Church), then we are to correct that person. If they do not listen, then we are to bring the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they STILL do not listen, then we are to TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH. You see, the CHURCH is the FINAL ARBITER on such things, according to the Bible.

BTW, heretics are almost always priests or theologians, like Luther, sometimes bishops.

Thus, personal interpretations are fine, so long as they remain in the bounds of Christian doctrine. Once personal interpretations assert something contrary to that which was taught everywhere, always, and by all of Christianity, as handed on by the lawfully ordained pastors having historical succession from Christ through Peter and the apostles, then they are called BY SCRIPTURE to defer to the judgment of the Church.

Now, did Luther defer to the judgment of the Church? Did he obey Heb 13:17? When the Church rejected Luther’s claim, what does Scripture say we are supposed to do? Hmmm? What does Titus 3:1 say? How about Titus 3:10??

The priests are ordained to teach in accord with the Bishop. The Bishop is ordained to teach in accord with the Pope. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from formally teaching contrary to Truth. So, I am to defer to the teaching office of the Church on matters religious, because that is what ordination confers. It confers the authority to teach, sanctify, and govern. In contrast to Protestant ordination, our comes through actuall successsion from Christ. I can’t just get my MA in Theology and print out a certificate of ordination. That’s not in accord with the NT. Simon Magus tried to buy the episcopal office. Peter scolded him for it. You don’t get to choose to be a bishop. Instead, you are chosen by other bishops. Same with the ministerial priesthood. To do otherwise is the sin of Korah’s rebellion warned against in Jude 11 and described in Num 16.

I have to respect the teaching of my pastor by virtue of the Divine authority conferred upon him. However, I don’t have to “take the word of the priests” because I don’t live ignorant of the teachings of the Bishop or the Pope. When the priest teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine as taught by the Bishop and Pope, I have the obligation to manifest my opinion, according to the Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium. But I must do so charitably, respecting the judgment of the lawful pastors appointed over me wihtin the Church.

Same with the Bishop. If he teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine, I am obliged to manifest my opinion to him. If such disputes are unresolved at the one-one-one level, there exists a Divinely established hiearchical Church that I can work within to resolved the dispute. Just as it teaches in Scripture, the CHURCH is the final arbiter. I have ultimately the right to appeal to the Holy See in Rome, as that final arbiter.

They were very nice. I don’t think all Protestants are hellbound either.

Okay, So I see what you’re saying. Personally, I don’t see what all the hullabulloo between Catholics and Protestants is about. I don’t agree with all the Catholic churches teachings, but the core Christian beliefs seem to be there, so if they want to do all that other stuff, then well, I guess I don’t see a big huge deal. I’m not gonna get into all the little stuff about Mary and all that, I know a lot of protestants think its worship, maybe it is, but God knows our hearts, so if one is not worshipping her in his heart, God will know, and that is what is important.

I’m just saying, most Protestant churches operate independently of each other, and once again have the same core beliefs. There are some that are way out there, but you can say that about pretty much any religion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

roadrunner570:

So how do you know what the interpretation is? And when and where was it interpreted

I find much confusion on this issue among Protestants, but also among Catholics.

One thing to understand is that the Church does not define the interpretation of Sacred Scritpure verse by verse. The authors never intended their Holy Book to be chopped up and regurgitated in this manner. The Church instead teach the meaning of Scripture as a whole. The Church also insists, as did St. Paul, that we hold fast to the traditions, both oral and written. So, the Church teaches in accord with the traditions, both oral and written, and not by the Protestant epistemology of “Scripture alone,” which the Church finds contrary to both Scripture and Tradition.

Where can you find what the Church teaches? A very good place is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The pope called it a “sure norm of Catholic teaching.” You can find it online, here:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm . There are many footnotes which reference the traditions, both oral and written, which provide the basis of this compendium of Catholic doctrine.

While the Catechism provides a compendium of Catholic doctrine, it is not the source of Catholic doctrine.

The sources of Catholic doctrine are:

1. The Word of God, both oral and written
2. The formal decisions of the Church Councils, ratified by the popes
3. The formal decisions of the popes

Many Catholic will quote from saints and doctors of the Church. Yet, not every opinion of individuals, even saints and doctors = Catholic doctrine.

There’s a difference between Catholic theology and Catholic doctrine. Theology is the speculative opinions (personal interpretations) of individuals or groups of individuals in the Church, (to include saints and doctors). Such opinions may serve to enlighten our understanding of the Word of God. If these opinions are accepted by the Church and taught as doctrine via the three sources listed above, then they move from speculative opinion (theology) to official Catholic doctrine.

Not all Catholic doctrine is infallible and immutable. Catholic dogma, on the other hand, is infallible and immutable. Dogma differs from doctrine in the manner in which it was presented by the Church from the sources of doctrine listed above.

Doctrine can become Dogma, if over time, the Church when moved by the Holy Spirit, determines that it is prudent to present a teaching definitively. Or, dogma can also develop from doctrine if it becomes manifest that this teaching has been taught everywhere, always, and by all within the Church. Sometimes it takes time before this becomes manifest.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m just saying, most Protestant churches operate independently of each other, and once again have the same core beliefs.

It would be wonderful if this were true. However, Luther and Zwingli insisted that their “core belief” about the Eucharist were among the essential doctrines of Christianity. Yet they both raged against each other in their doctrine regarding the Eucharist. Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) has yet to resolve this dispute.

The Lutherans can’t agree with other Lutherans as to core belief called the doctrine of Justification. Consequently, many Lutherans have assented to the Joint Declaration on Justification between Lutherans and Catholics. But many Lutherans will not.

A Calvinist doctoral student I know denies the truth of the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed which states that the the Son of God is “eternally begotten of the Father.” For the past 2000 years this has been an essential Christian doctrine, even among his own denomination. Yet he says it is not taught by “Scripture alone.” You know what, he’s right. It ISN’T taught by Scripture alone. However, Christianity rejects Scripture alone as it rule of faith, and always has.

The Protestant Universalists teach that there will be nobody in hell after “forever and ever” has ended. They say this is a teaching that is evident from “Scripture alone.” Yet, this is contrary from the essential beliefs of Christianity as it has been handed on throughout the centuries and interpreted Scritpure.

The Protestant Unitarians insist that Jesus is the Son of God, but is not “Divine,” but only a human “God-representative.” They too insist this is a doctine clearly manifest by “Scripture alone.”

The Protestant Sabbatarians inists that Saturday is the Sabbath day, and that all those who worship on Sunday and not on Saturday are the “image of the beast.” The beast being the Catholic Church, of course. They say this is an essential core belief, and those that differ are not Christian.

I can go on, however, it is clear there are many sects within Protestantism that do not agree as to what they consider to be essential core Christian beliefs, although they claim to come to their divergent views by “Scripture alone.”

This seems to be Luther’s lament, when he wrote:

There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. (Martin Luther, as cited in Ray, S., Faith of Our Fathers)

In another place Luther laments again …

Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They no longer care for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God…After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases. [They say] ‘we will spend the day like Lutherans. Drunkenness has come upon us like a deluge.’ If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the gospel." (WL 6, 920)

Luther confesses…

I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was fomerly seen among monks and priests." (WL 9. 1311)

In a letter to Zwingli, Luther writes…

If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." (Contra Zuingli et Oecol. cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)

Given it’s fruits, it seems *Sola Scriptura *has failed as an epistemological principle.

 

[Contarini]

But for Grace:

Say a man decides to do the following:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

What should he be considered? Are these objective moral evils? Why?

It would depend on what his reasons for doing these things were.

Just to take a name at random, Martin Luther, for instance, gave a fairly convincing rationale for his use of the word “allein” where “monos” does not appear in the Greek. This has been pointed out on this forum before, but certain persons seem to prefer out-of-context quotations to serious discussion

And again, this same Luther “removed” (actually, as you note, he put the NT books in question in an appendix–I believe he also included the OT “Apocrypha” in the Bible but put them in a separate section) only books about which there had historically been serious question in the Christian tradition.

So if someone did the things you mention for no good reason, he would be an irresponsible jerk, not to mention a heretic. But if, like Luther, he made plausible arguments to support his actions, then we need to examine those arguments.

Edwin

 

[But_for_Grace]

Hello Contarini, I was hoping you would find this thread

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

roadrunner570:

Do you honestly think that books would or wouldn’t make it into the Bible that God didn’t want there?

Exactly! There is no question that God made sure that all of the books He inspired were there! Of course God put all the books He wanted in the bible! But now think about it…which bible is the only one not altered by man? The first bible, the original bible, the Catholic bible…Luther then changed that bible. If God put a book in the bible, then when did Luther suddenly get the authority to take it out?

I’m not an apologist, I don’t pretend to be…but this has never made sense to me…how can a man who lived so long after the bible was compiled suddenly think he has the authority to say that it is wrong, to say what is inspired or not inspired? God already took care of all of that, the FIRST time.

In Him,
Britty

 

[angelmessenger]

**Hi Edwin,

----“So if someone did the things you mention for no good reason, he would be an irresponsible jerk, not to mention a heretic.”

Well seeing as Luther invented new doctrines -other than
the ones the Apostles taught then he is exactly what you said he is --and more.

God bless

Jan**

 

[Mystophilus]

Contarini:

Just to take a name at random, Martin Luther, for instance, gave a fairly convincing rationale for his use of the word “allein” where “monos” does not appear in the Greek.

I was thinking about this the other day, and it struck me that, while the insertion is clearly a result of the perceptions of the translator, that is not such an uncommon thing. For example, the widely popular New International Version of the Bible, in Genesis 2:19 reads, “the Lord God had formed … the beasts”, when the Hebrew (and the LXX) uses a past (“formed”) rather than a past perfect. The intention is obviously to harmonise the sequence in ch. 2 with that in ch. 1, but, in so doing, the text itself is misrepresented. (Interestingly, Young’s Literal Translation uses a present tense, the Authorised Version and the New American Bible are true to the original, while the Douay-Rheims uses a perfect participle.)

And again, this same Luther “removed” (actually, as you note, he put the NT books in question in an appendix–I believe he also included the OT “Apocrypha” in the Bible but put them in a separate section) only books about which there had historically been serious question in the Christian tradition.

…and not just the Christian tradition, the Jews held grave doubts as to whether the deuterocanonical texts “made the hands unclean”, which was why they decided not to include them in the Tanakh, which just happens to have the exact line-up used in the Protestant OT.

 

[Ignatius]

roadrunner570:

Well, I guess it would depend. Right now we all have a lot of freedom and can read the scripture ourselves and determine what lines up with what and so on.

At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures.

You are very misinformed. The scriptures were made available by the Church well into the sixteenth century. Remember that prior to the invention of the printing press the Church made Bibles available for public use in virtually every town in Europe. In fact, they were often stolen to be sold by unethical scoundrals since it cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars at the time to produce a single volume of the Bible by handcoping it.

Oh, and by the way the printing press was invented by Johann, Gutenberg, a Catholic for the purpose of printing was the Bible.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi Ignatius,

----“You are very misinformed. The scriptures were made available by the Church well into the sixteenth century. Remember that prior to the invention of the printing press the Church made Bibles available for public use in virtually every town in Europe. In fact, they were often stolen to be sold by unethical scoundrals since it cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars at the time to produce a single volume of the Bible by handcoping it.”

----“Oh, and by the way the printing press was invented by Johann, Gutenberg, a Catholic for the purpose of printing was the Bible”

Thank you for this information–I hope the protestants drop the myth now about the Church forbidding people to read scripture and how Luther ‘saved the day’

God bless

Jan