Well, yes. And why would God leave us with just a book, like this? When our salvation can hinge on it?
The Catholic Church isnt divided in its interpretations. “Members” May disagree with the Church because they have taken it upon themselves to interpret scripture themselves. Self-interpretation does tend to produce differing opinions…
This sounds like a rhetorical question and maybe you’re not looking for an answer, but I’ll try to answer this in a few ways anyway.
That’s all I meant by that: members of organizations don’t always act in line with their organization. I was trying to narrow your possible responses to official Catholic vs Protestant doctrine, instead of Catholics vs Protestants–you were talking about Catholics vs Protestants.
Does the presence of different methods necessarily validate one of those methods? Is correctness determined by the number of people on board?
Does that mean that you accept all people self identifying as Christian as Christians?
To avoid confusion.catholicray:
Why is any authority at all required to interpret Scripture?
No. A monkey has no authority. Nor does a piece of paper.
Anyone who has been properly catechized and baptized in the Catholic Church.
If some sort of divine being came and preached to a Hindu something which goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there would be no more or greater sin than that in which the Hindu already finds himself. He is already following a polytheistic religion which contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, the OT was written by the Jews with the Jewish intent and meaning. And the NT was written by Catholics with the intent and meaning of the Catholic Church, which is originally passed down by Jesus Christ.
Still wrong. Although Scripture is inspired by God, He had the words written by His human proxies whom He gave the authority to enforce His Word in Tradition by word and epistle.
The Word of God is absolute. And the authority to judge the correctness of the Word of God was given by God to the Catholic Church. Men do whatever seems correct to them. Five minutes later, they change their minds. The Catholic Church is infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the authority which God placed in this world to Teach His Word infallibly.
The correct method of interpretation is revealed in Scripture. The Bereans accepted the Teaching of the Church and confirmed it in Scripture. That is the three legged stool of Christian Doctrine. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (i.e. Church).
I don’t think I understand what this has to do with my words which you quoted. I was challenging “self-interpretation does tend to produce differing opinions” as evidence against self-interpretation.
I’m tempted to plead the fifth. I will simply say I would not be surprised to see some Catholics in heaven
We’re straying off topic, but I’ll give a quick answer.
I can also recommend many good Protestant churches
I think this gets to the core of things. So please allow me to drill in here.
Remember that this is in the context that you provided, originally. You said:
Ok.
Correct.
To determine if it is being interpreted correctly.
Because you’ve inadvertently changed the context.
This is actually a separate subject which is not under discussion. The fact is, that the
You are used to identifying the Word of God with Scripture alone. The Catholic Church does not. The Catholic Church received the Word of God in the Teaching of Jesus Christ and it remains in her Sacred Traditions. Her Sacred Traditions include Scripture. And based upon her Sacred Traditions, she can judge whether anyone, like for instance Martin Luther, has written a version of Scripture correctly. She can also judge, based upon her Traditions, including Scripture, whether someone has correctly interpreted the Word of God in their doctrines. Again, Martin Luther is a good example. He was judged to have falsely edited a version of Scripture and to have adopted false doctrines based upon that interpretation.
I hope I’ve done so, above.
I’m sorry, but you are so very wrong here. Interpreted wrongly, the Bible does become just a book, a book full of the Word of Man. I don’t understand how people can’t see this. When you twist anyone’s words to mean something different than intended, be it God’s words or even man’s, it is then no longer their words. Even you and I would say “No, thats not what I said!” If someone ascribed the wrong meaning to our words. When something is written, it is written in order to transmit a meaning. And actually yes, the words of salvation really can be left hung out to dry when the word of God is wrongly interpreted.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this for me.
By “it” I think you were referring to “the Word of God” (which hopefully I understand better now).
Sure, it’s possible for someone to reach a correct conclusion on what a part of scripture means on their own. That’s a given. However, there is never a guarantee that it’s correct if it’s not coming from one that has been given the authority to interpret it. So We should all only take an individual’s (including our own) personal interpretation with a grain of salt.
What do you understand by “in accord with good doctrine” in testing faith? Are you acknowledging that there is a source outside ourselves which we measure our faith by? If so what is that source?Emeraldlady:
I don’t think I understand what this has to do with my words which you quoted. I was challenging “self-interpretation does tend to produce differing opinions” as evidence against self-interpretation.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: 1 John can be seen to outline three litmus tests: faith (in accord with good doctrine), love, and obedience. A professing Christian can be shown to not be a Christian if they fail these tests.
I would say it this way,De_Maria:
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this for me.
Am I correct in summarizing it this way: “the Word of God is composed of parts, including written things, a Deposit of Faith, and future guidance”?
Basically, yes.
The future, as yet not understood aspects, of the Word of God, require a judge to determine their correctness.
Yes. Well, to be more precise, the Revelation of the Word of God.
Yes. Remember how the Catholic Church was reviled for burning bibles? They were burning bibles which she determined were not translated properly.
Judging and interpreting are two different actions, yes.
For whom? Let’s say that you’re a parent. And you want your children to believe in God. But people at school want to interpret God out of the Bible. And they want to inculcate their belief into your child. Do they have the authority to do that?
No problem.
Well, sort of. May I politely suggest that this is talking past my point? Incorrect interpretations of scripture are different than scripture itself.
The scriptures themselves are more than just a book. I don’t think this should be controversial to either of us. Here are a few verses from scripture talking about itself:
It’s quite amazing that God is so gracious to have given the scriptures!
- It’s the word of God (embarrassingly, I am unable to find a proof text for this. Feel free to help if you know of one)
- It’s living and active. Hebrews 4:12 (although I suppose if “word of God” is not scripture then this verse might not apply)
- It’s able to make people wise to salvation. 2 Timothy 3:15
- It guides us, councils us, revives us, guards us, strengthens us. Snippets from Psalm 119
That’s really all I’ve been trying to say. I may be fighting for an insignificant hill and may be too pedantic, but oh well
I was attempting to summarize 1 John. I won’t defend my summary because it’s not important. My point was simply that 1 John details some tests by which one can determine if one is “lying and not practicing the truth” or if “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin”. 1 John isn’t the only part of scripture that enables this testing, just the first that came to mind.
This sounds like a quick exit into the weeds. I’m not prepared to discuss the Rule of Faith (I’m just a programmer! sob!), and I also think that branches away from what I’ve been trying to focus on: the role of authority in creating correct interpretations. So I hope you don’t mind if I dodge this question
Do they have the authority to interpret God out of the bible? Well, who has succeeded in stopping them? So I think it’s evident that they do. But their interpretations aren’t correct, and of course no one has the authority to correctly interpret God out of scripture. Which leads into the question “how can we know if an interpretation is correct”, but that’s not the question I’m engaging.
That’s all I mean. The monkey has produced a correct interpretation in spite of his lack of authority.
That’s why:
But keep in mind I’m not interested in actually answering those “more interesting” questions (at least not in this thread–maybe if I can figure out how to start a new thread…). I simply want to point out that “by what authority do you interpret Scripture” is not the best question. I’ll consider all my pedantic rambling a success if I convince anyone to ask their Protestant friend “by what authority do you recognize a correct interpretation” next time
Oh, I see what you’re saying. You’re just talking about interpretation with no real purpose in mind.De_Maria:
Do they have the authority to interpret God out of the bible? Well, who has succeeded in stopping them?
It’s evident that they have, but they have not done it with any authority behind them. For instance, if a person steals something from someone, he doesn’t have the authority to do so. He transgresses authority in order to do so.
We’re on the same page.
Right.
I think I answered this previously. We use the three legged stool. We compare the interpretation to the Teaching of the Church, and to interpretations of Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium.
I’ll do that and I’ll report my findings to you. I posted the question on an anti-Catholic forum. They generally bite right away. So, I’ll give you a smattering of the responses tomorrow.But keep in mind I’m not interested in actually answering those “more interesting” questions (at least not in this thread–maybe if I can figure out how to start a new thread…). I simply want to point out that “by what authority do you interpret Scripture” is not the best question. I’ll consider all my pedantic rambling a success if I convince anyone to ask their Protestant friend “by what authority do you recognize a correct interpretation” next time
Yes, the scriptures are more than a dead book when properly interpreted. But the whole thing, including those verses, was written with an Authoritative Interpreter in mind. As for your point, we are back to the monkey, again. The monkey may come to the correct interpretation, but even so, he the will never know if he does because he has no authority to declare what’s correct…so what’s the point in that?