What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4aReasn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason I said that your post was absurd is because of the way you characterized my point. Yes, we can respectfully disagree and I have no problem with that. You do not make certain connections in scripture that can and should be made. If you do not like the results of these connections that does not make them untrue. The Catholic Church has not reverse engineered anything in using scripture to prove or justify anything.

Church history and the Early Church Fathers, along with the unwavering teachings of the Church are testimonies to and from scripture that are found lacking in every other “system.”

Look for the Catholic teaching in scripture rather than simply denying that which supports the Catholic position. The support of the papacy comes from many places in scripture and it is the entire picture that tells the story. Let me suggest that you go to jamesakin.com and other Catholic websites to read how all of these verses tie together. You dismiss things far too quickly.
 
40.png
Pax:
You dismiss things far too quickly.
Not so fast. You obviously do not know me and have not seen my posts. I have no love lost for the Protestant Church if the RC system can be justified. I have searched and will continue to search, but thus far the arguments have been far from convincing. Enlightening, yes, persuasive, not to me. But don’t let that get you down. I am a skeptic. That is why I like Thomas, I identify with him.

Michael
 
Michael,

The Catechism is not infallible. It is, however, a pretty reliable source for getting a clear picture of Catholic teaching. There are, by the way, a number of different approved catechisms.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Not so fast. You obviously do not know me and have not seen my posts. I have no love lost for the Protestant Church if the RC system can be justified. I have searched and will continue to search, but thus far the arguments have been far from convincing. Enlightening, yes, persuasive, not to me. But don’t let that get you down. I am a skeptic. That is why I like Thomas, I identify with him.

Michael
I’ve read your posts, but true enough I don’t know you. Posts do not show the entire picture of a person or their beliefs. Hopefully, over time we will be better acquainted inspite of the limitations of this medium. I have been quite skeptical of many things in my life time. In matters of faith, skepticism is a double edged sword and can be harmful. My best recommendation is prayer. I believe that each of us must have an open heart and ask God to bless us with undertstanding.

Although I have been a Catholic all my life, there was a time when I still had my disagreements with the Church. Finally, I opened my heart through prayer and surrendered “everything” to the Lord. Once I raised the white flag the light began to flood in. Pride is my greatest personal weakness and enemy. It took a lot for me to swallow hard and admit that I was wrong. When I doubted or questioned something I went to the best Catholic sources to get the scriptural foundations and the reasons behind the teaching. In every case, I discovered that my own intellect and 56 years of human wisdom were like straw compared to the 2000 years of Christian wisdom found within the Catholic Church.

I have never been so enthusiastic about my faith as I am now. I thirst for prayer time. I thirst for understanding. I thirst for the Eucharist and I love God more than I thought possible. None of this comes from me. It is all by God’s grace. Seeing by faith and understanding by faith is all by the grace of God. The splendor of Christ’s Church and the truth and beauty of the Church’s teachings are truly awesome. This may not be easy for you to see, but if you are honestly and prayerfully searching you will eventually find this to be true. The Lord never disappoints those who seek him.
 
Well, I will have to take these things and think on them for a while. I appreciate all that you all have put up with from me. I hope that I have presented myself in a charitible manner. If there have been times when I have not, please forgive me, I am still a sinner.

I do pray that the Lord guides us all to truth so that we may be able to represent Him well in a world that is in great need. I do pray that are hearts will seek Him with sincerity, not letting either of our traditions stand in the way of what He wants to teach us. May God bless you all and bring you great peace, comfort, and hope in the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. To Him be honor and glory for all time and forevermore. Amen.

If any of you would like to contact me personally, I would love to hear from you. My email is michaelp@stonebriar.org.

Until the next thread,

Michael
 
michaelp said:
Ignatius was also a premillennialist. Is the RC church premil? Or does it just pick and choose what out of Church history you agree with. Hey, there is no shame in this. We do it.

“We all walk through the gardens of Church history and pick the flowers we like best.”
-John Hannah
Hi Michael! 👋

This is precisely what the Church does not do, and the fact that everyone else does do it is what makes the Catholic position nearly impossible for them to comprehend. Hannah’s statement is false. We don’t “all” do that. Only those not in full communion with the Church do that. Into that mix would need to be thrown “Cafeteria Catholics”. They are, in essence, Protestants who attend Mass. I disagree completely that there is no shame in it.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
michaelp:
Let me try to explain agian. It is as simple as this: It would be like if some one came to me and told me that they were infallible and they said, “this is how you interpret this passage. Don’t base it on exegesis of what the text says, but what I say it says.”

I ask him “why should I believe you?”

He says because " I agree with Church history."

I say, “OK. How does that make you infallible.”

He says, “Because Church history says it does.”

I say, “What makes me have to believe that part of Chruch history?”

He says, “because I say it does and I am infallible.”

Should I believe him?

I would hope you would say no. But this is EXACTLY the type of question begging circular arguements that I am constantly exposted to. No exegesis of the text at. Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation.
Hi Michael! 👋

With all due respect, your comments such as “Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation.” and “You’ve obviously never studied bible interpretation, well I have” ( which you’ve now said at least twice) are starting to smack of self-righteousness. I’m sure it’s not your intention, but it’s how those comments are starting to come across on the board. 🙂

The unspoken assumption in comments such as " Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation" and “But the Bible does not say so anywhere at all when correct exogesis is done” and “I would challenge anyone to bring ONE correctly interpreted Scripture that teaches either Peterine succession, or Papal infallibility” is that you, personally, are in possession of the correct method for interpeting scripture and therefore personally have the correct interpretation so naturally you will personally recognize correct exogesis and interpretation when you see it. You may not realize it, but in saying these things you are claiming for yourself even more than what we claim for the pope! In claiming to personally be correct you are claiming inspiration, wheras all we claim for the pope is infallibility, a far lesser thing.
In short, what problem do I have with infallibility? None, if the Bible says so. But the Bible does not say so anywhere at all when correct exogesis is done.
When correct exogesis is done the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that all doctrine must be explicitly in scripture. That is a Protestant tradition.
I would challenge anyone to bring ONE correctly interpreted Scripture that teaches either Peterine succession, or Papal infallibility. I am open minded and can be convinced by Scripture.
But you aren’t open minded Michael. You’ve made it clear in your posts that you already have the correct way of interpreting scripture and therefore the correct interpretation. You are your own standard for correctness against which you measure the correctness of others. You can’t be convinced by scripture because, to use your own words, we “obviously” haven’t studied how to interpret scripture whereas you’ve done it at length. You can’t be convinced by scripture because, to use your own words, no “correctly interpreted” scripture exists that teaches papal infallibility. You’ve already decided that any scriptures used to support papal infallibility have be incorrectly interpreted. I’m real unclear on how that’s open minded.
If it is not in Scripture, or the Magisterium does not show the signs of a prophet (2 Cor 12:12), why should I believe? You tell me.
There is nothing in scripture that says that everything to be believed must be in scripture yet you believe it. That seems to be something of a double standard.

2 Cor 12:12 doesn’t speak of prophets but rather apostles. In any case, prophets are inspired, which is what you claim for yourself. The pope is infallible, which isn’t the same thing.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
michaelp:
Nancy, I cannot even tell you how many books that I have read concerning this. I am very interested in this. I will purchase this book . . . I promise.

Might I suggest to you to go to www.thetheologyprogram.com and watch the videos of Introduction to Theology. At least the first few session.

I pray that you have a great night.

Michael
Hi Michael! 👋

I’d be interested to hear what you thought of Mark Shea’s book after you read it.

What evidence/assurance can you offer that no error is taught in this program that you’ve recommended? If the possibility of error exists why would you recommend this program over another?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
michaelp:
Really, is that true???

How do you get the infallible teaching of the Church?

If the catechism is not infallible, why trust it over another interpretation.

This would really help me not to misunderstand you.

Michael
Hi Michael! 👋

A catechism is a summary of teachings and practices. That’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is. A book which summarizes Catholic teaching and practices. It’s not the inspired word of God.

You get the infallibile teachings of the Church through study. The Catechism doesn’t help in this regard since it doesn’t state which teachings are ones that have been infallibley defined and which ones have not. That’s not the purpose of the book. Also, no practices are infallible.

I have no idea what you mean by “If the catechism is not infallible, why trust it over another interpretation.” Another interpretation of what?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*Hi Michael! 👋
It doesn’t mean Roman Catholic. The Roman rite of the Catholic Church is only one of over 20 rites in the Catholic Church.

michaelp said:
What is the essential difference?

Hi Michael! 👋

Christ established one church (Matt 16:18). As that church spread around the world the different cultures left their marks on the way the Mass was celebrated, etc… In the Roman rite the Mass is celebrated in the way that it came to be celebrated in Rome.

Here’s a little doohicky on it that might help:
credo.stormloader.com/diffrite.htm

There is a list there of all the different rites, if you’re interested.

So “Catholic” refers to the One Church that Jesus established. “Roman” refers specifically to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church. This is essentially different from a “denomination” because all of the rites of the Catholic Church are united under the authority of the pope. We share the same sacraments and the same doctrines.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Hi Michael! 👋

I’d be interested to hear what you thought of Mark Shea’s book after you read it.

What evidence/assurance can you offer that no error is taught in this program that you’ve recommended? If the possibility of error exists why would you recommend this program over another?

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
So things don’t require absolute infallible assurance that they are correct because they are so clear. It would be like someone asking me, “What assurance do you have that the son is going to rise tomorrow?” I would say, “it is pretty clear that it is going to.” You, according to you methodology, seem to be suggesting that “but you don’t know infallibly that it is going to rise tomorrow, so you can’t believe in it with much certianty.” But some things, in fact the majority of things that we interpret and apply to our everyday lives, only require this type of moral certianty. It is fallacious to require more than can possibly be attained. But we are morally obligated to act according to the weight of evidence.

That is why in The Theology Program we start with this understanding. Otherwise you are going to have to live a niave life, thinking you have infallible certianty of things that cannot possibly live up to this criteria.

This is the way the atheist and the post modern relativist argues against Christianity, but it is misleading, since none of the important decisions we make in life require “infallible” certianty. But, if you watch the Program, you will understand this (but I know you can’t because of you computer).

When we deal with issues in The Theology Progam, we deal with them historically, then biblically, then we give the contemporary options that people adhere to (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholocism, etc), and let the people make up their own minds.

So to answer your question, How can I know that what I teach is infallible is niave since it assums that we can know anything outside of mathmatics according to that standard.

Hope this helps.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
OK, why did Paul say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. Uhh. . . I guess you won’t accept the answer “because it is,” right?

I know where you are going though. You are assuming that because the Church (and remember that I define this as the Body of Christ) is the bulwark of Truth, this means that it infallibly represents that Truth. But this is not necessarily true.
Perhaps you need to re-examine your definition of the Church - not disregard this portion on Scripture…
40.png
michaelp:
It would be like me making an arguement that because the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ’s representative here on the earth, it always and infallibly follows it Head. But you and I know it does not. It is supposed to and at its best, Christ shines through. But it does not do so perfectly. The same is true in the protection of Truth. The Church, like the Jews were (Rom. 3:2; look it up), are intrusted with the Gospel–the Truth. But this does not assume that we always and infallible represent that truth any more than the fact that we are Christ’s representatives mean that we alway act like Christ.
Even if this were true, and I’m not saying it is, what is your point? That you - apart from the Church will do better? Think again. Also, apart from the Church you have no Scripture to run to.

Michael
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Hi Michael! 👋

With all due respect, your comments such as “Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation.” and “You’ve obviously never studied bible interpretation, well I have” ( which you’ve now said at least twice) are starting to smack of self-righteousness. I’m sure it’s not your intention, but it’s how those comments are starting to come across on the board. 🙂

The unspoken assumption in comments such as " Honestly, no one is familiar with even basic Bible interpretation" and “But the Bible does not say so anywhere at all when correct exogesis is done” and “I would challenge anyone to bring ONE correctly interpreted Scripture that teaches either Peterine succession, or Papal infallibility” is that you, personally, are in possession of the correct method for interpeting scripture and therefore personally have the correct interpretation so naturally you will personally recognize correct exogesis and interpretation when you see it. You may not realize it, but in saying these things you are claiming for yourself even more than what we claim for the pope! In claiming to personally be correct you are claiming inspiration, wheras all we claim for the pope is infallibility, a far lesser thing.

When correct exogesis is done the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that all doctrine must be explicitly in scripture. That is a Protestant tradition.

But you aren’t open minded Michael. You’ve made it clear in your posts that you already have the correct way of interpreting scripture and therefore the correct interpretation. You are your own standard for correctness against which you measure the correctness of others. You can’t be convinced by scripture because, to use your own words, we “obviously” haven’t studied how to interpret scripture whereas you’ve done it at length. You can’t be convinced by scripture because, to use your own words, no “correctly interpreted” scripture exists that teaches papal infallibility. You’ve already decided that any scriptures used to support papal infallibility have be incorrectly interpreted. I’m real unclear on how that’s open minded.

There is nothing in scripture that says that everything to be believed must be in scripture yet you believe it. That seems to be something of a double standard.

2 Cor 12:12 doesn’t speak of prophets but rather apostles. In any case, prophets are inspired, which is what you claim for yourself. The pope is infallible, which isn’t the same thing.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
But Nancy (I think we are on to something here), you are interpreting me according to Roman Catholic standards (another illustration of how all information is interpreted!!).

I do not have to be infallible before I can be believed. See post again above. Once you have understood this, you will be much closer to realizing the different starting points that we have. I can live with tention and uncertianty, you can’t. I can live and act with a large degree of certianty about things, without having to have some illusion that everything must match up to a mathmatical certianty. But the thing is, you do to . . . see sun illustration above.

So, therefore, I will look at all the sides of the issue, Protestant, Catholic, Othodox, or anyone else who have an arguement and make a decision based on the evidence the best I can. That is what I am responsible for.

You may think you do, but you really don’t have infallible certianty that all you believe is true, you just think you do. But, Nancy, what you have to realize is that infallible certianty is not possible. Moral certianty (what we are obligated to follow based upon the evidence) is. I am not infallibly certian that Christ rose from the grave . . . how could I be. But I am morally certian that it did happen. In other words, I am obligated to act and believe based on the evidence.

This is as good as it gets, but thankfully, God has provided much evidence that compels me to be morally certian of many things (Jesus rose from the grave, I exist, God loves us, Christ is coming back, the Bible is inspired [although, moral certianty compels me to believe certian parts of the Bible more than others like 3 John, but I am still to varying degrees morally certian that it is all inspired–this is going to get me in trouble–but you know I am a sceptic). Other things, like the sequence of events that proceed Christ’s return, what *exactly inerrancy means and its implications, what it means to be baptized for the dead, etc., I am less certian about. Sometimes I just don’t know–but this is OK, because part of what I teach is that we don’t have to know everything.

We see in a mirror dimly, only then will we see clearly. This dim mirror requires varying degrees of uncertianty.
 
Cont. . .

Again, this is an essential differnce between you and I. I do not claim infallibity or the need for it. It is a niave desire. My system encourages us to seek all the options, your requires you to believe someone elses conclusions (if you adhere to some of it, you have to have all of it). And when it comes down to it, you are not as certian as you think, you just think you are supposed to be.

Hope you get this. This is very philosophical. Again, it is why I wanted you to take the course on Introduction to Theology. It deals with all these issues.

You can order the courses if you would like (www.thetheology program.com). If you are unable to pay, I can work it out that you don’t have to.

Michael
 
Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*.
You need to remember, the Church never bases her teachings on scripture, rather scripture is based on the teachings of the Church.
*
michaelp said:
Wow! You actually admit to this? Don’t you see this as circular?
Hi Michael! 👋

Since the Church and her teachings predate the bible it’s impossible to “base” her teachings on the bible. That would mean that the bible existed before the Church which, according to the bible, it didn’t.

I think the fact that the bible existed before all Protestant churches and all Protestant church base their teachings on scripture (scripture predates their teachings) that it’s nearly impossible for them to see the reverse.
How do you justify this system?
Scripture supports that Christ established a church and only one church to continue his mission on earth until he comes again (Matt 16:18). That church was ordained by God to uphold, protect and defend the truth that God has revealed to mankind (1 Tim 3:15). In order for that church to be written about in scripture that church had to have existed before scripture. In order for that church to have teachings about which to write those teaching must also have existed before scripture. History bears out that this church is the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Hi Michael! 👋

This is precisely what the Church does not
do, and the fact that everyone else does do it is what makes the Catholic position nearly impossible for them to comprehend. Hannah’s statement is false. We don’t “all” do that. Only those not in full communion with the Church do that. Into that mix would need to be thrown “Cafeteria Catholics”. They are, in essence, Protestants who attend Mass. I disagree completely that there is no shame in it.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Lisa, really, all you have to do is get one commentary on the compilation of the Church Fathers commentary and see that they disagree very much. This is a very valuable resourse for you to get: christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=4965X&netp_id=264624&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

Believe me, these guys are not trying to promote Protestantism, they just wanted to compile a commentary using all the early church fathers availible–even if they were heretical–so that the Church could see how the early church interpreted Scripture.

If you read these, you will see just how clear and true Hannah’s statement is:

“We all walk through the garden of Church history and pick the flowers that we like best.”

You may ask, how do you know this with infallible certianty? I don’t, but I am compelled by moral certianty (weight of the evidences compelling me) that this is true.

Michael
 
40.png
Philthy:
Perhaps you need to re-examine your definition of the Church - not disregard this portion on Scripture…

Even if this were true, and I’m not saying it is, what is your point? That you - apart from the Church will do better? Think again. Also, apart from the Church you have no Scripture to run to.

Michael
Again, this make no since since you are using the definition of the Church as an institutional authority. Change it to the Body of Christ and I agree with everything. 1Cor. 12 says that the Church is the body of christ. Do a concordence search on the Church and see whether it refers to the Body of Christ or an institutional authority.

Here biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Church&qs_version=31

I cannot find a place where it is said to be an institutional authority. But do the search and you will see why I am compelled to define the Church differently. But I can see that the Church is defined as the Body of Christ, all of those who have trusted in Christ and are baptized into His invisible body.

Michael
 
I went to a Baptist Church today… not for the service, but to watch 4 of my grandkids in a pageant. It was cute, but expectedly painful, listening to little kids sing.:love: :bigyikes:

After the pageant, the pastor gave his talk. That was more painful. His presentation was based on the definition of religion - that we should forget about religion and have a relationship with God. Unfortunately, most there did not know that religion means a relationship with God. Anyway, he must have said 25 times “the Bible says”. I just kept grinning:D

I kept looking around for some one’s Bible to speak. And then without any warning he said… “You know, we come to Church to learn about God, and the Bible says…”

I felt like blurting out “you almost got it”!!!

But I knew I would not hear:
“The Church SAYS, and the Bible which the Church gave us follows up with the written version which can only be correctly interpreted by the Church which gave it to us…”

But then we know how many newer “religions”, I mean relationships, think their theology either predates the Bible, or else gives them the claim that finally they got it right.

Anyway, the talk was interspersed with “all you have to do is believe” (no mention of obedience), and “proclaim from the Scriptures that you accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” (what book is that in?), and other rather simple ways of attaining an assurance of eternal salvation (unless down the road it is discovered that you probably weren’t saved in the first place)

My wife was so grateful that I did not raise my hand.:whacky:

All in all it was a rewarding experience. Time with my loved ones, and a chance to again realize how valuable the Catholic Church really is for salvation.

If it is only the Bible, then the Pastor should give away the music books, give away the pews, give away the activities center, sell the building etc. But the answer would be “no, we have those things to bring us closer to God”

My response? "Amen, these things are very helpful, and in the Catholic Church we have more of them… the sacraments, the ministerial Priesthood, the saints, the Magisterium, and on and on and on… and best of all, The Mass, and the Real Presence.
…and the Bible says so!!
 
40.png
michaelp:
Here is something that summarizes my thought so far: I just read this on another post:

Question asked: “Does it say in the Bible than only the Church can interpret scripture correctly?”

Question answered by Catholic: "No, it does not. Anyone lead by the Holy Spirit can interpret correctly.

[Then listen to this] “The bible does say that the church (magisterial authority) will infallibly interpret scripture.
[How do we know this?] “Jesus said: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (mt,16:18; mt,18:18)”
he also said: he who rejects, you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”

[The conclusion] “This power to infallibly interpret and guide the flock of Christ has been passed on through ordination from the apostles to their successors all the way till today is this necessary?” [Did I miss the clear connection?]

Wow! That is a lot to get out of this verse. More than I could ever get. An entire system is being built on this? Infallible Popes, succession of Peter, and the magisterium? Respectfully . . . come on. And even more respectfully . . . give me a break.

I ask you if any unbiased reader would really interpret it this way? Could you really get the RC ecclesiological worldview out of this? Would you interpret it this way if you did not already believe that the Church was infallible? Really! Read these passages again. Would you?

Forgive me if I display a little sarcasm here. I just thought that it might help you to understand how uncanny this idea is becoming. It seems to be like I have suspected, you really don’t have any justification for the system outside the system itself. It is an entire system that seems to be built on question begging arguments. All the Scripture references you use to justify the RC system of authority would take an interpretation that would have to be forced on to the text to make it say what you want it to. It is pure eisegesis (reading your theology back into the text rather than deriving your theology from the text).

If I were to follow this method, I guess I would be dangerous with the Scriptures. I could make the Scriptures support anything that I want.

I can now understand why you would think interpretation is so difficult, since those whom you let do the interpreting for you get all of this out of such an obscure passage. They are seeing something no one can see on their own.
No Michael, you’ve still got it backwards. The Church does not get her teachings out of scripture passages or build an entire system from one passage.

You are taking what you do (get your teachings from scripture as though scripture predates Christian teaching), wrongly assuming this is how the Catholic church does it too (she doesn’t), then criticizing her for not reaching the same inspired interpretation you personally have.

The Catholic Church gets her teachings not from scripture but from the same source as the NT writers; Jesus Christ; and are guided by the same holy Spirit who protects her from error. The Church has done nothing other than what Paul instructs in 2 Tim 2:2, “*And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well”. *She has continued to do so for 2000 years and will continue to do so until Christ’s return.

The Church doesn’t get her teachings from the bible, the bible got it’s teachings from the Church. The Church and her teachings were there for decades before a single letter of the NT was written and for centuries before anyone knew which of the miriad of Christian writings were the inspired word of God.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
michaelp:
But I can see that the Church is defined as the Body of Christ, all of those who have trusted in Christ and are baptized into His invisible body.

Michael

Then I hope you would agree that the saints in heaven (the Church Triumphant), the souls in Purgatory (the Church Suffering - unless one can die and be perfectly free of any sin or stain of sin or inclination to sin and thereby merit heaven), and the faithful on earth are all part of the Body of Christ. Because “what can separate us…” Only us, if we use our free will to reject the Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top