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

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

Hey, wait just a cotten picken minute! He had the consultation of pastors and commentaries. They are part of the Church as well, arn’t they? So I guess we do follow the same method, unless you wanted to change your wording and say that “he offers us the Church as the infallible interpreter and teacher of his Truth on earth.” If not, then I think we are in complete agreement!

Michael

Good point. I meant *infallible * interpreter.

 

[Fidelis]

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” That is our modo.

This sounds nice until you ask “What is an essential? And who decides what an essential is?”

For example, Protestants don’t agree on whether baptism saves you, or if it is just a nice way to show you’re in the club.

Maybe it’s just me, but if it’s a matter of one’s salvation, it seems pretty durn essential to me. Either it does or it doesn’t save you, but it can’t be true for some and not for others. :whacky: And, again, who decides?

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

Not quite . You don’t need commentaries and Greek lexicons to read the newspaper. If readining the bible were so clear and commonsensical, there’s wouldn’t be 30,000 Protestant denominations with nearly as many Scripture interpretations.

The method of interpreting the newspaper is the same, not the tools that are required. It does take some persperation, but if someone is willing to take the time, it is fairly simple. That is why God had it written in the common language of the day so that people with common sense could access it. If He did not expect the average Joe to be able to understand it, why speak in “average Joe” language? This is an important question.

If people are willing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves without making their presuppositions their guide, then the Scriptures speak clearly. This, however, is the most difficult part of interpretation of ANY literature, whether it be the Bible or the Catechism.

BTW: That 30,000 is misleading. This does not mean that there are 30,000 different interpretations. Like there is not 30,000 different interpretations of eternal security, there are three primary ones. And the RCs is one of them. You know this don’t you? If so, please do not use this misleading argument anymore with this 30,000 buisness. I am open minded, but this just doesn’t hold water to an informed person. I could say the same thing about the thousands of interpretations of the RC Catechism.

Until next time,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

This sounds nice until you ask “What is an essential? And who decides what an essential is?”

For example, Protestants don’t agree on whether baptism saves you, or if it is just a nice way to show you’re in the club.

Maybe it’s just me, but if it’s a matter of one’s salvation, it seems pretty durn essential to me. Either it does or it doesn’t save you, but it can’t be true for some and not for others. :whacky: And, again, who decides?

Roman Catholics cannot agree on what “Outside the Church there is not salvation” means. Take a brouse through the threads right now. Who is to say who is right? This seems pretty essential to me. What method do you use in interpreting the Catechism?

BTW: There are not 30,000 different interpretations on whether baptismal regeneration is correct. There is two, and the Roman Catholic church agrees with one of them.

If you were to say that all the people are in agreement that the Catechism is correct, this does not help. I could say that all Protestants are in unity that the Scripture is correct.

You see why these arguements do not work. You are more than standardize a litmus test of unity in all things (which I do not find in Scripture), but you are unwilling to critically evaluate your own position according to the same test.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

Not quite . You don’t need commentaries and Greek lexicons to read the newspaper. If reading the bible were so clear and commonsensical, there’s wouldn’t be 30,000 Protestant denominations with nearly as many Scripture interpretations.

Since the original manuscripts were in Hebrew and Greek, we have no alternative but to use lexicons to get the original language meanings. Ironically, this is the same thing theologians and scholars use in their study of Scriptures.

This is one of the things that reformers sought to do - to give the common man the opportunity to have his own copy of the Bible and read in his native tongue the Sacred Scriptures. They had the belief that if people could read Scriptures in their own language, they could learn for themselves the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe the same thing.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Wow! That was great. That is exactly how I go about it.

Michael

Thanks Michael - - -

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

This sounds nice until you ask “What is an essential? And who decides what an essential is?”

I belong to the Evangelical Theological Society. It is a group of thousands of evangelical scholars and pastors from thousands of denominations who come together to discuss issues of the faith. In this society their is agreement on the things that are most clear in Scripture:

1. Christ was God.
2. Hypostatic union
3. Inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. Salvation by faith
6. That Christ is coming back.
7. That God wants us to trust in Him.
8. That God is righteous
9. That God is good.
10. That God is merciful.
11. That God wants all people to be saved.
12. That Satan exists.
13. That God created the world.
14. That Man is sinful.
15. That Adam is the head of the fallen human race.
16. That Christ is the second Adam.

Goodness, I could go on and on. But you can just read the Protestant creeds (spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm). Compare them. Really! They are in agreement 95% of the time. We are much more unified than you think. I pray that this will help you to stop misrepresenting Protestants by saying that there are 30,000 different interpretations of the essentials. This is very false.

Hope this helps,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

ahimsaman72:

This is one of the things that reformers sought to do - to give the common man the opportunity to have his own copy of the Bible and read in his native tongue the Sacred Scriptures. They had the belief that if people could read Scriptures in their own language, they could learn for themselves the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Great word. What a blessing it is!!

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

This is true, however God will hold us responsible for the evidence he has presented us, but refused to acknowledge. If he offers us the Bible, and it is indeed God’s Word, we disregard it at our peril. Similarly, if he offers us the Church as the interpreter and teacher of his Truth on earth, and it happens to be true, but we choose to disregard it, we would be equally accountable. Indeed, his judgements are just and righteous.

I explained that if we have done the best we can using the best information available - then the rest is in God’s hands. I disagree that we would be equally accountable. There’s no difference in the heathen in Africa who never heard of the Catholic Church and the pope and didn’t know the “truth” and the person who gave all the effort they could within their human reasoning to find out the truth, yet didn’t see the “truth” of the Catholic Church.

How can they be treated equally?

The common fallacy of Catholic thinking is that we humans can know absolute truth and that absolute truth comes through the Catholic Church. What is ironic is that many other faith traditions can say the same thing. And they might have convincible evidence that shows they are correct.

We finite humans cannot possibly know all of the infinite truth bound up in the mind of God. I know you want to think so, but it is not so.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi ahimsaman72!

A few of questions:

Does knowing the truth matter? Why or why not?

Jesus said that we will “know the truth and the truth will set you free (John 8:32)”. Why would Jesus tell us that we would know the truth if we really can’t know the truth? Why would Jesus make the unknowable the requirement for spiritual freedom?

If you can’t know that you have the truth you can’t know that you’ve been set free. If you can’t know that you’ve been set free how can you have assurance of salvation?

In Christ,
Nancy

PS. We have a moral assurance of salvation. Because no one can know the future and know whether or not one will “endure to the end (Matt 10:22)” no one has an absolute assuarance of salvation. In other words, if you die right now you can know right now. If you’re going to die in 25 years you can’t know right now.

It seems we have been down this road before, but alas, let us travel it again.

The only truth that matters is the gospel of Jesus Christ summed up in I Cor. 15 quite eloquently. All other truth is relative compared to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So, yes, the gospel truth matters - because it is in that knowledge that we can know God and His purposes in life. Other truths such as “should we play instruments in church or not” or “should we wash feet in the church like others do”.

Such things are not necessary and are only divisive. Such things are not moral matters. They are trivial matters which do not involve our eternal destinies.

You are positing that the “truth will set you free” passage shows that “all truth” is what is meant. I would posit that the truth that will set you free is - you guessed it - the gospel of Jesus Christ - which true shall indeed set you free. Your argument follows the wrong path because it has a wrong premise that this truth is an “absolute truth”.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Michael and Ahimsaman72,

I am currently a member of a very large (membership) conservative Calvinist church in New York City. But I am looking at my Catholic roots and wondering if that is where I need to be. This has been prompted by an honest look at the Scriptures and Catholic vs. Protestant theology. I am trying to read and study the Scriptures without any theological presuppositions.

The first crack in the wall for me has been doubt about Sola Scriptura. I have another thread on this subject titled “What the New Testament doesn’t tell us…” Would you mind jumping in on that discussion? I am curious about what you think?

Blessings,
Gene C.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

I guess that I could ask the same question about the catechism. What is the method that you use in interpreting the catechism? You have to have one. You probebly just use common sense.

Frankly, I have come to realize as I view the interpretaions of the catechism on this site and all the literally thousands of disagreements, that the Scripture is easier to interpret than the catechism. But as you might say, it is just my fallible opinion.

But you can just borrow from the method that AHIMSAMON72 laid out. It will work for your catechism as well.

Hope you are having a great day,

Michael

Hi Michael!

The Catechism is not the inspired word of God. Scripture is. How can the same method “work” for that which is inspired by God and that which is not?

How can you be certain that AHIMSAMON72’s method is the correct one one light of the all the conflicting interpretations of God’s inspired word? It would seem that for some people this method is not “working”. How can we know for whom it’s working and for whom it’s not? Where does scripture spell out this method? If it’s not there where’d you get it? By what authority did this person teach you this method. What was his source for this method?

I noticed you didn’t answer the questions from my other post. They weren’t rhetorical. I’m genuinely interested in your thinking on this. After you finish with this post if you could go back and respond to the other one I’d really appreciate it!

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

And chances are that because of that there are things about which the two of you hold conflicting and contradictory beliefs, while both believing that yours is the truth.

In that case, truth must be relative to the believer. Is that supported in scripture? If not, why do you embrace it?

In Christ,
Nancy

You estimate that 1) we have differing beliefs and 2) that we would both believe ours to be the only truth. As I mentioned, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong. I would bet that even though I don’t know Michael well, we could agree on 97% or better on Christian beliefs. The idea that there are 30,000 + denoms (not true) that hold 30,000 + different beliefs is totally untrue and not based on any facts I’ve ever seen and based on my experience as a life-long protestant.

Some truth is relative. Whether drinking should be allowed, whether dancing should be allowed, etc, etc is not a priority. Let all men judge themselves in such matters. I can hold no judgement on my fellow brother. As I said on another post, the only truth that matters is the gospel truth.

This is not possible in the Catholic Church, because there are truths that must be known and followed in your tradition. Moral sins are declared by your church. If one sins these mortal sins and dies, they go to hell. What a preposterous claim. Such is not the case for us. In the preceding example, mortal sins proclaimed by the Church are none of the Church’s business to start with. They are proclamations that are unfounded on Scripture and good reasoning.

It is explicit in Scripture that God is above all knowledge and understanding to us finite human beings. For example:

Isaiah 55:8-9

1. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
2. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I Corinthians 2:9

1. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gene C.:

Hi Michael and Ahimsaman72,

I am currently a member of a very large (membership) conservative Calvinist church in New York City. But I am looking at my Catholic roots and wondering if that is where I need to be. This has been prompted by an honest look at the Scriptures and Catholic vs. Protestant theology. I am trying to read and study the Scriptures without any theological presuppositions.

The first crack in the wall for me has been doubt about Sola Scriptura. I have another thread on this subject titled “What the New Testament doesn’t tell us…” Would you mind jumping in on that discussion? I am curious about what you think?

Blessings,
Gene C.

Hello friend.

I will try to get there. I wish you well on your journey. My experience is that the more I split hairs - the more hairs I get .
In other words, the more I try to be exact and find “all truth” the more I get frustrated. I’ve researched world religions and within my own religion and come back to square 1 - which is Jesus Christ is the Son of God - the Saviour of the world and He asks us to believe His message - that He was sent from the Father and is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.

Peace…

 

[michaelp]

The Catechism is not the inspired word of God. Scripture is. How can the same method “work” for that which is inspired by God and that which is not?

How does inspiration effect the way that you objectively interpret material? I am serious? Inspiration simply means that the rightly interpreted material is true and from God. This does not mean that there is a different method altogether for interpreting it though. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is needed so that we might accept it, but not understand it intellectually. Like I said, I know of many unbelievers who interpret the Scripture welI, but do not accept it as truth, In other words, they do not accept it as inspired.

How can you be certain that AHIMSAMON72’s method is the correct one one light of the all the conflicting interpretations of God’s inspired word? It would seem that for some people this method is not “working”. How can we know for whom it’s working and for whom it’s not? Where does scripture spell out this method? If it’s not there where’d you get it? By what authority did this person teach you this method. What was his source for this method?

Again, how can you know that your method of interpreting the Catechism and the magisterium and the Pope’s declarations is the correct method? It just takes common sense.

I noticed you didn’t answer the questions from my other post. They weren’t rhetorical. I’m genuinely interested in your thinking on this. After you finish with this post if you could go back and respond to the other one I’d really appreciate it!

I did not know there were others. What were they.

But I will repost this so because I want to be clear about this:

I belong to the Evangelical Theological Society. It is a group of thousands of evangelical scholars and pastors from thousands of denominations who come together to discuss issues of the faith. In this society their is agreement on the things that are most clear in Scripture:

1. Christ was God.
2. Hypostatic union
3. Inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. Salvation by faith
6. That Christ is coming back.
7. That God wants us to trust in Him.
8. That God is righteous
9. That God is good.
10. That God is merciful.
11. That God wants all people to be saved.
12. That Satan exists.
13. That God created the world.
14. That Man is sinful.
15. That Adam is the head of the fallen human race.
16. That Christ is the second Adam.

Goodness, I could go on and on. But you can just read the Protestant creeds (spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm). Compare them. Really! They are in agreement 95% of the time. We are much more unified than you think. I pray that this will help you to stop misrepresenting Protestants by saying that there are 30,000 different interpretations of the essentials. This is very false.

In Him,

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

This sounds nice until you ask “What is an essential? And who decides what an essential is?”

For example, Protestants don’t agree on whether baptism saves you, or if it is just a nice way to show you’re in the club.

Maybe it’s just me, but if it’s a matter of one’s salvation, it seems pretty durn essential to me. Either it does or it doesn’t save you, but it can’t be true for some and not for others. :whacky: And, again, who decides?

This is a common claim about baptism. Except for the Baptists, Adventists and other small groups, the majority of the protestant world (Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, etc) believe in baptismal regeneration. Again, another attempt to generalize protestants and further the myth that all are different and all believe different things.

In the end? God decides.

 

[michaelp]

You estimate that 1) we have differing beliefs and 2) that we would both believe ours to be the only truth. As I mentioned, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong. I would bet that even though I don’t know Michael well, we could agree on 97% or better on Christian beliefs. The idea that there are 30,000 + denoms (not true) that hold 30,000 + different beliefs is totally untrue and not based on any facts I’ve ever seen and based on my experience as a life-long protestant.

Some truth is relative. Whether drinking should be allowed, whether dancing should be allowed, etc, etc is not a priority. Let all men judge themselves in such matters. I can hold no judgement on my fellow brother. As I said on another post, the only truth that matters is the gospel truth.

That is great. I agree %100. Yes %100

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

I belong to the Evangelical Theological Society. It is a group of thousands of evangelical scholars and pastors from thousands of denominations who come together to discuss issues of the faith. In this society their is agreement on the things that are most clear in Scripture:

1. Christ was God.
2. Hypostatic union
3. Inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. Salvation by faith
6. That Christ is coming back.
7. That God wants us to trust in Him.
8. That God is righteous
9. That God is good.
10. That God is merciful.
11. That God wants all people to be saved.
12. That Satan exists.
13. That God created the world.
14. That Man is sinful.
15. That Adam is the head of the fallen human race.
16. That Christ is the second Adam.

Goodness, I could go on and on. But you can just read the Protestant creeds (spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm). Compare them. Really! They are in agreement 95% of the time. We are much more unified than you think. I pray that this will help you to stop misrepresenting Protestants by saying that there are 30,000 different interpretations of the essentials. This is very false.

Hope this helps,

Michael

I won’t attempt to answer the entire flurry of responses to my e-mail, but I should point out:

1. I never said that there were 30,000 interpretations of infant baptism or of salvation, only that there are that many Protestant denominations. The exact number is arguable, but the fact there are myriads is a scandal since each of these started because they disagreed with someone else enough to strike out on their own.
2. Your example of the Catechism salvation about the Church is a poor one. First, the Catechism is not Scripture, the inspired word of God, which is what we are talking about. Second, Catholics don’t go off and start an entirely new Church because of their disagreements over Church teaching. They may leave the Church, set up a tiny fringe group which they call a Catholic community, but they have in fact put themselves outside the Church. If you are not in communion with your bishop, you are not a Catholic.
3. The list you gave me does not include a common belief on baptism–whether it saves you or not. Why not?
4. Which brings us to the fact that you have not addressed the substance of my post:

“What is an essential? And who decides what an essential is?”

A direct answer to those two simple questions would be refreshing.

In the meantime, perhaps you will find the attached article by Jimmy Akin helpful:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura
cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

 

[ahimsaman72]

michaelp:

I belong to the Evangelical Theological Society. It is a group of thousands of evangelical scholars and pastors from thousands of denominations who come together to discuss issues of the faith. In this society their is agreement on the things that are most clear in Scripture:

1. Christ was God.
2. Hypostatic union
3. Inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. Salvation by faith
6. That Christ is coming back.
7. That God wants us to trust in Him.
8. That God is righteous
9. That God is good.
10. That God is merciful.
11. That God wants all people to be saved.
12. That Satan exists.
13. That God created the world.
14. That Man is sinful.
15. That Adam is the head of the fallen human race.
16. That Christ is the second Adam.

In Him,

Michael

I agree with all of these. Though they are general in nature, I would posit that they are basic Christian essentials. Yes sir.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

I won’t attempt to answer the entire flurry of responses to my e-mail, but I should point out:

1. I never said that there were 30,000 interpretations of infant baptism or of salvation, only that there are that many Protestant denominations. The exact number is arguable, but the fact there are myriads is a scandal since each of these started because they disagreed with someone else enough to strike out on their own.

But you did say this:

“Not quite . You don’t need commentaries and Greek lexicons to read the newspaper. If reading the bible were so clear and commonsensical, there’s wouldn’t be 30,000 Protestant denominations with nearly as many Scripture interpretations. ”

(Emphasis mine)

This is the kind of language that incites most of us to riot . It is a common theme on the forums and I suppose in “real life” outside the forums as well.