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

[michaelp]

MrS:

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. :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

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!!

Thanks, I will just have to refer you to this thread, I think it is more on the subject you are talking about. In the end, we may just have to disagree since the system is still question begging in my mind.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

As I have said many times,

“We all walk through the garden of Church history and choose the flowers that we like best” --John Hannah

Admition of this is the first step to truly study Church history in my opinion.

All Protestants do this, but no informed, faithful Catholic does. Admition of this is the first step toward conversion to Catholicism.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

Remember, I believe in the Analogy of Scripture (Scripture interprets Scripture).

Hi Michael!

On what do you base this belief since it’s not in scripture?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

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.

Nancy, we are really going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Again, I am not biased against God doing this, but it is still question begging and circular. The illustration that I gave is still relavent.

Again, if the Church as an institution represents Christ infallibly through the Magisterium, let them show the signs of a person who speaks for God (Deut 13:18; 2 Cor 12:12). God does not want us to niavely accept things–at least I don’t think He does.

But agian, I agree to disagree.

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

On what do you base this belief since it’s not in scripture?

In Christ,
Nancy

Not sure what this one was about. Sorry,

Michael

 

[MrS]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

On what do you base this belief since it’s not in scripture?

In Christ,
Nancy

But the opposite it… hard sayings, and difficult things that require someone to tell us…

Where is Phillip when we need him?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

All Protestants do this, but no informed, faithful Catholic does. Admition of this is the first step toward conversion to Catholicism.

In Christ,
Nancy

Again, we just have to agree to disagree. What else do you do?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Nope. Pope Innocent’s statement was made at a time when all Christians were Catholic Christians. To be Christians was to be in union with the pope. This was an authoritative statement, not an infallible statement. The same is true of Pope Eugene’s statement. It was issued in the form of a papal bull, which is makes it authoritative but not infallible.

The Church has since, in light of the current situation in Christianity, reworded her teaching:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

CCC#846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

HOw do you know that your interpretation of this is correct. Go to the other threads and you will find that there are many interpretations of this. How do you know that yours is the right one?

My interpretation of what? I’ve only quoted the CCC. Where are you seeing my interpretation?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Nope. Pope Innocent’s statement was made at a time when all Christians were Catholic Christians. To be Christians was to be in union with the pope. This was an authoritative statement, not an infallible statement. The same is true of Pope Eugene’s statement. It was issued in the form of a papal bull, which is makes it authoritative but not infallible.

The Church has since, in light of the current situation in Christianity, reworded her teaching:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

CCC#846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
My interpretation of what? I’ve only quoted the CCC. Where are you seeing my interpretation?

In Christ,
Nancy
All information (which is what you gave isn’t it?) must be interpreted by defition . . .

But, I don’t think that we need to go here anymore. There is another thread that discusses this. I would rather talk about certianty for now. It is a place that we have not gone.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

MrS:

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.

This question is too loaded to deal with here. So for the sake of argument, I will say this, I believe that the Church is composed of the body of Christ, both alive and dead. How is that? Not quite so loaded.

Michael

 

[MrS]

michaelp:

This question is too loaded to deal with here. So for the sake of argument, I will say this, I believe that the Church is composed of the body of Christ, both alive and dead. How is that? Not quite so loaded.

Michael

Okay with me… but then I would have to add:

composed of the both the alive working out their salvation in fear and trembling, and the alive graced with the beatific vision:yup:

 

[michaelp]

MrS:

Okay with me… but then I would have to add:

composed of the both the alive working out their salvation in fear and trembling, and the alive graced with the beatific vision:yup:

No problem here!! I like!!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Ultimately, you must rely on the holy spirit using your common sense. Hey, that is the way that I interpret the Bible.

Hi Micahel!

Yes, I know that. That’s why your “truth” conflicts with and contradicts the “truths” of other who interpret the bible the same, exact way.

With the bible as your final authority you have no one to whom to appeal to settle disagreements.

But you don’t understand. This does not bother me THAT bad.

Sure I understand that Michael.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

Again, if the Church as an institution represents Christ infallibly through the Magisterium, let them show the signs of a person who speaks for God (Deut 13:18; 2 Cor 12:12). God does not want us to niavely accept things–at least I don’t think He does.

So you’d like to see a Pope speaking as a prophet? Fine. Read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae. It is the most stunningly prophetic thing written in modern times, and every one of its several prophecies has already been fulfilled.
God bless your search,
Paul

 

[michaelp]

PaulDupre:

So you’d like to see a Pope speaking as a prophet? Fine. Read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae. It is the most stunningly prophetic thing written in modern times, and every one of its several prophecies has already been fulfilled.
God bless your search,
Paul

Hey Paul. Please forgive me, but we discussed this for quite some time last month. You can go here to see the discussion. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Micahel!

Yes, I know that. That’s why your “truth” conflicts with and contradicts the “truths” of other who interpret the bible the same, exact way.

Sure I understand that Michael.

In Christ,
Nancy

Nancy, please read posts #372 and #373. I think that is where this discussion fits. I really think that it is key to us understanding each other.

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

Thanks for the encouragement. I just ordered four more books about coming to the Catholic faith.

Hi Michael!

Just another recommendation: The Journey Home:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=the+journey+home

This link will get you to audio recordings of the TV program “The Journey Home”. It’s got lots of people telling their conversion stories. You could find ones coming from the same faith tradition as yours and just see what drew them to the Church.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

Just another recommendation: The Journey Home:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=the+journey+home

This link will get you to audio recordings of the TV program “The Journey Home”. It’s got lots of people telling their conversion stories. You could find ones coming from the same faith tradition as yours and just see what drew them to the Church.

In Christ,
Nancy

Thanks Nancy, but stories of people’s experience are not very persuasive to me. Many people leave some Protestant Churches because for their reason and many people leave the RC Church for their reasons. Everyone has been done wrong in one way or another. Everyone has their tragidies. I could give you some myself with Churches to which I have belonged. But these, while helpful, are not very persuasive since Mormans and Muslims, and every other religion has their books about why people have converted.

What I look for is balaced approaches by people who are open minded. Neither of us have very many of these availible. I have read T. Howard, Chesterton, Kung, C. S. Lewis, James White, and Norman Geisler. How is that for across the spectrum? I have also listened to many of the top debaters from each side.

To tell you the truth, I have learned the most here. With live question and answers. It has been very helpful to clear up misconcetions. While I remain unpersuaded of most of the issues that divide, I am learning.

BTW: The best book, in my judgement, that I have found that looks at these issues in a balanced manner is called A Mosaic of Christian Beliefs. If you want a great overwiew of what has united and divided Christians, this is a very good book. But most importantly, it deals with methodology in studies, which is where I think you and I are at–the justification of knowledge and the degree of certianty that one can have is very important. Here is a link to the book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830826955/qid=1102893670/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0813233-8169666?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I really encourage you (and everyone who reads this) to read the intro by clicking on the book.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

You obviously have not done much translating. I have. All the time. All translating involves interpretation; it is sometimes very difficult to make decisions about the translation because there could be multiple meanings. But, in the end, you have to make up your mind based on the evidence. As you have said, the Magisterium does not translate, so they leave the interpretation decision in the hands of the trained individuals. I like that. You need to recognize this** (if, indeed, the Magisterium does not translate your scriptures; if they don’t, your system fails from the beginning).**

I hope you see the force of this. Again, not absolutely conclusive, but, to me, very hard to explain if it is true (but nobody seems to know).

Michael

Hi Michael -

Your contention is based exclusively on your unwarranted OPINION that since Scripture is inerrant, all Christian Truth is, therefore, only derived from Scripture. You keep thinking that the Magisterium derives it’s Truth exclusively from Scripture. Why do you believe this? Without this presupposition of YOURS, your argument has no force whatsoever. The Church has been around long before the NT and they had well-developed theology passed on orally from the Apostles to their successors. This succession can be traced back to St.Peter through the Catholic Church. I think validating that claim by the Church would be a most fruitful use of you time. I suspect you already have.
You are obviously a smart person with some education - have you interacted with the rest of the population of our dear planet? They are not capable of the intellectual rigors required for serious bible interpretation.

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Hi Michael -

Your contention is based exclusively on your unwarranted OPINION that since Scripture is inerrant, all Christian Truth is, therefore, only derived from Scripture. You keep thinking that the Magisterium derives it’s Truth exclusively from Scripture. Why do you believe this? Without this presupposition of YOURS, your argument has no force whatsoever. The Church has been around long before the NT and they had well-developed theology passed on orally from the Apostles to their successors. This succession can be traced back to St.Peter through the Catholic Church. I think validating that claim by the Church would be a most fruitful use of you time. I suspect you already have.
You are obviously a smart person with some education - have you interacted with the rest of the population of our dear planet? They are not capable of the intellectual rigors required for serious bible interpretation.

Phil

Thanks Phil. This clears things up for me. I thought that the Magisterium interpreted the Scripture and Tradition. But they just carry the Tradition. Got it! Thanks.