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

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

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

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

:tsktsk: I told you Michael ask God ! All the debates and discussions can help you learn,yes, you can gain insight,yes.Will,it make you humble enough to hear?NO!I have great respect for your debating skills and also, the skills of other posters.Ask with a humble heart and you will get your answer Ask God to understand what Catholics believe and why, this takes a grace. There are alot biases you have to work through.The coming home network is good and your reluctance to check it out, contradicts your open mindedness. There are other Evangelical Pastors that you could probably be put in touch with so you can find out more,about why they became Catholic.Whether you agree with them is irrelevant the search is relevant. God Bless

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

I know that we ALL look through our tainted glasses. What do we do? The first step is to recognize and admit it. I do admit this. The next step is to do the best you can to evaluate objectively. I try.

Logical Error Alert!!!
In reality, once you acknowledge that we all look through tainted glasses and are THEREFORE INCAPABLE of knowing whether we have interpreted properly, YOU SHOULD STOP TRYING TO INTERPRET INDIVIDUALLY. Your next question should be,“How could Jesus do this to us?” And then when you think about it you might realize, “Hey, maybe He didn’t leave us this confusion - maybe He left us the Church to perform this function guided by the Holy Spirit.” Then you’ll find all the scriptural support your looking for…

Michael:

I don’t think you want to assume of me and other Protestants that I don’t dig deep in history. Believe me, you don’t want to make that assumption with me.

Michael

Yes, unfortunately you’re digging deep with your tainted glasses!!
And digging into extrabiblical material which has no authority, and translation issues, politics,…etc. Scripture alone is getting very complicated.

Phil

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

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

I searched that thread and found no mention of Humanae Vitae. Have you studied that encyclical? I would guess not.

It seems, Michael, that you’ve already decided not to be convinced by anything anyone presents to you. You have decided that you hold the keys to the proper interpretation of scripture and have come here to grace the rest of us with your wisdom. That doesn’t qualify as a search for truth.
Good luck,
Paul

 

[michaelp]

:tsktsk: I told you Michael ask God ! All the debates and discussions can help you learn,yes, you can gain insight,yes.Will,it make you humble enough to hear?NO!I have great respect for your debating skills and also, the skills of other posters.Ask with a humble heart and you will get your answer Ask God to understand what Catholics believe and why, this takes a grace. There are alot biases you have to work through.The coming home network is good and your reluctance to check it out, contradicts your open mindedness. There are other Evangelical Pastors that you could probably be put in touch with so you can find out more,about why they became Catholic.Whether you agree with them is irrelevant the search is relevant. God Bless

Lisa, you know me well enough by now. I don’t think that anyone can appeal to feelings, no matter how deep they are.

What makes you think that I don’t ask God for truth–everyday? I tell Him to give me a complete overhaul if need be, and I am VERY serious about this. Please do not assume upon what I pray for. Just take my word for it, I have prayed this prayer for over ten years now. Just because I don’t see things the way you do does not mean that I don’t pray with sincerity and you should not assume that it does.

I did go to the Coming Home Network. I did not find anything more than I have gotten here.

You must understand, Lisa and others, I really have no need to stay in the Protestant Church. Think of me as someone outside identification with any tradition looking in saying how do you know your right and the others are wrong. At that point, you just are one of many interpretations of history and Scripture. Who is to say you are right? Feelings? Sorry, I can’t go there.

It comes down to looking at all the information and then making a decision based upon the persuasiveness of the arguements. That is what I am held responsible for. I find more things persuasive with some Protestants at this point. That is why I am here, to learn more from you all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

PaulDupre:

I searched that thread and found no mention of Humanae Vitae. Have you studied that encyclical? I would guess not.

It seems, Michael, that you’ve already decided not to be convinced by anything anyone presents to you. You have decided that you hold the keys to the proper interpretation of scripture and have come here to grace the rest of us with your wisdom. That doesn’t qualify as a search for truth.
Good luck,
Paul

My friend, I am just here to learn, not necessarily to be convinced of anything. If you don’t want me here unless I will be convinced of something, then I will leave. I understand that this is your forum, and maybe you don’t want anyone asking question and responding with objections.

I am open minded to learning and understanding. If yours is the truth, it will stand and I may be convinced. I may be to ignorant to grasp what you are saying, I understand this. But don’t get so upset just because I have not been convinced of anything.

Thanks for your post,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Logical Error Alert!!!
In reality, once you acknowledge that we all look through tainted glasses and are THEREFORE INCAPABLE of knowing whether we have interpreted properly, YOU SHOULD STOP TRYING TO INTERPRET INDIVIDUALLY. Your next question should be,“How could Jesus do this to us?” And then when you think about it you might realize, “Hey, maybe He didn’t leave us this confusion - maybe He left us the Church to perform this function guided by the Holy Spirit.” Then you’ll find all the scriptural support your looking for…

Yes, unfortunately you’re digging deep with your tainted glasses!!
And digging into extrabiblical material which has no authority, and translation issues, politics,…etc. Scripture alone is getting very complicated.

Phil

Phil, please read these posts 370, 372, 373 so that we are not talking past each other. I think we need to be on the same page and this will help you to understand where I am coming from.

Thanks.

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

Strengthen my sheep, feed my lambs, etc. could be said of every pastor in every congregation in the Christian faith. To build a system and faith based on such ambiguous verses is irresponsible.

You are under the same illusion as michaelp that the Church was somehow meant to be constructed and validated BY SCRIPTURE. Where does this notion come from? Certainly not Scripture. The church PRECEDES SCRIPTURE - why would you expect Scripture to “reveal” the Church? It’s completely illogical. Completely.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

This is where your hermeneutics comes into play. And this is what I am talking about by using a common sense hermeneutic (not impying by any means that you do not have common sense ).

Here is what you have to ask yourself:

1. Who’s denial is brought most prominently to the attention of the reader? Of course it is Peter.
2. Why did the author give the details of the three denials followed by the three affirmations?
3. What was the author’s intent with this passage:
   1. 
      *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
      *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.
   Now which one do you believe? It can’t be both since the first is loaded with eisegesis (reading preconcieved theology into a text rather than drawing your theology from the text).
   
   Isn’t this at least conceivable to you?
   
   Michael

1. 
   **Logical Error Alert!!! **
   

   ---

   For the record I disagree that the two are mutually exclusive.
   

   ---

   Phil

 

[michaelp]

**Logical Error Alert!!! **

For the record I disagree that the two are mutually exclusive.

Phil

“No, yours is a logical error”

“No, your is”

“No, your is” . . .



I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree Phil.

Thanks for this insightful contribution . . .

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

You are under the same illusion as michaelp that the Church was somehow meant to be constructed and validated BY SCRIPTURE. Where does this notion come from? Certainly not Scripture. The church PRECEDES SCRIPTURE - why would you expect Scripture to “reveal” the Church? It’s completely illogical. Completely.

Phil

I guess Raymond Brown is under the same illusion, since he agrees that this verse does not teach Petrine succession.

Just because someone comes to different conclusions than you Phil, it does not mean that they are having illusions. V2 uses this verse to support Petrine succession and I see no exegetical warrent for it.

But, again, respectfully agree to disagree since we have already been through this?

Michael

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

Thank you very much. Couldn’t find it - you supplied it. Pretty clear to me. You ain’t Roman Catholic - you ain’t got a prayer baby.

Peace…

Don’t be silly. There are several ways of understanding the “outside the Church…” quote. Perhaps easiest is to realize that, by definition, the Catholic Church includes everyone in Heaven. If you have been saved and are in Heaven you are, by definition, IN the Catholic Church. This is my own limited understanding of one context of the statement.

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Don’t be silly. There are several ways of understanding the “outside the Church…” quote. Perhaps easiest is to realize that, by definition, the Catholic Church includes everyone in Heaven. If you have been saved and are in Heaven you are, by definition, IN the Catholic Church. This is my own limited understanding of one context of the statement.

Phil

It is hard to interpret isn’t it. Who can help? I wish that we had another higher authority to interpret the Magisterium. Or, I guess, that you have to come to your own conclusions about your “understanding”/interpretation of it, right? Hey, that is what I do with the interpretation of the Bible and get reemed for it. Oh, well . . . such is life. This is also the subject of another thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

Question: Have you tried posting your questions on the AAA forum? I submit that you are too theologically oriented for us to give you the kind of answers that you need. We largely speak from a personal experiential level similar to most of the Prots that I know though the folks on here tend to be a little better versed in apologetics because we field all the A/C questions on a daily basis. I’m not at all suggesting that you take a hike or anything, but I’m concerned that you may base what you decide about Catholicism upon OUR answers which are plainly pretty inadequate. I know that mine are…though I give ya my best shot…

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

What I find really odd is that Catholic theologians and scholars produce a translation of the Scriptures (such as NAB) and have the imprateur, but it is the magisterium and pope that decide faith and morals (which come from Scriptures).

Peace…

Ive read the bible and I don’t remember where it says that “faith and morals” come from the bible. I do remember reading Pauls letters to Timothy where Paul, who confesses that Timothy “knows Scripture” and that Scripture “is useful” STILL GOES ON to write him to tell him “how to behave in the Church of the Living God” and then calls the Church the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. So Paul didn’t think a “knowledge fo Scripture” was fully sufficient for appropriate Christian behavior. Am I missing something?

Are you taking OT or NT? The “Bible” wasn’t put together for at least 400 years after Christ. What was the source of faith and morals during this time? When did that source become invalid? Who had the authority to declare that source invalid? Could you please provide me with a source to verify?

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

Question: Have you tried posting your questions on the AAA forum? I submit that you are too theologically oriented for us to give you the kind of answers that you need. We largely speak from a personal experiential level similar to most of the Prots that I know though the folks on here tend to be a little better versed in apologetics because we field all the A/C questions on a daily basis. I’m not at all suggesting that you take a hike or anything, but I’m concerned that you may base what you decide about Catholicism upon OUR answers which are plainly pretty inadequate. I know that mine are…though I give ya my best shot…

Thanks Militant, I appreciate that. I wish that I could boil it down to one question so that I could go there and ask and get a quick answer. The questions come as the discussions go and they develop as I understand through our interaction. I have thought to go there when I do not feel as if I am getting an informed answer here. Like the one about who translates the Scripture and how this is justified since it involves so much interpretation. I think that soon, I will go there for that.

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

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

Except admision of this is self destructive for you, for us it is semper reformana.

Have a great night.

Michael

Good point Michael, but I think you are missing a more important one. If you want to understand a passage of St.John, Ignatious is as good a source as you can get. This doesn’t mean he is a definitive source for all teachings, but if you want an understanding of what St John felt regarding the Eucharist - Ignatious is tough to trump. Even Luther recognized this.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Clear and concise to who. Not to me. Not to someone from a different culture TODAY. Many people do not think like Westerners and therefore would need it contextualized.

All information is by definition interpreted. People interpret information through their own history, experince, emotion, culture, language, and most importantly, presuppositions. So to say that the Church does not need to be interpreted because it is contemporary does not make any since and misunderstands the complexities of the aquisition of knowledge.
This is untrue. And I think you know it. The fact that you failed to bring up 3 issues requiring clarification, as I requested, supports my opinion. There is nothing unclear about YES and NO, and that is how the Catechism is formatted BEFORE any lengthy discusions occur. What is the important question that you can’t answer from the Catechism?

Michaelp:

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. 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.

I don’t see any justification for you believing in the Bible if you don’t believe in the Church and it’s power given to it by Christ. How did you come to accept the Bible? I will not let this rest - it is your true problem. You have to come to grips with this. Exactly why do you believe that the bible you own is of any significance?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Not really, I trust that God led the Church to recognize what books are in the Bible, not to determine. BIG DIFFERENCE. I believe that God is sovereign and would not let such an important matter go unsolved. He does not have to have an infallible institution to guide people to truth. God, led the body of Christ (not simply an institutionalized church ) to the right books. It comes down to an issue of God’s providential care and guidence through the Holy Spirit.

Excellent. Pick any part of anything you’ve written here and tell me WHY you believe it. And how do you know it’s anything more than your opinion? Is it even written in the Bible? Do you need to believe it otherwise the Bible is nothing?

michaelp:

You jump from this to: the institutionalized church is infallible and all believers are subject to this institution. There is no justification for this jump.

You know that’s not true - the justification isn’t as clear as you’d like it to be. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all the Catholics and ex-Protestants that have wrestled with this.

I believe that God works through the community to lead them. I believe in the many of the Traditions that have been handed down so long as they agree with Scripture (that God lead his people to recognize). I believe that God leads the body of Christ. I am often confused with the way He leads, but I do believe that He is in control. I rest in this.

MichaelAgain, this is all wonderful. Unfortunately you have NOTHING to base it on other than wishful thinking. And for this you choose to reject the oldest, most visible Christian Church, with roots all the way to Peter, and a teaching authority that conforms most nearly to the earliest recorded witnesses of the Apostolic and post-apostolic era.

Please let me know if I’m pushing too hard…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Wow! You actually admit to this? Don’t you see this as circular? How do you justify this system? I know I keep on asking, but I will try again.

Like if someone was to ask you: “Why do you believe that the Church has ultimate authority?” What do you say if you cannot draw on Scipture for support, since it submits to the Church?

Look forward to your response, but I may be going to bed. Thanks.

I would say," I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." See how Bible isn’t in there?