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

[michaelp]

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.
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:

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

I don’t think you understand what I am talking about.

You believe in a deposit of faith that involves Traditions and Scripture.

I believe in a deposit of faith which is only expressed through Scritpture.

You object saying that if Scripture were the only source, then who is going to interpret it. If the individual is left to interpret the Scripture then there will be many different interpretations. Hence comes Tradition as expressed by the magisterium which is expressed by the Catechism.

Here is my basic problem with this system. You have just pushed the same problem up one (or two) levels. You now have individuals who have to interpret the magisterium and they come to many different conclusions.

I may be missing something, but how is this better?

Now about you question of essentials. Are you asking, what is essential for salvation or what is essential for orthodoxy, or what is essential for right living? These are all very different questions.

I imagine that you are asking what is essential to believe for salvation. This is really simple.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God came and died for the sins of man after which He rose from the grave. You are a sinner who is in need of what He did. You must trust in him for your salvation.

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21)

“If confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . Whether then *it was *I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” (1 Cor. 15:1-3, 11)

To me, the Scriptures are very clear. It is really not that hard to interpret this, is it?

Michael

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

I don’t think you understand what I am talking about.

You believe in a deposit of faith that involves Traditions and Scripture.

I believe in a deposit of faith which is only expressed through Scritpture.

You object saying that if Scripture were the only source, then who is going to interpret it. If the individual is left to interpret the Scripture then there will be many different interpretations. Hence comes Tradition as expressed by the magisterium which is expressed by the Catechism.

Here is my basic problem with this system. You have just pushed the same problem up one (or two) levels. You now have individuals who have to interpret the magisterium and they come to many different conclusions.

I may be missing something, but how is this better?

I think you are missing something. Perhaps you can give me an example of Catholics disagreeing over the interpretation of the Catechism equivalent to the disagreements over Sacred Scripture that lead to divided Protestant churches? It’s not remotely the same thing.

Now about you question of essentials. Are you asking, what is essential for salvation or what is essential for orthodoxy, or what is essential for right living? These are all very different questions.

No I’m not asking about any doctrine in particular but as an overall approach: What are the essentials, and who decides?

May I recommend that you read the article I linked in an earlier post?

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

I think you are missing something. Perhaps you can give me an example of Catholics disagreeing over the interpretation of the Catechism equivalent to the disagreements over Sacred Scripture that lead to divided Protestant churches? It’s not remotely the same thing.

Sure, there is an ongoing thread right now about what “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” I think that this is pretty important. It does not seem like the univeral agreement on this.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

No I’m not asking about any doctrine in particular but as an overall approach: What are the essentials, and who decides?

Again, overall approach to what? Salvation? Fellowship? I already answered the salvation question. I don’t know what you are talking about

May I recommend that you read the article I linked in an earlier post?

I did read it. Or at least I started to. It was just like the posts that I see here. He really did not have an understanding of what sola scriptura means. Therefore, his arguements were straw men, meaning he fights against a mistunderstood argument from an opposing positions. It really does not good. And besides this, his conclusion suffers from the same achilles heel that the whole system of dual source revelation does. It just pushes the disagreements up one level. But I did like the title. I think that it represents the fallacy of the argument. “Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura.” It shows how the argument is purely pragmatic and lack any substantial justification. It is called negative arguemnts. There is no positive evidence for the system.

But again, in my opinion, even the pragmatism does not work out in real life as there are so many disagreements among Roman Catholics.

Again, your brother in Christ,

Michael

BTW: What gives him the authority to write such a paper? Is he part of the Magisterium. What give him the right to state his opinions about why he things sola scriptura is wrong? I don’t get it.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

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

Hi Michael!

I never made that claim. Careful!!

The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary put that number at over 9,000 though.

worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp

That doesn’t mean that there are 9,000 different interpretations on essentials, as you’ve misunderstood the 30,000 to mean. It means that there are over 9,000 different Christian groups who differ from all the others in at least one significant way, otherwise they wouldn’t have felt compelled to break away and start something new in the first place.

Yet Paul said “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Cor 1:10)”.

Acts 4:32 tells us that “the community of believers was of one heart and mind”.

Jesus prayed for unity; that believers would “all be one, as you, Father, are in my and I in you, that they also may in in us, that the world may believe that you sent me (John 17:21)”. Can the world look at the situation in Christianity today and conclude from its unity that God sent His Son into the world?

Jesus also prayed that believers be “one as we are one (John 17:22)”. Do you think that Jesus and the Father disagree on any doctrine…even the so-called “non-essentials”?

Paul warns that believers are to "watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned (Romans 16:17). When different Christian groups claim conflicting and contradictory truths then someone is in opposition to the teaching that Paul is referring to here. Paul even says to avoid them.

Over the years I’ve kept a list of contradictory beliefs held among non-Catholic Christians. I will post them in a separate post. These are all beliefs that Christians have told me are true and clearly supported in scripture. Of course, they can’t all be true, nor can they all be supported in scripture, since truth and God’s word cannot contradict itself. Some of the items on the list would certainly qualify as “essentials”.

The situation in Christianity is not what Christ had in mind when he established his Church.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

I think you are missing something. Perhaps you can give me an example of Catholics disagreeing over the interpretation of the Catechism equivalent to the disagreements over Sacred Scripture that lead to divided Protestant churches? It’s not remotely the same thing.

Here is an example of a statement by a RC on one thread that is going on right now.

“If we have an ambiguous coucil (Vatican II) that can be (and is being) interpreted many different ways, we are to interpret it based on the infallible, unambiguous, and unchanging dogmas of the Faith. We do not interpret infallible dogmas through the distorted lens of an ambiguity… it is the other way around. The ambiguous is to be interpret so that it corresponds to that which has been clearly defined.” (emphasis mine).

Hope this clarifies what I mean. Everyone interprets whether it be the Bible or the Counsels or the magisterium.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Yet Paul said “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Cor 1:10)”.

So are you saying that you agree with every other catholic on all matters? I doubt it, but this is the standard you are setting up for yourself.

Acts 4:32 tells us that “the community of believers was of one heart and mind”.

Could you explain this in the context of the passage? What does the passage tell us about what it means to be of “one heart and mind”? Is this prescriptive (encouraging us to do the same) or descriptive (simply describing what is going on?

But you cannot answer this because you are not allowed to interpret the Scripture, right? Otherwise it will just be your opinion.

Jesus prayed for unity; that believers would “all be one, as you, Father, are in my and I in you, that they also may in in us, that the world may believe that you sent me (John 17:21)”. Can the world look at the situation in Christianity today and conclude from its unity that God sent His Son into the world?

Is this unity and ontological unity that occured on the day of Pentecost when all believers were baptized into one body–the Church? Or is this creedal unity, saying that all believers would agree upon everything and have the same doctrine?

Paul warns that believers are to "watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned (Romans 16:17). When different Christian groups claim conflicting and contradictory truths then someone is in opposition to the teaching that Paul is referring to here. Paul even says to avoid them.

I agree. The New Testament commended the Bereans for checking out what was taught (by an Apostle, by the way) against what? Tradition? No Scripture. That is the test to use against those who create dissensions. (Act 17:11)

Over the years I’ve kept a list of contradictory beliefs held among non-Catholic Christians. I will post them in a separate post. These are all beliefs that Christians have told me are true and clearly supported in scripture. Of course, they can’t all be true, nor can they all be supported in scripture, since truth and God’s word cannot contradict itself. Some of the items on the list would certainly qualify as “essentials”.

OK, create the same list for the history of the Church and the Church fathers. You will come up with simular results. This is just the way it is, has been, and will be until Christ comes. Remember “we see in a mirror dimely” which means that we will not know everything and we don’t need to know everything. This is a false assumption to believe that there cannot be disagreement within God’s will.

The situation in Christianity is not what Christ had in mind when he established his Church.

Really, God is pretty big. I think that He can take care of things. Remember "The gates of Hell cannot prevail against His church, even if you believe they are.

In Him

Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

(cont. from previous post)
This seems to fly in the face of the “in essentials-unity” motto.

---

*there is a hell

*there isn’t a hell

*Jesus is God

*Jesus isn’t God

*There is no trinity

*There is a trinity

*Jesus is Father, Son and holy Spirit

*Jesus is God the Son only

*Salvation can be lost

*Salvation can’t be lost

*Salvation is assured

*Salvation isn’t assured

*Baptism is necessary for salvation

*Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation

*We are judged at the moment of death and go to heaven or hell

*We will be judged when Jesus returns, until then we are asleep

*Our souls die when our bodies die

*The saved no longer sin

*One can still sin after one is saved

*Babies are born with original sin

*Babies are not born with original sin

*Speaking in tongues is Satanic

*Speaking in tongues is necessary as evidence of salvation

*Speaking in tongues is not necessary as evidence of salvation

*The “word” in John 1:1 is referring to the bible

*The “word” in John 1:1 is referring to Jesus.

*Women can be pastors.

*Women cannot be pastors.

*God inspired the scripture writer’s ideas

*God dictated scripture word for word

*Babies have sin

*Babies don’t have sin

*Drinking alcohol is a sin

*Drinking alcohol is not a sin

*There will be two raptures

*There will be one rapture

*There won’t be any rapture

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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

Alas, thanks.

The only truth that matters is the gospel of Jesus Christ summed up in I Cor. 15 quite eloquently.

On what do you base this statement?

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.

I totally agree. I’m speaking specfically of contradictions in doctrine, not practice.

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”.

There certainly is a thing as absolute truth. It is absolute truths about which I am speaking, not matters for which one may hold an opinion.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

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.

Scripture is one of the least “average Joe” books around. In order for it to be correctly understood one must understand the historical and cultural contexts in which it was written as well as the various idioms in use at the time. There are many conflicting and contradictory interpretations held among “average Joes” as well as among learned scripture scholars who spend their whole lives studying scripture. While being available in English it certainly isn’t written in common language.

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.

This would be more believable if there weren’t so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture among people who simply let the Scriptures speak for themselves without making their presuppositions their guide…in fact, they all claim that the holy Spirit himself is their guide.

There is a group out there who is under the impression that any, even children, can correctly interpret scripture simply by reading it. They claim that it’s a lie that one needs the holy Spirit to guide one to a correct interpretation of scripture. Are you affiliated with this group?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Dismas2004]

History and ReasonHi Nancy, Nice thread!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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.

.

This is a common misconception. The bible was already being circulated in various languages prior to the Reformation.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Dismas2004]

Oh I forgot to add, in regards to your last post Nancy, remember the story of the the fable that was started at one end of a circle and by the time it got around to the end it was different. It was actually a Psychological Experment. From that we can conclude the truth of Scripture in the sense that THAT didn’t happen to scripture when we look at all the manuscripts(1000’s) and see that inly grammer and “spelling” mistakes were made and a few notes added “on the side”.

Also,

For those who think any one can correctly interprate scripture I ask

1. Where does it say that in scripture or teaching of the early church.
2. Then why do we have over 25,000 denominations in th eUS alone, with 5 new ones every week ALL teaching the same thing, right!

 

[Dismas2004]

Catholic4aReasn:

This is a common misconception. The bible was already being circulated in various languages prior to the Reformation.

In Christ,
Nancy

And many churches had bibles for the faithfull to read as part of the church building! It was often “chained” to keep people from stealing it becuase Catholics think so highly of the Bible that they were adorned with Jewels, Sacred Art, and a lot of time had been spent on them - they were for all - not just thieves.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

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.

.

Of course it’s not possible to know all of the infinite truth bound up in the mind of God. I don’t believe any such assertion has been made. However to claim that knowledge of the truth is a fallacy flies in the fact of God’s word itself. John 8:32 says that we “will know the truth”. Of course this is truth that is actually knowable. Not all of the infinite truth bound up in the mind of God is knowable. But a teeny, tiny, minute fraction of a fraction is knowable.

The fallacy is not that we can know absolute truth. The fallacy is that we can’t therefore it really doesn’t matter what one espouses as true. One idea is just as valid as another. Since no one can say with any certainty what’s true, everyone can.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

You believe in a deposit of faith that involves Traditions and Scripture.

“Tradition” is singular, as opposed to “traditions” (customs) which can be plural.

I believe in a deposit of faith which is only expressed through Scritpture.

Why?

You object saying that if Scripture were the only source, then who is going to interpret it. If the individual is left to interpret the Scripture then there will be many different interpretations. Hence comes Tradition as expressed by the magisterium which is expressed by the Catechism.

One doesn’t interpret the Magisterium. The Magesterium is the teaching authority of the Church.

Now about you question of essentials. Are you asking, what is essential for salvation or what is essential for orthodoxy, or what is essential for right living? These are all very different questions.

Someone (you maybe?) said “in essentials unity”. What kind of essentials is that referring to?

I imagine that you are asking what is essential to believe for salvation. This is really simple.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God came and died for the sins of man after which He rose from the grave. You are a sinner who is in need of what He did. You must trust in him for your salvation.

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21)

“If confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . Whether then *it was *I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” (1 Cor. 15:1-3, 11)

You’re scripture reference certainly support the opening statement you made in this particular quote. What’s missing though is scripture which states that these are the essentials for belief.

To me, the Scriptures are very clear. It is really not that hard to interpret this, is it?

Scripture is very clear to me too. It’s also very clear to those who hold each of the conflicting beliefs listed in post #48. The fact that scripture is clear to the individual is no guarantee that one is understanding as God meant it to be understood.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

You never answered this.

*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. *

Are we going in circles?

 

[Dismas2004]

God had it written in the common language of the day - Sure!

Did everyone know how to read that common language - NOPE!

Is that language that common today - NOPE!

Besides, your question as to why he spoke the common language - very little was wrote in the language he spoke mos tof the time, Aramaic!

Jesus didn’t intend for a Bible, he did however intend on founding a church. He then (name removed by moderator)sired the Sacred Authors to give us that splendid text, the Holy Scriptures! Praise be to God!

How would you answer the question’s/dilemmas I posed in my post?

p.s. sorry for all the typos!

 

[michaelp]

“Tradition” is singular, as opposed to “traditions” (customs) which can be plural.

Why?

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that there is something other than Scripture. I don’t know of any other infallible source, that is why.

One doesn’t interpret the Magisterium. The Magesterium is the teaching authority of the Church.

REALLY. So the magisterum does not communicate any information (since interpretation is simply the aquiring, understanding, and contextualization of information). What are they for then? If they speak at all on any matter, their words have to be interpreted by the individual. That is why so many people disagree in RC just as they do in Protestantism. Like I said, I will just stick to interpreting Scripture.

Someone (you maybe?) said “in essentials unity”. What kind of essentials is that referring to?

Didn’t we already discuss this, or was that on another thread?

You’re scripture reference certainly support the opening statement you made in this particular quote. What’s missing though is scripture which states that these are

the essentials for belief.
You actually mean that they all have to say, “this is essential for belief” before some things is said. That is your criteria? You cannot say that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” is evidently essential? Like I said, it is not that hard.

Scripture is very clear to me too. It’s also very clear to those who hold each of the conflicting beliefs listed in post #48. The fact that scripture is clear to the individual is no guarantee that one is understanding as God meant it to be understood.

That list is so misleading and characterizes you arguement methodology. You do not actually study these things for yourself, but you grab some poem and use it authoritatively. The fallacy in what you post is that you do not understand that Protestant agree on about 95% of all issues (Catholics are about 96% I would imagine). Go to this web-site, look at the creeds, and do your own research. Try to post a percentage of how much all those creeds listed agree. spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm.

Honestly, if you are not willing to do your own research, that is fine. Just please quite with this misrepresentation. It is hyperbolic at best, and slanderous at worse.

Thanks again for sticking with this. I do pray the best for you and yours.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Dismas2004:

God had it written in the common language of the day - Sure!

Did everyone know how to read that common language - NOPE!

Is that language that common today - NOPE!

Besides, your question as to why he spoke the common language - very little was wrote in the language he spoke mos tof the time, Aramaic!

Jesus didn’t intend for a Bible, he did however intend on founding a church. He then (name removed by moderator)sired the Sacred Authors to give us that splendid text, the Holy Scriptures! Praise be to God!

How would you answer the question’s/dilemmas I posed in my post?

p.s. sorry for all the typos!

This dodges the question. Why did God have the Scriptures written in the common Greek toungue if he did not expect the common Greek man or women to interpret?

I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “Jesus did not intend for a Bible.”

Believe me, do not ever be sorry for typos. I just wish mine were typos, they are all mistakes that I make with full knowledge. I can’t spell at all.

Michael