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

[Dismas2004]

Michael;

Although the scriptures were written in Greek, they were not given tot he people per se. They were given to the “priests” and read to the congregations. Further illustrating the proper dynamic between scripture and church. They were read and then a homily was given, interpreting the words and giving encouragment ot one another!

What I meant about the bible, is that when Jesus was here He did not ask anyone to write a bible. He asked His Apostles to go forth and preach! He gave them the authority. It wasn’t till years later that scriptures started to get written, and then years after that, the writings were looked at as scripture, then years after that declared scripture. What did we do during all that time, listen to the words of the writings and the interpreetation of those words by men of the Church.

Can we take someone today, and hand them a greek bible and tell them to take, read, and be saved?

I can’t spell a lik iether, cann u tele?

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

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

It is an important topic, but the question was: Do you see Catholics splitting off and forming new churches because of their disagreement on this (or any other) issue?

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

It is an important topic, but the question was: Do you see Catholics splitting off and forming new churches because of their disagreement on this (or any other) issue?

Finally, someone will admit it. There is disagreements in individual interpretation of an “essential” in the Roman Catholic church. You know, admission is the first step to recovery.

Now, which is better, “said” unity or actual unity?

 

[MrS]

None accurately represent the Reformers model which would be a Spirit-led exegesis which involved Scripture interpreting Scripture, historical-grammatical-literary hermeneutic, and the community of faith.

And that about says it all.

 

[Dismas2004]

Since we are sinful humans, acting less than human every day - there will never be actual unity. We are called to and strive for it daily. The Church has taught that Salvation is possible outside of the church. That being said, in theological terms, there is no salvation outside of the church. Contradiciton? Nope, what is meant here is that those outside of the church recieve the grace necessary for salvation through Jesus Christ and His mercy. This Grace comes through none other than His Church, His Body, His Bride. I find it a little amusing that someone can be staunchly anti-catholic and in the end, be saved by said church .

Almost forgot, thank God for editing. The disunity is not in the magisterium, but in the “faithful”

 

[michaelp]

Although the scriptures were written in Greek, they were not given tot he people per se. They were given to the “priests” and read to the congregations. Further illustrating the proper dynamic between scripture and church. They were read and then a homily was given, interpreting the words and giving encouragment ot one another!

Ho now, slow down. Where do you come up with this? I think your presuppositions my be getting ahead of you. You don’t need to defend something just because you already believe it.

What I meant about the bible, is that when Jesus was here He did not ask anyone to write a bible. He asked His Apostles to go forth and preach! He gave them the authority. It wasn’t till years later that scriptures started to get written, and then years after that, the writings were looked at as scripture, then years after that declared scripture. What did we do during all that time, listen to the words of the writings and the interpreetation of those words by men of the Church.

OK, I still don’t get it. So Jesus never intended for the Bible to be written? Boy, I bet He was surprised. Sorry . . . I am probebly just misunderstanding your point.

Can we take someone today, and hand them a greek bible and tell them to take, read, and be saved?

No, it has to be translated. That brings up a great point. Who translated the Bible you use? The Magisterium or Catholic scholars?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Dismas2004:

The disunity is not in the magisterium, but in the “faithful”

This is great. Thank you. I would just say this. The disunity is not in the Scripture, but in the “faithful”

You see, we both have the same problem. The magisterium does not acutually solve anything.

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

I tried the Protestant system for over 30 years and it led me into a lot of questionable beliefs that the early church didn’t hold. NOW I see it all as mass confusion & am glad to be part of the one true church that Christ himself founded.

I cannot understand how anyone could miss the Eucharistic passages of the NT

The passages on confession to a priest in the NT

And then there’s papal authority…

No…no way…I’ll die a Catholic & meet my Lord as a Catholic…in obedience to his word.

 

[Dismas2004]

Michael;

My post was simply stating a little history of the bible and the early church. The point was that, even back then, the scriptures were not read by the common person, their were heard by the common person and explained what they meant by the “church.”

I use the New Jerusalem primarily, b/c of the notes. But I also use the NAB, RSV-CE, KJV, DR, NIV ( don’t like it too much), and I use a Greek bible for NT(I’m learning as I go - took a couple of exegesis classes and being a Theology Major requires as much.)

In Exegesis class however, they reccomend using numerous translations. Learning the original language and how others have interpreted it and why. Not to mention the local customs and culture.

I remeber when I say the syllabus and saw I had to write a 10-12 page paper on the healing of Peter’s Mother-n-Law. I thought to myself, My God I’m going to have to have a huge font and large margins! In the end though I ended up with 18 pages that had to be trimmed to 12!
When we put the bible into the hands for the common man to interpret, then we get all kinds of differing opions as to what the truth is. That is the whole point of the Magisterium. to be a light on a hill guiding us to Christ. Without it there would be no objective guide!

I’m sure you have heard the analogy about the US and the Constitution. But we need that paper document, even though today, the judges are going against it, we still need it to look at as objective truth. The difference between the Supreme court and th Magisterium is the grace of infalliability!

 

[Dismas2004]

michaelp:

This is great. Thank you. I would just say this. The disunity is not in the Scripture, but in the “faithful”

You see, we both have the same problem. The magisterium does not acutually solve anything.

Michael

see above

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

Finally, someone will admit it. There is disagreements in individual interpretation of an “essential” in the Roman Catholic church. You know, admission is the first step to recovery.

Now, which is better, “said” unity or actual unity?

Again you are failing to address the point of the post.

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

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

[sigh] I’m sorry Michael, I’m having trouble believing you can’t answer such a simple question other than you refuse to acknowledge you have no answer (does anyone else on this thread find these questions unclear??)

I’ve stayed on this thread longer than I usually do because I thought this might be a worthy topic. Unfortunately it has turned into a circular round of one-upmanship. I’m done.

Look me up when you really want to talk. I’ll pray for you, Michael, and may God bless you.

 

[Dismas2004]

Church Militant:

I tried the Protestant system for over 30 years and it led me into a lot of questionable beliefs that the early church didn’t hold. NOW I see it all as mass confusion & am glad to be part of the one true church that Christ himself founded.

I cannot understand how anyone could miss the Eucharistic passages of the NT

The passages on confession to a priest in the NT

And then there’s papal authority…

No…no way…I’ll die a Catholic & meet my Lord as a Catholic…in obedience to his word.

Congratulations!

I was Protestant too, I then choose Catholcism after three things happened, in order

1)Horse Poop
2)Learned early Church History
3)RCIA baby! Rocks this House.

Bethlehem - Hebrew for House of Bread
Jesus - Born in Bethlehem
Placed in a manger - an eating troph for animals?
Grows up and says, I am the Bread of Life, whoever eats my flesh…

The irony is killing me(the sinful me!)

 

[MrS]

Dismas2004:

Congratulations!

I was Protestant too, I then choose Catholcism after three things happened, in order

1)Horse Poop
2)Learned early Church History
3)RCIA baby! Rocks this House.

Bethlehem - Hebrew for House of Bread
Jesus - Born in Bethlehem
Placed in a manger - an eating troph for animals?
Grows up and says, I am the Bread of Life, whoever eats my flesh…

The irony is killing me(the sinful me!)

Try this one…
Father of Joseph in the OT = Jacob
Father of Joseph in the NT = Jacob

OT Joseph had the gift/grace of understanding dreams
NT Joseph had the gift/grace of understanding dreams

circumstances made OT Joseph travel to Egypt
circumstances made NT Joseph travel to Egypt

In Egypt, OT Joseph protected enough wheat/grain to feed the world
In Egypt, NT Joseph protected the bread of life to feed the world

 

[michaelp]

My post was simply stating a little history of the bible and the early church. The point was that, even back then, the scriptures were not read by the common person, their were heard by the common person and explained what they meant by the “church.”

When the NT letters open, who are those addressed? It is the common person. For example Paul’s opening letter to the Corinthians:

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their *Lord *and ours.”

This is to “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.” All those in Corinth. The common person. All of the general epistles are addressed to the common person.

How about the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 1:1 “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write *it *out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus”

Theophilus was not clergy, much less a bishop.

How about the Gospel of John?

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

This was written so that “you” (generic second person plural; get out your Greek!) might believe. It was written for the common man.

I use the New Jerusalem primarily, b/c of the notes. But I also use the NAB, RSV-CE, KJV, DR, NIV ( don’t like it too much), and I use a Greek bible for NT(I’m learning as I go - took a couple of exegesis classes and being a Theology Major requires as much.)

Who translated them? The Magisterium or common scholars. Check and see. If it was common scholars, what gives them the right to translate it, since you know, having taking Greek, that all translation requires interpretation.

I remeber when I say the syllabus and saw I had to write a 10-12 page paper on the healing of Peter’s Mother-n-Law. I thought to myself, My God I’m going to have to have a huge font and large margins! In the end though I ended up with 18 pages that had to be trimmed to 12!

I remember those days all too well!

When we put the bible into the hands for the common man to interpret, then we get all kinds of differing opions as to what the truth is. That is the whole point of the Magisterium. to be a light on a hill guiding us to Christ. Without it there would be no objective guide!

There are not THAT many differences. It is really not that hard. The hard thing is to approach Scripture without letting your presuppositions be your guide. I do admit this.

I’m sure you have heard the analogy about the US and the Constitution. But we need that paper document, even though today, the judges are going against it, we still need it to look at as objective truth. The difference between the Supreme court and th Magisterium is the grace of infalliability!

But who is ultimately in control? The common people. “We the people.” This analogy actually works better for the Protestants, since the people willingly give the ability to interpret the constitution to the judges. But we do not think they are infallible. The people have ultimate control.

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

I’ve stayed on this thread longer than I usually do because I thought this might be a worthy topic. Unfortunately it has turned into a circular round of one-upmanship. I’m done.

Look me up when you really want to talk. I’ll pray for you, Michael, and may God bless you.

Thanks Fidelis, you have been gracious as always. I pray the best for you as well. Until next time.

Michael

 

[Dismas2004]

MrS:

Try this one…
Father of Joseph in the OT = Jacob
Father of Joseph in the NT = Jacob

OT Joseph had the gift/grace of understanding dreams
NT Joseph had the gift/grace of understanding dreams

circumstances made OT Joseph travel to Egypt
circumstances made NT Joseph travel to Egypt

In Egypt, OT Joseph protected enough wheat/grain to feed the world
In Egypt, NT Joseph protected the bread of life to feed the world

:clapping: I love it, thanks!

 

[Dismas2004]

Michael,

I have got to go, Fianls this week. However, I will get back to you shortly after finals. I also have some research I want to do so I don’t mis speak.

As far as the letter to the corinthians. Can’t you see this is like an adress someone would give if writing to a group of people and the understanding that it be read to a larger group, i.e. the common man. Again, what happened to the letter? Was it read by the common man and circulated like a paper? We must look at history as well when we interpete the writings!

The bibles were translated by scholars of the laguages! Of all faiths, and non-faiths!

25,000 denominations, 5 new ones every week - all teaching some different doctrines. That is a lot, since Christ calls us to be one!

Take Care and God bless. Will be back on this thread after Fianls, Monday!

 

[michaelp]

I have got to go, Fianls this week. However, I will get back to you shortly after finals. I also have some research I want to do so I don’t mis speak.

May God be with you my friend.

As far as the letter to the corinthians. Can’t you see this is like an adress someone would give if writing to a group of people and the understanding that it be read to a larger group, i.e. the common man. Again, what happened to the letter? Was it read by the common man and circulated like a paper? We must look at history as well when we interpete the writings!

OK, so my point is understood?

The bibles were translated by scholars of the laguages! Of all faiths, and non-faiths!

How can you trust them if the Magisterium did not translate them. All translation requires MUCH interpretation.

25,000 denominations, 5 new ones every week - all teaching some different doctrines. That is a lot, since Christ calls us to be one!

Wait, the number 33,000 keeps going around. Which is it? Anyway, this does not mean that there are 33,000 interpretations of individual doctrines. Protestant are united in about 95% of our beliefs, Catholic may be a point higher (but having been on this forum for the last couple of months, I am not so sure anymore).

Take Care and God bless. Will be back on this thread after Fianls, Monday!

Look forward to it. Have a great night.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

Again, this issue all comes down to Authority. All the other issues stand or fall depending on this one issue. Honestly, I think all debates between Protestants and Catholic ultimately end up here–what is your Authority?

BTW Michael have you read The Developement of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Cardinal Newman? If not you should check it out.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” --John Henry Cardinal Newman

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

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.

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 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