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

[RMP]

I may not know for sure that what I decide on is the absolute truth. But, for me that’s not a problem. Just as you may not know whether or not you are worthy to go to heaven. As that is the fundamental question of your life - it doesn’t seem to bother many Catholics. I don’t sit around and wonder. I leave my mind open to the possibilities

It is interesting that you cannot know the truth “for certainty”, but you know you are saved with “certainty”. If You are saved without knowing the truth with certainty, Why bother to preach, teach and correct. There really is no need for it then. You have been saved without knowing the truth with certainty, how are you different from anyone else then? Faith? …in what? Uncertainty of truth? Catholics profess they HAVE the truth, and we profess and teach to act accordingly.

. 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.

I can see it all, people copied all the letters from Paul and handed them out like flyers for that average Joe bag of Doughnuts (iliterate) could read for himself…Do Protestants ever take the time to try to learn history or what? Why is it so hard for protestants to learn christian history without revisionism?

 

[michaelp]

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.

Hey dennis, good to hear from you. I pray that you are doing well.

I agree with you. Thank you. It is nice to go to bed on this note.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Hello, Michael, we met on another thread. I am the protestant whom God led to the Church as an answer to a prayer. You said, your prayer is much the same. Please keep praying that Jesus will bring you to the Church that he started, be very specific. God is faithful. And being a former protestant,also , having seen some of the threads that you refer too, certain people, start or jump into those threads to falsely accuse, call names, and misrepresent Catholics.They will pick scriptures out of context to prove their point.Satan quoted scripture as well, it can be taken out of context and misused(the arian nation and the kkk proclaim themselves christians and will use scripture to validate their beliefs). I think it is great you are here,and I ask you to ask Jesus to lead you and HE will.I know you are not here to win a debate,I really think you are searching for Truth. Jesus will take you thereGod Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Hello, Michael, we met on another thread. I am the protestant whom God led to the Church as an answer to a prayer. You said, your prayer is much the same. Please keep praying that Jesus will bring you to the Church that he started, be very specific. God is faithful. And being a former protestant,also , having seen some of the threads that you refer too, certain people, start or jump into those threads to falsely accuse, call names, and misrepresent Catholics.They will pick scriptures out of context to prove their point.Satan quoted scripture as well, it can be taken out of context and misused(the arian nation and the kkk proclaim themselves christians and will use scripture to validate their beliefs). I think it is great you are here,and I ask you to ask Jesus to lead you and HE will.I know you are not here to win a debate,I really think you are searching for Truth. Jesus will take you thereGod Bless

Thanks Lisa. You are very kind. I promise to continue that prayer for both of us.

Michael

 

[luv_pis]

OK, hear me out people, especially those who think Scripture is the only source of truth, distrusts any Church that helps in interpreting it, and says that it is only through the . If that is so, then why is Paul telling Timothy that the Church is the Bulwark and Pillar of Truth?

1Timothy 3:14-15(RSV) I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. **

My standard against which I measure my understanding of Scripture is the Church, which is, according Scripture itself, is our immoveable guardian (bulwark) and support/foundation (pillar) of Truth.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Thanks Lisa. You are very kind. I promise to continue that prayer for both of us.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

luv&pis^^:

OK, hear me out people, especially those who think Scripture is the only source of truth, distrusts any Church that helps in interpreting it, and says that it is only through the . If that is so, then why is Paul telling Timothy that the Church is the Bulwark and Pillar of Truth?

1Timothy 3:14-15(RSV) I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. **

My standard against which I measure my understanding of Scripture is the Church, which is, according Scripture itself, is our immoveable guardian (bulwark) and support/foundation (pillar) of Truth.

I know, I am still here. I am going to bed right after this one.

luv, you really seem mad. Please don’t misuderstand what we are doing here. It is just a heathy discussion that involves disagreements.

OK, why did Paul say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. Uhh. . . I guess you won’t accept the answer “because it is,” right?

I know where you are going though. You are assuming that because the Church (and remember that I define this as the Body of Christ) is the bulwark of Truth, this means that it infallibly represents that Truth. But this is not necessarily true.

It would be like me making an arguement that because the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ’s representative here on the earth, it always and infallibly follows it Head. But you and I know it does not. It is supposed to and at its best, Christ shines through. But it does not do so perfectly. The same is true in the protection of Truth. The Church, like the Jews were (Rom. 3:2; look it up), are intrusted with the Gospel–the Truth. But this does not assume that we always and infallible represent that truth any more than the fact that we are Christ’s representatives mean that we alway act like Christ.

Good question though. I pray you have a good night (if it is night where you are at). It is 1am and I am going to bed. . . I mean it!!

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I would love for you to pray for me. I will tell you though, that Jesus led me home already, with a peace about it you wouldn’t believe, I have had a deeper relationship with Jesus than you can ever imagine. It is more than scripture knowledge, its knowing, loving and serving the Word Who became flesh and dwelt among us. This is something that grows and continues everyday.Something,no argument can win and no words can describe.God Bless you and you are nice too

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Alas, thanks.

On what do you base this statement?

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

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

I base my statement on the fact that from Genesis to Revelation the plan of God and redemption of mankind progresses and reveals itself. That plan involves the Son of God who was slain from the foundation of the world. There can be no other truth more important. This is absolute truth.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

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

In Christ,
Nancy

By whom? What languages?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

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

What truth are you searching for? You mention “the truth”, but I need to make sure of what you are talking about. There are many “truths” in the world - the sky is blue, water is wet, etc.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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!

Oh contrare’ dear friend. Jesus was not a “rabbi”, but got up and read Isaiah before the whole congregation. Paul and Peter got up and spoke in local synagogues and they weren’t rabbi’s. This is false as Scripture clearly shows.

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.

And what did they preach? Celibacy? prayers to saints? how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? No, of course not. They preached the gospel as Paul pointed out in his writings. You want to assert that the priesthood still exists today and that the priesthood is relevant. Your assertion needs some evidence from some source outside of the people who claim that authority upon themselves.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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

:clapping: Oh my - beautiful point - just beautiful.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RMP:

It is interesting that you cannot know the truth “for certainty”, but you know you are saved with “certainty”. If You are saved without knowing the truth with certainty, Why bother to preach, teach and correct. There really is no need for it then. You have been saved without knowing the truth with certainty, how are you different from anyone else then? Faith? …in what? Uncertainty of truth? Catholics profess they HAVE the truth, and we profess and teach to act accordingly.
I can see it all, people copied all the letters from Paul and handed them out like flyers for that average Joe bag of Doughnuts (iliterate) could read for himself…Do Protestants ever take the time to try to learn history or what? Why is it so hard for protestants to learn christian history without revisionism?

What is more interesting is the idea that some have intellect/knowledge and others don’t (according to you). Your assumption is false. Again, what truth are you looking for? All I hear is “what about the truth” - “what about the truth”. What on earth are you talking about?

Are you speaking of the truths of salvation? The truth of World War II, the mating of seals in Alaska? Don’t you see a difference between saving truth and knowledge and other “truth”.

You presume also that none of us have studied Christian history. That presumption is based on your flawed view of what Christian history really is. Your view is - whatever the early church fathers say history is.

What happened to the letters sent from Paul to the churches? Tell me step by step what happened to them.

 

[Church_Militant]

Catholic4aReasn:

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

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

By whom? What languages?

By the Catholic Church… You need to check your history from some place other than Jack T. Chick publications. I suggest the brief publication on the Bible from these folks catholicapologetics.com/

I quote page 38: “Before Gutenberg printed the first Bible around 1455 (A Catholic version in Latin with 73 books) there were already popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in English, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian.” (emphasis mine) I also suggest a book called Where We Got The Bible by Henry G. Graham. It is available on the home page of this site.

This same book also points out that before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people. (Same source as above)

So there’s your answer…A FACT of HISTORY…not a baseless allegation.
May God be good to you.

 

[luv_pis]

michaelp:

I know, I am still here. I am going to bed right after this one.

luv, you really seem mad. Please don’t misuderstand what we are doing here. It is just a heathy discussion that involves disagreements.

I am SO sorry…this is just my 6th post here and maybe I have not quite internalized yet proper netiquette… and maybe sometimes I get too excited when I participate in discussions like this…argh no way to edit my previous post … so so so sorry, it won’t happen again

OK, I’ll try to make myself more…civilized before somebody kicks me out of the forums…

michaelp:

OK, why did Paul say that the Church is the bulwark of truth. Uhh. . . I guess you won’t accept the answer “because it is,” right?

I would. I really I would ^^

michaelp:

I know where you are going though. You are assuming that because the Church (and remember that I define this as the Body of Christ) is the bulwark of Truth, this means that it infallibly represents that Truth. But this is not necessarily true.

It would be like me making an arguement that because the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ’s representative here on the earth, it always and infallibly follows it Head.

Well, yeah, that what I was trying to go, and that is what we believe the Catholic Church is.

michaelp:

But you and I know it does not. It is supposed to and at its best, Christ shines through. But it does not do so perfectly. The same is true in the protection of Truth. The Church, like the Jews were (Rom. 3:2; look it up), are intrusted with the Gospel–the Truth. But this does not assume that we always and infallible represent that truth any more than the fact that we are Christ’s representatives mean that we alway act like Christ.

Now, here is where I quite disagree. First of all, maybe you don’t distinguish between the Church being an infallible representation of truth and being able to act like Christ always (or maybe you do…you made the distinction in the last sentence I quoted above). Now, the Church has never claimed that it will never sin. The Church is composed of men, and thus is not immune to sin. Oh no…in fact we have examples althroughout history of the sins made by the leaders of the Catholic Church. And we Filipinos are so so familiar with those examples…it is the stuff of history books here .

But the Church *does *claim that she cannot be wrong in interpreting Scripture (and of course Tradition…but let’s discuss one thing at a time, ok? ^^). For one, Jesus does recognize that people in authority *can *teach even if they are, frankly, evil.

Matthew 23:1-3
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat” (i.e. they inherited Moses’ position as teacher and prophet) "so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

(The rest of the chapter then records a tirade by Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees in descriptions enough to make anyone blush)

 

[luv_pis]

And yet no matter how imperfect Jesus’ disciples may be, they were given the task of making more disciples of the world(Matt. 28:19) by preaching (Rom. 10:17).

And yet, who can deny that the Word of God as they are in the Scriptures are hard to interpret? We are all familiar with story of the Ethiopian eunuch who was struggling with the book of the prophet Isaiah, and was helped by Philip.

Acts 8:30-31

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The Scriptures as they are written cannot just be placed on the lap of a catechist and be said, “Read it, understand it.” No, they have to be *taught *to the poor catechist, because there is the big possibility of misunderstanding the Message of the Scriptures, and this is dangerous. Even the Scriptures acknowledges this. Peter said:

2Pet 3:15-16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

And then there are muddles about the Scriptures that even had LEARNED AND SPIRITUAL men debating. We all know about the great Council of Jerusalem where it was discussed whether Gentile Christians should be made to follow the Mosaic Law or not (Acts 23). There were around 40 bishops who didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity during the Nicene Council.

So now, let’s imagine the scenario: that the Church cannot always infallibly represent the Truth. We have these disciples of the Church, preaching and teaching (as we’ve seen according to Scripture is necessary to spread the Word of God) to the four corners of the Earth. Since the Church cannot infallibly represent the Truth all the time, errors creep in into how the Church interpret the Word of God. These errors compound until, 2000 years later, the “truth” the Church teaches is so different from the Truth the Gospel teaches!

 

[luv_pis]

In all honesty, I think this is what Protestants think has happened to the Catholic Church: errors compounded to the point that what She teaches is so different from what is “really” in the Gospels. But as I can see it, from looking at just the Scriptures, there is no other way to spread the Good News but by preaching, teaching and interpreting the Word of God (again, Tradition should be discussed in another forum, so I’ll not expound on that), which would involve parsing the lines, clearing up muddles in those lines, and expounding on them, which would over the years and decades and centuries would be parsed and re-parsed time and again so the teachings of the Gospels would be relevant to the times and cultures of the people being preached. Which would REALLY be susceptible to errors and compounding of errors. And if these ever enlargening errors occur (which as said by Scriptures could be dangerous, i.e. deleterious to the salvation of those involved), then the Church couldn’t POSSIBLY be held as a “Bulwark and Foundation” of Truth.

So what keeps the Church from making these errors? Why, the Holy Spirit of course! (John 16:13) That promise guarantees the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, and back to 1 Tim. 3:15)

  ....
  
  
  Wow, my head is reeling, that took quite some hours of looking around.  And this answer was FAR longer than I expected ^^

michaelp:

Good question though. I pray you have a good night (if it is night where you are at). It is 1am and I am going to bed. . . I mean it!!

  Michael

When I posted my first post, it was around 4:30pm where I am. Now, it’s around 11:30pm. OH MY! I think I need to sleep. Thanks for your prayer Michael. I’m praying for all of you, posters and readers, and I hope when I wake up the next day I have not yet been banned ^^

 

[ahimsaman72]

Church Militant:

By the Catholic Church… You need to check your history from some place other than Jack T. Chick publications. I suggest the brief publication on the Bible from these folks catholicapologetics.com/

I quote page 38: “Before Gutenberg printed the first Bible around 1455 (A Catholic version in Latin with 73 books) there were already popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in English, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian.” (emphasis mine) I also suggest a book called Where We Got The Bible by Henry G. Graham. It is available on the home page of this site.

This same book also points out that before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had already been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people. (Same source as above)

So there’s your answer…A FACT of HISTORY…not a baseless allegation.
May God be good to you.

You seem so angry all the time.

For the record, I’ve never read a Jack Chick publication. I am an open-minded individual. I suggest you refrain from presumptions. You will only reap sour grapes by such remarks.

Yes, yes very good. Now, who had copies of these foreign language Bibles? Was it laypeople or the clergy? To say that Catholics had printed the Bible in other languages doesn’t help to solve the issue. The heart of the issue is who had these. Even if they were in the language of the people, they were not available to the people on a mass scale. Of course, the printing press sped this along - I realize.

Peace…

And…chill out.