A
"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th
- Status
S
SusanL
Guest
ALLFORHIM, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I finally feel like Iâve been heard and understood.
We donât have to agree. You know, itâs kind of presumptious on all of our part to expect that we would change anybodyâs beliefs here in this relatively short period of time. That has to come from the Holy Spirit and our cooperation with him, donât you agree? And I think that that takes time. Time, prayer and a lot of contemplation.
I appreciate your kind heart here.
You know what I think is funny? None of us can stay away from here for very long.
Look how we go away for a little while to do whatever work weâre supposed to be doing
and then we hurry back to see if anyone has responded to our post. We are soooo bad. 
We donât have to agree. You know, itâs kind of presumptious on all of our part to expect that we would change anybodyâs beliefs here in this relatively short period of time. That has to come from the Holy Spirit and our cooperation with him, donât you agree? And I think that that takes time. Time, prayer and a lot of contemplation.
I appreciate your kind heart here.
You know what I think is funny? None of us can stay away from here for very long.
Look how we go away for a little while to do whatever work weâre supposed to be doing and then we hurry back to see if anyone has responded to our post. We are soooo bad.
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
:yup:Once we are saved and belong to God, the Spirit takes up residence in our hearts forever, sealing us with the confirming, certifying, and assuring pledge of our eternal state as His children. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. âAnd I will pray the Father and He will give you another Helper that He may abide with you foreverâ (John 14:16). The Greek word translated here âHelperâ means one who is called alongside and has the idea of someone who encourages and exhorts. âAbidingâ has to do with His permanent residence in the hearts of believers (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; 12:13). Jesus gave the Spirit as a âcompensationâ for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us.
Among those functions is that of revealer of truth. The Spiritâs presence within us enables us to understand and interpret the Word. Jesus told His disciples âwhen He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truthâ (John 16:13). He reveals to our minds the whole counsel of God as it relates to worship, doctrine, and Christian living. He is the ultimate guide, going before, leading the way, removing obstructions, opening the understanding, and making all things plain and clear. He leads in the way we should go in all spiritual things. Without such a guide, we would be apt to fall into error. A crucial part of the Truth He reveals is that Jesus is who He said He is (John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3). The Spirit convinces us of Christâs deity and sonship, His incarnation, His being the Messiah, His sufferings and death, His resurrection and ascension, His exaltation at the right hand of God, and His role as the Judge of all. He gives glory to Christ in all things (John 16:14).
Another of His roles is that of gift-giver. First Corinthians 12 describes the spiritual gifts given to believers in order that we may function as the body of Christ on earth. All these gifts, both great and small, are given by the Spirit so that we may be His ambassadors to the world, showing forth His grace and glorifying Him.
The Spirit also functions as fruit-producer in our lives. When He indwells us, He begins the work of harvesting His fruit in our lives - love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). These are not works of our flesh, which is incapable of producing such fruit, but they are products of the Spiritâs presence in our lives.
The knowledge that the Holy Spirit of God has taken up residence in our lives, that He performs all these miraculous functions, that He dwells with us forever and will never leave or forsake us is cause for great joy and comfort. Thank God for this precious Gift â the Holy Spirit and His work in our lives!
I trust the bolded statement with all my heart and soul and mind.
God Bless and I hope all of you here feel the same way.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
LOL OH MY GOSH THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DOALLFORHIM, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I finally feel like Iâve been heard and understood.
We donât have to agree. You know, itâs kind of presumptious on all of our part to expect that we would change anybodyâs beliefs here in this relatively short period of time. That has to come from the Holy Spirit and our cooperation with him, donât you agree? And I think that that takes time. Time, prayer and a lot of contemplation.
I appreciate your kind heart here.
You know what I think is funny? None of us can stay away from here for very long.
I agree with your statement above. I also appreciate your kind words. It encourages me.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Amen! The first Christians did not have a New Testament they could read and âthink for themselvesâ what it meant. They learned the faith from the Apostles, who had definite ideas on what truth and falsehood was. What happened to their teaching authority? Was it simply replaced by their written words, with the individual Christian to determine what they meant?
I think the problem is that many Protestants reject any authority outside of themselves. Hebrews 13:17 says âObey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.â Which leaders are we to obey? Is the Church a democracy where we can choose whatever preacher suits our itching ears?
In the 1930s, there was a governor from Loiusiana named Huey Long. His slogan was âEvery man a King.â The Protestant version is âEvery man a Popeâ (excepting of course, the fellow in Rome with the white hat). In Protestantism, itâs up to the believer to determine what Scripture means (the irony here is that the original reformers like Luther and Calvin were admamant that their interpretation of Scripture was correct, and violently disagreed with those who disagreed with them- sounds more like âSola Egoâ than anything else).
Catholics are accused of not âbeing able to think for themselves.â For one thing, if this was true, the Catholic Church would not attract thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or Scott Hahn. For another âthinking for one selfâ doesnât make something true. I can think for myself that âthe sky is purpleâ or âthe ocean is sassafras teaâ but that doesnât make it so. You can âthink for yourselfâ that the Bible teaches sola scriptura or sola fide, but that doesnât make it so. Paul wrote to the Galatians that they were being foolish for following false teachers: what right did he have to tell them what was true? Perhaps the Galatians were âthinking for themselvesâ that Paul was wrong. Just because you submit to an authority other than yourself does not mean you are unable to think for yourself.
S
sandusky
Guest
Thanks, Researcher; however, that is not what I asked, and itâs my bad.
Implicit in your statement, âI donât know if I have the truth,â is the idea that you donât know what the truth is; how else could you not know whether or not you had it?
Then, you go on and say, âThat is why I turn to the one and only Church who received the truth from Jesus Christ.â
If you donât know what the truth is, how do you know where to find it?
S
sandusky
Guest
You sound a bit frustrated, Robert.
Let me rephrase my last question to you: Which if any of those three that you have singled out (in your post #420)âLutherans, Baptists, SDAâdo you think has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and explain how you know that.
(Since you say that you were not always Catholic, I assume you have an answer for that.)
R
Researcher
Guest
sandusky; you ask very good questions. Having stated out as a Methodist I believe I understand where you are coming from. My point that I am trying to make is that I can read and study the Bible and any other writings all I want and any conclusions I come up with are mine. So how do I know if they are in agreement with what Jesus taught his disciples? I must go to an authority for this. The next question is then who is the authority? Now because I have studied extensively all that was ever written on the topic I could claim that I am the authority. If I had not studied extensively I could try and find someone who has and claim that they have the authority to confirm my conclusions. Now what happens if we differ on our conclusions? Who is right? We both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. There can only be one truth so which one is it and who desides?
With this conundrum it certainly makes a great deal sense that one of the Apostles would be the final decision maker. Peter was given that responsibility. I really wonder who would want such a great responsibility? This authority was handed on to his successors. So as I study the Bible, and read the writings of the early church fathers, and read contemporary writings I always go to the church for confirmation of my conclusions. If they agree, great! I feel smart. If we do not agree, I am humbled (again).
So to answer your question I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the truth. Why? Because they were given not only the truth directly from Jesus through the Aposltes, but the authority as well. This scenario is the only one that makes any sense to me. If I were to go outside the church for the authority on the truth to whom would I go?
With this conundrum it certainly makes a great deal sense that one of the Apostles would be the final decision maker. Peter was given that responsibility. I really wonder who would want such a great responsibility? This authority was handed on to his successors. So as I study the Bible, and read the writings of the early church fathers, and read contemporary writings I always go to the church for confirmation of my conclusions. If they agree, great! I feel smart. If we do not agree, I am humbled (again).
So to answer your question I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the truth. Why? Because they were given not only the truth directly from Jesus through the Aposltes, but the authority as well. This scenario is the only one that makes any sense to me. If I were to go outside the church for the authority on the truth to whom would I go?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Researcher;
I completely agree. The only reason we have to trust the Church is that we trust Jesus.
History and Scripture work together to show us how Jesus gave the leadership to Peter and to Peterâs successors, in an unbroken succession of the laying on of hands all the way from Peter in April of 33 AD to Pope Benedict XVI in March of 2007 AD, and beyond, into the future for perhaps even another 2,000 years, right up until the Second Coming.
I completely agree. The only reason we have to trust the Church is that we trust Jesus.
History and Scripture work together to show us how Jesus gave the leadership to Peter and to Peterâs successors, in an unbroken succession of the laying on of hands all the way from Peter in April of 33 AD to Pope Benedict XVI in March of 2007 AD, and beyond, into the future for perhaps even another 2,000 years, right up until the Second Coming.
R
RNRobert
Guest
My answer: none of the above. Which is why I became Catholic.Yousound a bit frustrated, Robert.
Let me rephrase my last question to you: Which if any of those three that you have singled out (in your post #420)âLutherans, Baptists, SDAâdo you think has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and explain how you know that.
(Since you say that you were not always Catholic, I assume you have an answer for that.)
The three churches I mentioned I picked at random. I did consider joining the SDAs, as their argument for Sabbath keeping sounded convincing, until in one of their books they started talking about William Miller (a 19th century fraud who announced that Christâs Second Coming would be in 1843), and their credibility went out the window.
I was a Baptist, but left when there was a disagreement in the church and the minister left to start his own non-denom church (BTW- where in Scripture does it say Christians are allowed to break off and start their own churches when the fancy suits them?).
My point is that you can pick a doctrine, any doctrine that a Protestant denomination teaches is Scriptural, and find another one that uses Scripture to teach the opposite. How do I know which one is correct? Is God the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33)? Paul tells the Ephesians that there should be â**One **Lord, **one **faith, one baptismâ (Eph 4:5), yet Protestants canât even agree on the nature of Baptism.
What I hear from many Protestants on this forum (and in this thread in particular is something to the effect that âNo one can know 100% of the truth.â To me, this is relativism, pure and simple. I find it ironic because Protestants who will in breath insist that the Bible (which did not drop down from heaven, but was created by ordinary men with ink, pen and parchment) is infallible, but then in next breath claim that it cannot be infallibily interpreted. So basically what youâre saying is this: The Holy Spirit was able to guide the sacred writers to write without error, was able to guide the early Christians to correctly assemble the canon of Sacred Scripture without error, yet was unable to prevent the Church from correctly teaching without error.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Cryptic is good âŚ
. One can use scripture in a variety of ways and be misusing it ⌠the quote is even the devil does it meaning that one can interpret Scripture in a way that satifies ⌠sometimes ⌠not always a personal agenda ⌠making it fit my beliefs. By the title of the thread this is done or we would not have a thread with that title. I am not implying that incorrect interpretation is the devilâs work or anything like that but the point is Scripture can be misused so an incorrect interpretation will lead one further from the truth not closer. So we come back to the age old question ⌠where can an absolutely trustworthy source of interpretation be found. You find it in your yourself and I find it in the Church.
S
sandusky
Guest
Thanks.
So then, you gathered data, including the scripture; you examined that data, including the scripture, and you relied upon the Holy Spirit, and after all of that the choice that made the most sense to you was Rome, correct?
Moreover, in doing that, you demonstrate that one is able to understand the scripture and church history without the help, or interpretation of the Pope, and the Magisterium, correct?
Also, I would assume then, that you think that not only the Methodists, but every other group is theologically, anthropologically, soteriologically, and any other -ologically, incorrect, right?
I mean, you chose Rome because it was the correct theology, right?
Finally, was your choice a fallible choice, or an infallible choice?
S
sandusky
Guest
But you would except the RCC in that? IOW, only non-Roman Catholics are guilty of misusing the Scripture, and of course, Satan, as you have mentioned above, is that correct?
If you believe that there is only one truth, and if you believe that you have it in the RCC, why wouldnât you say it outright, unless you believe that the truth is also found in sects other than your own?
Thatâs a clever saying, and it brings us back to the issue of having the truth.
If you donât find the truth within yourself, that is, if you donât have a certainty of knowledge, an assured understanding, a private possession of the truth, and a conviction within yourself that you have the truth, then I would submit that you donât know what the truth is; so your claim to have found the truth, not in yourself, but in the Church, is suspect to me. At least Researcher admits that one can gather data, and read the scripture, and understand that data and the scripture without the help of the Pope and the Magisterium, and make some âsense of it.â (Although I disagree with his findings).
Your method seems a blind one to me.
S
sandusky
Guest
To you they are false churches anyway, so why do you care what they do? If you truly care about them, then why arenât you evangelizing them, and me, more strongly concerning the Gospel, urging me to repent and believe in Christ instead of doing what you are doing; namely, urging me to join your Church as if thatâs what will save me.
Can there be found scriptures that teach the opposite of any of the doctrines of your church? Many say, âthere are.â
Actually, Paul says âthere is one body (the Church), one Spirit,âŚone Lord, one faith, one baptismâŚâ there is, not there should be; but you probably donât believe that because you see confusion all around, even within your own group; how do you explain the discrepancy between Paulâs statement, and what is seen?
Also, if your basis for incorrect theology is disagreement, then your church is in the same boat.
No one can know 100% of the truth, and that is not relativism, but is due to our humanness, our, finiteism, if you will, and the fact that God has not revealed everything (Dt 29:29). So, whatâs your problem with that statement?
IOW, your logic demands that there be an infallible interpreter in the form of a person here on earth; your logic is not alone in that demand, but is a logic shared by other groups as well, and each one of those groups claims to have the infallible interpreter.
No, Iâm not saying that at all; the Holy Spirit cannot teach error; He knows those whom the Father has given the Son, and He teaches them truth; One body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, remember?
N
ncgolf
Guest
Yes, I do except the RCC. I believe the RCC does not error in her teachings on Godâs written word. If I were to attempt it myself I might get some and miss some and be entirely wrong on others. I think a prime example is the Churchâs teaching on contraception. I had a tough time when I was younger understanding this teaching ⌠I didnât agree ⌠it took some of JPIIâs writing and study on my part to really begin to see the whyâs on that moral teaching.
Anyone Catholic or Non-Catholic can misuse Scripture but the Church cannot for the Church and Christ are one. The Church is often called the Bride of Christ. When entities are married they cease to be two but become one body.
There is some truths in all of them I suppose but where is the separation between a true teaching and an untrue teaching. It comes back to how do you know for sure.
The Church and Jesus are synomous to me ⌠it is the same thing so what more do I need. I read Scripture, internalize it and live my life as I best I can given the data and intelligence God gave me but I never thought of truth as a possession. That sounds foreign to me and actually have a hard time understanding what it means to possess truth. The Churchâs teaching on contraception was always out there for anyone to read but I guess I really didnât want to believe it so after study it was more revealed ⌠like the scales coming off my eyes and the little lightbulb went on. I donât have to develop truths ⌠they are there I am trying to understand them ⌠that is a big difference from where you and I sit. I guess I would say I have a falliable understanding of infalliable teaching.
I didnât think it was a method ⌠I always called it faith.
D
deb216
Guest
You have told me what I think. You have told me what I believe. You have implied that you know what I have written better than I do. Now you question my sincerity. I am overwhelmed by your arrogance, apophasis. You do not know me. Truly, if you comprehend scripture as well as you comprehend my words, then you have done me a tremendous service. You have personally demonstrated how fallacious sola scriptura is. I thank you.
As for your premise that the âfilterâ of tradition influences my beliefs, it is fundamentally flawed. I determined what the truth was before I embraced Catholicism, not after. I studied the Bible and Christianity. Then I studied the different religions and denominations. One by one I rejected those whose beliefs conflicted with my own. When I was done, only Catholicism remained.
I do not believe because I am Catholic.
I am Catholic because I believe.
D
deb216
Guest
With respect to your apologist, I was partially correct on Luther. He did omit 1 and 2 Esdras, which were returned to the Protestant Bible as Ezra and Nehemiah. He removed other books from the Old and New Testaments, but did not remove them from the Bible. That was done later.
My point, however, was not to quibble over who removed the scriptures from the Protestant Bible. It is that they were removed. Protestants who do not have the complete Bible do not have the whole truth.
There is some truth in all Churches but only the Catholic Church has the whole truth.
D
deb216
Guest
I will pass. As written, the suggestions are as biased as the author is.
For example, #1 implies that one must be âborn againâ to understand scripture. While the term âborn againâ is biblical, its modern meaning is synonymous with specific evangelical and fundamental churches. As such, it relegates all other Christians to the condition of being an unbeliever, ergo one who is incapable of correctly interpreting scripture.
Another example is #7, based on petitio principii. It establishes as truth a point that is in question; that those churches who include tradition only claim to read the Bible, that their interpretations are not accurate, that tradition conflicts with the Bible, and that tradition is given greater precedence so that church leaders can usurp the authority of the Word.
I am amazed and amused that so much Protestant propaganda was fit into a single paragraph. Fallacy begets fallacy. Refer to these âsuggestionsâ as much as you like. In my opinion, they are merely rhetorical devices that are designed to advance an agenda, not wisdom.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Please do not put words into my mouth.Not if she âbelievesâ sheâs infallible.
To you âinfallibilityâ is not a matter of fact but only oneâs belief.
W
Will_Pick
Guest
The Churh is the Pillar of truth and not the Bible 1Tim 3:15,** According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the âpillar of truthâ (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some âBibleâ Christians insist that a âpillarâ (the Church) was created to âhold upâ another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church âhold upâ the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didnât even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a âpillarâ holding up the Bible, doesnât that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, âNOâ (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the âfounderâ of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that âany milkmaid who could readâ would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her âinterpretationâ of the Bible. Luther opened a âPandoraâs Boxâ when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individualsâ âdifferentâ interpretations of the Bible.Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word âtruthâ is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word âtruthâ never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the âTruthâ (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, arenât ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming âinfallibilityâ when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who canât agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming âinfallibility?â When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the âsameâ non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their âinterpretationâ of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldnât they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be âYes.â But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is âNo.â Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the âsheepâ (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.**
- Status