"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[jmcrae]

Jm, with all due respect, did you at least feel the breeze on your forehead when everything I wrote went over your head?

I understood you perfectly. I think that maybe what I wrote has gone straight over your head, which is why you don’t have a sensible reply.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

We can’t hear Jesus with our ears any more, because Jesus is up in Heaven. The Pope helps us to know what Jesus is saying to us. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way that the writers of Scripture were protected when they were writing down Jesus’ words in the New Testament.

We can trust the Pope for exactly the same reasons that we can trust the New Testament.

Hi,
I have a problem with that because the bible does not single out one person that is protected by the HS. All believers have the HS.

It comes down to is the Pope biblical and Peter just cant be proven to be considered the supreme authority over all the other Apostles. I understand all you wrote but it still doesnt prove the supremecy of One person over the whole church. The bible doesnt say to listen to One man’s intrepretations of the bible.
Did you read 1 Corinthians chapter 2?( verse 5) Paul is also speaking in plural to the church in Corinth–who happens to also have the HS in them(individually) Chapters 3 and 4 are good to.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Cont:

Quote:
1:1. Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.

Notice He is including all the saints/believers. We have bishops and deacons.

Right but this is the hiearchy of the Church. Remember Jesus was the High Preist. He instituted the Sacraments. I was just refuting your claim that there was no hierarchy.

Quote:
In Conclusion we see that we are meant to be one body of Christ and not seperated by private intepretations. We also see that Tradition is just as solid as Scripture and the Church did have a hiearchy.

The church does have leadership roles and heirarchies that were established biblically but ti stops at Bishop and never talks about supremecy. This set up is for all the hurches that follow apostolic biblical teaching.

**Hi AFH,
Who do you think is the supreme Bishop of the chruch rep on earth. We just don’t have A vice president and then it stops. Please refer to above post when Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep.

**

Hey,
I dont have time to answer you know but I will unless I forget–remind me.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
I have a problem with that because the bible does not single out one person that is protected by the HS. All believers have the HS.

The whole Church has the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean that each and every individual believer has all of charisms of the Holy Spirit. In fact, St. Paul goes to great lengths to remind us of our differences in levels of authority in I Corinthians 12. “Are all Apostles?” he asks, rhetorically, and then answers himself, “No.” We are not all Apostles, and we don’t all have the same level of authority as the Apostles do. Only the Pope and the Bishops have that, and even in their case, they don’t have any authority to teach anything new, but only what comes down to us from the Apostles themselves. They can’t add anything to it, nor can they ever subtract anything from it.

It comes down to is the Pope biblical and Peter just cant be proven to be considered the supreme authority over all the other Apostles.

Have you ever prayerfully considered John 21:15-19? It seems in that passage as though Jesus is setting Peter up to be the chief shepherd of the Church - unless maybe you think that Jesus has a literal flock of sheep, and that He was sending St. Peter to tend some actual sheep?

I understand all you wrote but it still doesnt prove the supremecy of One person over the whole church. The bible doesnt say to listen to One man’s intrepretations of the bible.

The Pope doesn’t give “man’s interpretation,” though. In fact, he is very careful never to mention his personal opinions at all.

Did you read 1 Corinthians chapter 2?( verse 5) Paul is also speaking in plural to the church in Corinth–who happens to also have the HS in them(individually) Chapters 3 and 4 are good to.

Yes, this is referring to the fact that they have received the Sacrament of Confirmation. This doesn’t give them the same authority as the Apostles, though - and he makes very sure in chapter 12 to explain that to them, as well.

 

[deb216]

After reading all these Protestant responses, I think I have sola scriptura all figured out.

The Bible is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter, and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine. In order to understand the Bible, one must read it and sincerely pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

It is possible for two people to read the Bible and pray sincerely for guidance and still disagree with each other. When they disagree, both cannot be right. One or both of them could be wrong, even though they both believe that they are right because they both believe that they have been led by the Holy Spirit. Right is a matter of interpretation.

All Christians who pray sincerely and read the Bible have the authority to interpret it. It is possible for the Holy Spirit to not reveal the whole truth to someone. Christians who do not have the whole truth will not know that they don’t have the whole truth until a greater truth presents itself, when the Holy Spirit deems them ready. Christians who do not have the whole truth can still teach the Bible with authority because they believe that they have the whole truth.

Christians who are not fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew may not be interpreting the scriptures correctly, even though they believe they are because they have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Having a lexicon makes one fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek, even though it does not teach them grammar, composition, punctuation, metaphors or idioms. (Borat would be proud!) Christians who have been fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew would still be wrong if their interpretations differ from Christians who have read a translated Bible and prayed sincerely for guidance from the Holy Spirit, even if they don’t speak, read or understand ancient Hebrew and Greek.

I would like to thank the Protestants who have responded so thoughtfully on this thread. Sola scriptura makes much more sense now. If I read the bible and pray sincerely for guidance, the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to me, though it may not be the whole truth. Even if it is less than the whole truth, I will still be right because I have the authority to interpret the Bible. Since the Holy Spirit would not lead me astray, all Christians who do not understand the Bible as I do are wrong because we both cannot be right and I know that I am right because I prayed sincerely and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. That they also prayed sincerely and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance is moot because they are wrong so it was something other than the Holy Spirit guiding them, but not me, of course, because I have a burning bosom. No wait, same logic but wrong book. My bad :roll:

I’ll stick with the Holy See. I know with all my heart that Jesus would not have left something as precious as the Word to be misconstrued by every Tom, Dick and Luther out there. One Church requires one voice to speak with authority. Anything else would lead to chaos… like what we have now; millions of Christians speaking with authority, each claiming truth, each claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, each knowing that he is right… even when he is wrong.

 

[deb216]

*Luke 22:29-31

29And I appoint unto you (plural) a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30That ye (plural) may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you (plural) as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy (singular) faith fail not: and when thou (singular) art converted, strengthen thy (singular) brethren.

33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee (singular), both into prison, and to death. *

As you can see by the VERY specific forms of address, Jesus singled out Peter from the rest of the disciples. They were all appointed a kingdom, and all would sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Satan wanted all of them to sift as wheat but it was Peter that Jesus prayed for. It was Peter’s faith that He was concerned about. Peter was the one who would have to “strengthen his brethren.”

Peter was the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi,
I thought I told you where I was coming from. Because I would like to see what your point is I will say yes:thumbsup:

Okay, just so we’re clear, you’re saying yes to the following:

4) Did God provide a way in which human beings, even though not sinless, when they penned scripture, would write only the truth, that what they wrote would be 100% inerrant?

My next question is an easy one:

5) So everything written in the Bible is 100% correct? By this I mean scripture, not footnotes or anything like that.

Yes/no/I don’t know.

 

[mrs_abbott]

My next question is an easy one:

5) So everything written in the Bible is 100% correct? By this I mean scripture, not footnotes or anything like that.

Yes/no/I don’t know.

I know I’m not AFH but I’d venture to say “yes” to that question.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

God is the God of the Catholic Church. The Pope doesn’t think he is operating in God’s place. No - instead, the Pope is the guy through whom God speaks to us…

That is the same claim made by the Mullahs of Islam, the Prophets of the Mormon Church, and the President of the Watchtower Society.

jmcrae:

the Pope is the guy through whom God speaks to us in exactly the same way as the eight writers of the New Testament were being used by God to give us the Scriptures

That is not true; the writers of Scripture had personal revelation from God. Popes do not have personal revelation from God. Popes have what every believer has—the testimony of those who had personal revelation from God—the scripture.

jmcrae:

Yes. And if they have rebelled and broken away from the Body of Christ, then can they still be said to be part of it?

Begs the question: the RCC is the only true body of Christ; besides, the RCC doesn’t teach that, but that protestants are separated brethren, who have the truth, though not in its fullness.

jmcrae:

In a limited and imperfect way, they can be, but those who have broken away and created their own alternative religions are not part of the same assembly of people that were originally called out to follow Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.

Again, this begs the question, and you make yourself out to be smarter than non-Catholics, and you assume that you have made a better intellectual choice of churches than others.

However, scripturally, the elect believer is placed into the body of Christ by the baptism of the HS at the time of his regeneration (not water baptism); the HS does not place the elect believer into a false body, and then expect him to find the true body of Christ by his own effort
(1 Cor 12:13).

jmcrae:

That assembly is still found only in the Catholic Church

Begs the question.

jmcrae:

Actually, no. Baptist, Lutheran, and other Protestant churches are not “local churches,” but separated communities.

I don’t think any of those groups would agree with you, except perhaps for some Lutherans.

jmcrae:

Yes, I have no doubt that that’s correct - which is why, when I found out about that, I decided I didn’t want to be part of a religion that had been started by a prideful man who didn’t even want to be part of God’s church anymore, but thought he had a better idea than God’s idea, and instead I decided to join the Church that Jesus actually started, which is the Catholic Church…

Again see above “baptism of the HS” 1 Cor 12:13. In what you say is also seen a desire for “religion” rather than a desire for Christ.

jmcrae:

He and the people who elected him had no discernable authority from God to start up a new religion, no matter how “Christian” or “Bible-based” it may have been at the time - and by quitting their previous religions, they also gave up any authority they may have previously been given by those organizations to preach or to distribute the Sacraments - one does not reject the authority of the one who has given you authority to do something, and yet somehow retain the authority to do that thing.

Noticeably absent from your statement is any mention of the Gospel; therefore, I must conclude that either you don’t correctly understand the Gospel, or it just is not important to you; your main plea is ”join my church; we have the sacraments.” (Perhaps that is the Gospel to you?)

Furthermore, your neglect of the Gospel can only mean that you believe that protestants have the correct understanding of the Gospel; why else would you not plead it?

 

[apophasis]

*Luke 22:29-31

29And I appoint unto you* (plural) a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30That ye (plural) may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you (plural) as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy (singular) faith fail not: and when thou (singular) art converted, strengthen thy (singular) brethren.

33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee (singular), both into prison, and to death.

As you can see by the VERY specific forms of address, Jesus singled out Peter from the rest of the disciples. They were all appointed a kingdom, and all would sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Satan wanted all of them to sift as wheat but it was Peter that Jesus prayed for. It was Peter’s faith that He was concerned about. Peter was the one who would have to “strengthen his brethren.”

Peter was the rock upon which Jesus built His Church.

**32 But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy (singular) faith fail not: and when thou (singular) art converted, strengthen thy (singular) brethren.**You, yourself, point out here all the “singulars,” yet you interpret this verse as referring not only to Peter but to his so-called “successors” in Rome.

(1) Does Christ, in the text, say anything about giving to Peter a throne in Rome?

(2) In respect to thrones, according to the text, does He single out Peter at all?

(3) Over whom are they to judge?

Let’s read number seven again, shall we?:7. Undue emphasis on tradition. Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established tradition of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants the church leadership supremacy.I see a lot of conflict between your established tradition, through which your interpretation of the text is filtered, and what the Biblical text actually states.

You cannot possibly arrive at a correct interpretation of the Scriptures when your interpretation is filtered through your already established traditions. In truth, it’s your established traditions that must be tested by the Scriptures.

 

[sandusky]

deb216:

After reading all these Protestant responses, I think I have sola scriptura all figured out…It is possible for two people to read the Bible and pray sincerely for guidance and still disagree with each other. When they disagree, both cannot be right. One or both of them could be wrong, even though they both believe that they are right because they both believe that they have been led by the Holy Spirit. Right is a matter of interpretation.

Not only do you not have sola scriptura “all figured out, you don’t have it “figured out at all.”

Your understanding is based upon a strawman: although many people indeed have many differing interpretations of the Bible, that fact does not diminish the truthfulness, and authority of the Bible as the sole rule of faith.

That is seen in the RCC as well, and is demonstrated by the fact that many Catholics have differeing interpretations of Catholic dogma pronounced by Popes, and the magisterium; if you think that Catholics don’t engage in private interpretation, and if you think that all Catholics are in unanimous agreement with each other and the church on every church teaching, then you are naïve.

The rest of your post is specious up to the following statement; at this point it becomes ironic:

deb216:

I’ll stick with the Holy See. I know with all my heart that Jesus would not have left something as precious as the Word to be misconstrued by every Tom, Dick and Luther out there…

After sarcastically belittling those who practice sola scriptura, private interpretation, and reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit, to what argument do you resort to proclaim that you have found and understood the truth?

Sola Ecclesia, private interpretation, and reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Why is it, Deb, that private interpretation of the scripture, private interpretation of church history, private interpretation of church documents, and a reliance on the Holy Spirit is a legitimate practice for the Catholic, but not for the non-Catholic?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Okay, just so we’re clear, you’re saying yes to the following:

4) Did God provide a way in which human beings, even though not sinless, when they penned scripture, would write only the truth, that what they wrote would be 100% inerrant?

My next question is an easy one:

5) So everything written in the Bible is 100% correct? By this I mean scripture, not footnotes or anything like that.

Yes/no/I don’t know.

Hi Yes:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

That is the same claim made by the Mullahs of Islam, the Prophets of the Mormon Church, and the President of the Watchtower Society.

There were many false prophets in the time of Jeremiah, who were falsely claiming to have the gifts that Jeremiah actually had. The fact that these false prophets were lying didn’t mean that the gifts didn’t exist, or that Jeremiah couldn’t have them - all it meant was that those particular prophets didn’t have them. But Jeremiah did.

The President of the Watchtower society gets his authority from Charles Taize Russel. The Prophets of the Mormon Church receive their authority from Joseph Smith, who received it from the Angel Moroni (who isn’t mentioned anywhere in either Christian Scripture or Christian Tradition), but the Pope receives his authority from the Apostle Peter, (Irenaeus, Against the Heretics, and Clement, On Christian Unity) who received it from Jesus Christ (John 21:15-19).

That is not true; the writers of Scripture had personal revelation from God. Popes do not have personal revelation from God. Popes have what every believer has—the testimony of those who had personal revelation from God—the scripture.

True, good point - the Pope doesn’t have a personal revelation from God (neither did Luke or Mark) but he has the full testimony of the Apostles, both in the Scriptures and in the Tradition.

Noticeably absent from your statement is any mention of the Gospel; therefore, I must conclude that either you don’t correctly understand the Gospel, or it just is not important to you; your main plea is ”join my church; we have the sacraments.” (Perhaps that is the Gospel to you?)

The Gospel itself is the message of the Scriptures and Tradition - it doesn’t, in and of itself, have power to confer authority on anyone. Only God, or a person whom God has appointed, has the ability to confer authority of any kind on anyone - not just religious authority, but any kind of authority. Even the authority of parents, and of the police and government, comes from God. No one appoints himself (or herself) to be a police officer, a government official, or even a mother or father - the processes for deciding who may hold these offices comes through processes that were designed and put into place originally by God.

Furthermore, your neglect of the Gospel can only mean that you believe that protestants have the correct understanding of the Gospel; why else would you not plead it?

Before we can even start talking about the correct understanding of the Gospel, we have to know who has the authority to proclaim it authentically.

 

[jmcrae]

Oops, typo above - I meant to say Cyprian, On Christian Unity. Clement wrote Letter to the Corinthians, which also touches on the subject of Church authority, who has it, and who should obey it, etc.

 

[Keikiolu]

Not only do you not have sola scriptura “all figured out, you don’t have it “figured out at all.”

Your understanding is based upon a strawman: although many people indeed have many differing interpretations of the Bible, that fact does not diminish the truthfulness, and authority of the Bible as the sole rule of faith.

The rule of faith is drawn from not only the “book”, which are the scriptures that were CHOSEN by the Church, but the authority who CHOSE those books, being “THE CHURCH” itself.

Since the Church preceeded the “book”, and had the authority to AUTHORIZE the “book”, it actually takes precedence as the authority of Faith.

There will be no convincing you, of course, of this simple fact, because to admit it utterly anihilates all christian so-called authorities thta are not based from within the Church.

That is seen in the RCC as well, and is demonstrated by the fact that many Catholics have differeing interpretations of Catholic dogma pronounced by Popes, and the magisterium; if you think that Catholics don’t engage in private interpretation, and if you think that all Catholics are in unanimous agreement with each other and the church on every church teaching, then you are naïve.

Each person WILL have a different “personal interpretation” of any stimulus that they receive from any other person’s “personal interpretation”.

But, those who are within the Church submit to the rightful decisive authority, which is the Pope and his Magisterium.

The rest of your post is specious up to the following statement; at this point it becomes ironic: After sarcastically belittling those who practice sola scriptura, private interpretation, and reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit, to what argument do you resort to proclaim that you have found and understood the truth?

Sola Ecclesia, private interpretation, and reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

If you believe that the rightful authority is the head of the Church, then that is the one “private interpretation”, which isn’t really a PRIVATE interpretation at all, that is to be obeyed.

If you don’t, then ANY private interpretation is just as good as any other, and the “church” turns into a chaos of private interpretations which may “evolve”, via “market forces”, into that which the collective mind, at any particular point in history, decides is “most nifty” for their purposes.

(( The current “nifty purpose” is exemplified by “The Secret”, where “prosperity” and “personal happiness” is the goal of “true spirituality”. ))

The Church (Catholic) will be protected from this “evolution”, against the powers of Hell, by the Holy Spirit acting within the Church.

The “evolving” churches (religions) will fracture and combine and mix and die and be “born” as all creations of man do.

Why is it, Deb, that private interpretation of the scripture, private interpretation of church history, private interpretation of church documents, and a reliance on the Holy Spirit is a legitimate practice for the Catholic, but not for the non-Catholic?

Only ONE authority exists that CAN interpret “that which is to be interpreted”, and that authority is the rightful and appointed successor of Jesus.

If you choose to not bow to that authority, that’s your free (will) choice.

The consequence of that choice is to reject Christ as having the right to assign authority as He wished, and insisting that you personally are just as “wise” as those whom Jesus has “given the keys”.

You may be a very wise person, but I doubt if you’re as wise as the accumulated wisdom of 2000 years of the Church.

Then again,… if you’re a nice person, and do good in the world, then you’re at least as likely to “get into heaven” as any other well meaning heathen…!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi Yes:thumbsup:

Okay, we’ve established that scripture is 100% inerrant.

Now, I realize you’ve answered this next one before, but since it’s the next one in order, would you please answer it again?

6) Is having the Holy Spirit and being a sincere believer a guarantee of infallibility in interpreting scripture?

Yes/no/I don’t know

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Okay, we’ve established that scripture is 100% inerrant.

Now, I realize you’ve answered this next one before, but since it’s the next one in order, would you please answer it again?

6) Is having the Holy Spirit and being a sincere believer a guarantee of infallibility in interpreting scripture?

Yes/no/I don’t know

No

 

[sandusky]

…but the Pope receives his authority from the Apostle Peter, (Irenaeus, Against the Heretics, and Clement, On Christian Unity) who received it from Jesus Christ (John 21:15-19).

Yes, that is your position.

jmcrae:

The Gospel itself is the message of the Scriptures and Tradition - it doesn’t, in and of itself, have power to confer authority on anyone.

I never said it did (cf Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18, 24, et al).

jmcrae:

Before we can even start talking about the correct understanding of the Gospel, we have to know who has the authority to proclaim it authentically.

Actually the proclamation of the gospel is not one of authority, but one of compulsion; everyone who has truly believed the gospel will, at some point, be compelled by the indwelling HS to proclaim its truth; it is a simple message—believe…(Acts 16:31, et al).

 

[sandusky]

Keikiolu,

Just want to acknowledge that I read your post.

 

[Researcher]

Jesus told Peter that he has the “keys to the kingdom” and that whatever he “binds on earth will be bound in heaven.” Now this can reasonably be interprited that Peter gets to make the rules. That this simple fisherman can make the laws (yes, man-made laws) that Christians are to abide by becuase Jesus will abide by them in heaven. Jesus clearly states this. So now the question is, can this authority be handed on to Peter’s successors? Here we have to believe that yes this must be so for if not then we no longer have an authority to determine the contents of the Bible.

Protestants today must believe that somehow this authority either evaporated from the Church, after the contents of the Bible were difined, or that the church somehow lost the authority it was given by Jesus so that everyone has an equal authority. The later explains why we have so many different Christian denominations with varying beliefs.

Even though I may be blessed with significant grace from the Holy Spirit, and be blessed with many gifts, the authority to define the faith was not given to me. I am not Peter nor am I his successor. For me, the authority of the pope is one of the great gifts Jesus left us. Without this I would no longer be a Christian. I would be left with the same question Pilot asked Jesus, “What is truth?”