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

[sandusky]

Keikiolu:

The reason that protestants will admit of no “ultimate authority” that would rectify their admittedly “ERROR PRONE” interpretational situation, is simply because they can’t admit that there IS an ultimate authority,… which makes them (ultimately) crypto-agnostics.

That would be true, but for the fact that it is a strawman, and a sophomoric one at that; one of the most basic tenants of the reformed faith is that of authority—God’s, and it is found in his personal revelation recorded in the two testaments.

To paraphrase Deb216, “do not presume to tell a non-Catholic what non-Catholics are and what they believe until you know,” Keikiolu. “It makes you look foolish.”

jmcrae:

You’ve just said that they are not infallible. This indicates that they are only taking their best guess at the meaning of the Scriptures. They have no way of actually knowing for certain.

Catholics are not excluded from this supposed protestant conundrum, as personal fallibility is based upon humanness, and not religious affiliation.

To ALLFORHIM’s question:

…how can we know that the Pope knows for certain?

jmcrae replied:

Because of Jesus’ promise to him, that the Holy Spirit would guide him to the truth in all things, and that the gates of Hell can never prevail.

This is how we know that the Pope is infallible, because of Jesus’ infallible promise to him. (Jesus is infallible, too.)

The answer begs the question, concerning the validity of the papacy, as well as papal infallibility.

While it is possible that all of those assumptions concerning the papacy are true, it is also possible that none of those assumptions are true.

But what is certainly true of anyone who claims to have made a choice either to join the RCC, or not, his choice is fallible.

Anyone making a choice, of any kind, examines, and interprets data of some sort, and then makes a choice based upon the findings of that examined and interpreted data, and that choice is an equally fallible choice for everyone—Catholic, and non-Catholic alike; therefore, Catholics, and non-Catholics are in the same epistemological boat (although Catholics are unabashedly loathe to admit it).

jmcrae:

Only St. Peter was personally given the gift of infallibility. Matthew 16:18.

What in that verse gives Peter infallibility, J?

jmcrae:

He states that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Peter, meaning that Peter will not be capable of teaching anything that is not actually true.

The promise is that Hades will not prevail against the body of Christ—the Church—and it is a poetic expression that the followers of Jesus would never die (the second death) (cf Jn 5:24); Peter made it clear that he was quite capable of teaching error, and acting improperly all while supposedly occupying a papal office (Gal 2:11ff; cf 1 Pet 5:1 with 2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1).

RNRobert:

Then what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? And, where does it state in Scripture that Scripture is infallible? 1 Tim 3:16 says Scripture is useful, profitable…

V 15 says that scripture is able [Gk *dunamai], to give one wisdom that leads to salvation; that Greek word is used throughout the NT with respect to the ability of God to do anything, including save His people forever, or to the uttermost, and it is also used in Jas 1:21 as well, supporting what Paul said to Timothy; namely that, “the implanted word is able to save ones soul;” in v22, James admonishes each believer to be a doer of that implanted word.

If the Old is able to do that, how much more the full revelation in the New?

deb216:

Early Christians did not read the Word. It was proclaimed to them. What matters is not that we read the Bible but that we learn what we need to learn. Catholics hear the scripture from the cradle to the grave. We learn the entire Bible, not just the parts that Luther saw fit to keep.

Holding the low hand, Deb throws the Luther Card. At that link, you can get things straightened out concerning Luther and scripture, Deb.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

.

Then what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? And, where does it state in Scripture that Scripture is infallible? 1 Tim 3:16 says Scripture is useful, profitable, etc, but it doesn’t claim infallibility. Perhaps the Bible (written by men) isn’t infallible either?

The fact that God wrote the bible should be enough for you. He used men to do the writing but God still put the words in their heads. I know you believe the bible is infallible so this conversation is silly.

 

[SusanL]

Holding the low hand, Deb throws the Luther Card. At that link, you can get things straightened out concerning Luther and scripture, Deb.

Sandusky, Deb didn’t throw a “low” hand. Those are facts. There were chapters removed from the book of Esther and the book of Daniel besides the 7 books from the Old Testament. I have alluded to that in another post as well. Whether it was Luther or another reformer is irrelevant. Luther wanted to remove other books such as James and Revelation but was stopped by other reformers. I vaguely remember reading something about the author of your link. It wasn’t complimentary and I’d have to do some more research before I’d trust him. Sorry.

I’ll let other posters respond to the rest of your post.

 

[sandusky]

I vaguely remember reading something about the author of your link. It wasn’t complimentary and I’d have to do some more research before I’d trust him. Sorry.

Thank you Susan for poisoning the well on the basis of something “vaguely remembered.”
The link is a very good one.

 

[SusanL]

Thank you Susan for poisoning the well on the basis something of “vaguely remembered.”
The link is a very good one.

You’re welcome. It was not intentioned but I did say that I was going to do more research. I’m not going to blindly believe that link without checking. When I have a red flag on a name—I’m going to check it. And that is what I’ve been doing since I posted.

Sorry if you don’t like it. I didn’t “shelve my brains” for the Catholic Church and I’m not going to for you either.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Catholics do not believe this. Period.

An “error free” book without an “error free” reader (interpreter) is an “ERROR PRONE” situation.

The reason that protestants will admit of no “ultimate authority” that would rectify their admittedly “ERROR PRONE” interpretational situation, is simply because they can’t admit that there IS an ultimate authority,… which makes them (ultimately) crypto-agnostics.

So Catholics don’t believe that the Pope is error-free in matters of proclaiming doctrine and dogma?
If Protestants are what you say they are, I’d venture to say then that Catholics are nothing but members of a cult that makes up their traditions based on what someone said about the Bible hundreds of years ago but doesn’t dare question it for themselves. Sounds like JW’s to me.
I tried to be nice but when you throw insults, don’t expect us to sit quiet and take it. :nope:

 

[sandusky]

You’re welcome. It was not intentioned but I did say that I was going to do more research. I’m not going to blindly believe that link without checking. When I have a red flag on a name—I’m going to check it.

In future, do the research first, and then the poisoning.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not going to blindly believe that link without checking. When I have a red flag on a name—I’m going to check it.

Let us just say that Mr Swan is not the biggest proponent of the Catholic Church.

 

[SusanL]

In future, do the research first, and then the poisoning.

Don’t make it a bigger deal than it already is. You want us to accept this guy as authority?? I don’t think so.

You want to start another thread on why the reformers removed books and additional chapters from the Bible? Go ahead. It’s another thread.

 

[sandusky]

Let us just say that Mr Swan is not the biggest proponent of the Catholic Church.

I"m aware of that, Mickey.

 

[RNRobert]

V 15 says that scripture is able [Gk *dunamai

], to give one wisdom that leads to salvation; that Greek word is used throughout the NT with respect to the ability of God to do anything, including save His people forever, or to the uttermost, and it is also used in Jas 1:21 as well, supporting what Paul said to Timothy; namely that, “the implanted word is able to save ones soul;” in v22, James admonishes each believer to be a doer of that implanted word.

If the Old is able to do that, how much more the full revelation in the New?

True, but that doesn’t tell me anything about the infallibility of the Bible.

 

[apophasis]

I did not address your questions because they were irrelevant.

Hardly.

I did not claim that that text established Peter’s authority in Rome.

Really?

It established that Jesus prayed for Peter, it was Peter’s faith that He was concerned about, and it was Peter who would have to strengthen the other disciples. Jesus singled Peter out. The relevant question is why.

How so? Because the “why?” question, rather than the Bibliclal text, establishes in your mind the RC tradition of the primacy of Peter and his so-called successors in Rome?

Nothing that Jesus did was meaningless.

That’s true, but one must be VERY careful not to insert their own meaning into what He said. That’s the reason for the seven, suggested guidlines at the beginning of this thread. Go back and read them.

Why do you think He singled out Peter? Why did He change Simon’s name from “grain of sand” to “rock,” why did He give the keys to Peter, why did He give the power to loose and bind sins to Peter, why did He specifically pray for Peter’s faith so that he, alone, could strengthen the other disciples, why did He tell Peter to feed His sheep? Why?

We can save a lot of time beating around the bush by you telling me - and then you go back and answer my “irrelevant” questions in # 329.

You assume that I shelve my brain and mindlessly follow because my interpretation of the Bible is not the same as yours.

No I don’t.

The Catholic Church is Biblically based. That means we base our beliefs on the Bible and apostolic teaching.

No it doesn’t. It’s belief system is based on its traditon, the Bible being only one of them. It’s interpretation of the Bible is filtered through its already established tradition. If it was primarily, Biblically based it would adhere to sola Scriptura - which, in fact, it loathes.

BTW, I own my thoughts and opinions. They are mine. You may disagree with me but you may not imply that I do not have the capacity to think for myself.

With all due respect, as a RC you are not allowed to think for yourself. You MUST submit to its already established tradition, that’s what “faith” means to a RC.

I am an intelligent, educated, rational person, not a puppet of Rome.

But in order to BE a RC, sweetie, you must give yourself over to Rome and her already established tradition. And the interpretation of the Bible which you own and read must be filtered through its already established tradition. All over this forum RCs post 2 Pet. 1:21 as proof that it is unlawful for one to privately interpret the Scriptures. And their interpretation of that verse is filtered through Rome’s tradition.

 

[RNRobert]

The promise is that Hades will not prevail against the body of Christ—the Church—and it is a poetic expression that the followers of Jesus would never die (the second death) (cf Jn 5:24); Peter made it clear that he was quite capable of teaching error, and acting improperly all while supposedly occupying a papal office (Gal 2:11ff; cf 1 Pet 5:1 with 2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1).

Then why does Jesus only give he keys to Peter. As to your Scripture quotes:
Galations 2:11ff was referring to Peter’s actions, not his teaching authority. Just because a Pope acts improperly, doesn’t take away from his authority. Infallibility doesn’t mean impeccability (If you’ve been on this forum any time at all, you’ve probably already been told that).
1 Pet 5:1 doesn’t say anything about his capability for teaching error. He refers to himself as a fellow presbyter, but the Popes to this day refer to themselves as “The Servant of the Servants of God.” Doesn’t detract from his authority at all.
As for 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, what have they to do with the issue?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
The reason that protestants will admit of no “ultimate authority” that would rectify their admittedly “ERROR PRONE” interpretational situation, is simply because they can’t admit that there IS an ultimate authority,… which makes them (ultimately) crypto-agnostics.

That would be true, but for the fact that it is a strawman, and a sophomoric one at that; one of the most basic tenants of the reformed faith is that of authority—God’s, and it is found in his personal revelation recorded in the two testaments.

I shall restate:

If there is no way to inerrantly interpret an inerrant text (or any other piece of inerrant information) then the inerrancy of said text is a moot property of that text, as error will ALWAYS creep in via the errant interpretation.

We actually agree, in essence, though not in location.

You say that every person CAN (not necessarily WILL) inerrantly interpret scripture with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics say that the only person authorized to interpret, so as to make a final decision, inerrantly (in the realms of doctrine and morals) is the Pope with (name removed by moderator)ut of the Magisterium (if he so chooses) with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Your “body of faith” is such that there is no “ultimate decision maker” where each atomic (Adamic?) person CAN (not necessarily will) be a “Pope/Magisterium”.

That is a definition of “hell” to me,… and perhaps other Catholics as well.

To paraphrase Deb216, “do not presume to tell a non-Catholic what non-Catholics are and what they believe until you know,” Keikiolu. “It makes you look foolish.”

You’re absolutely right…!

I’m here to expose what I think in as full a way as possible, and what I think is often in error, and I beg of you to correct me when you think I’m wrong.

I don’t mind looking foolish, as long as my foolishness is due to my honest error.

Do you mind looking foolish to others who think you foolish for your heartfelt beliefs?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Why would you assume their understanding of scriptures is wrong in the first place?

I’m not assuming it’s wrong. I’m asking if it could be wrong.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m not assuming it’s wrong. I’m asking if it could be wrong.

Of course, any human can be wrong.

 

[SusanL]

Hardly. Really? How so? Because the “why?” question, rather than the Bibliclal text, establishes in your mind the RC tradition of the primacy of Peter and his so-called successors in Rome?That’s true, but one must be VERY careful not to insert their own meaning into what He said. That’s the reason for the seven, suggested guidlines at the beginning of this thread. Go back and read them.We can save a lot of time beating around the bush by you telling me - and then you go back and answer my “irrelevant” questions in # 329.No I don’t.No it doesn’t. It’s belief system is based on its traditon, the Bible being only one of them. It’s interpretation of the Bible is filtered through its already established tradition. If it was primarily, Biblically based it would adhere to sola Scriptura - which, in fact, it loathes.With all due respect, as a RC you are not allowed to think for yourself. You MUST submit to its already established tradition, that’s what “faith” means to a RC.But in order to BE a RC, sweetie, you must give yourself over to Rome and her already established tradition. And the interpretation of the Bible which you own and read must be filtered through its already established tradition. All over this forum RCs post 2 Pet. 1:21 as proof that it is unlawful for one to privately interpret the Scriptures. And their interpretation of that verse is filtered through Rome’s tradition.

The Christian-like charity level in your posts has dropped drastically. You are being rude and un-christian in your writings. You can disagree all you want. We can accept that. We can carry on a dialogue and disagree using logic and Biblical scriptures, etc. and still maintain the kind of personal caring that Christ commanded.

When people lower themselves to this kind of personal attacks it usually means that they are losing the argument.

If you don’t want to give that impression, then please write reasonably ***without ***personal attacks on Catholics (both individually and as a group).

 

[SusanL]

In future, do the research first, and then the poisoning.

Ok. Now I’m settled down a bit. I apologize for not researching first before I made my comment. I did not intend on “poisoning” the well.

(Everybody, deeeeeeep breath )

On with the discussion.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Ok. Now I’m settled down a bit. I apologize for not researching first before I made my comment. I did not intend on “poisoning” the well.

(Everybody, deeeeeeep breath )

On with the discussion.

It’s easy to get emotional over religious issues. We all believe strongly in our faiths so when someone doesn’t agree, we take it personal.
We’re all human.

 

[Mickey]

I"m aware of that, Mickey.

I wasn’t talking to you.