S
sandusky
Guest
I should have known, your post was very cordial.
"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Why is it, that there is usually an insult after the phrase, “with all due respect”?
People might take you a bit more seriously without the sarcasm—honey pie!
M
Mickey
Guest
I resemble that remark!I should have known, your post was vert cordial.
S
sandusky
Guest
Paul says of scripture that it is theopneustos—God-breathed in the passage that you cited,
2 Tim 3:16—Peter says that God-breathed word was neither a matter of one’s own private interpretation, nor a matter of the acting of one’s own human will in bringing it about, but a matter of the will of God as the Spirit of God directed them both to speak and to write it down
(2 Pet 1:20-21).
What more do you want?
I understand the issue of infallibility, and impeccability, but that does not affect my attitude toward the papacy; while you may view the validity of the papacy as a “proven fact,” for me, and many others, it is neither a proven fact, nor is it an unanimously accepted fact; certainly you understand that?
Peter’s actions speak for themselves with respect to both his impeccability, and his infallibility in that particular instance.
The keys represent authority; the giving of the keys to Peter (and by extension all believers), gives them authority to declare what has already been bound or loosed in heaven. That is the same promise given in Jn 20:23. The giving of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, must be understood in the context of Mt 18:15-17, which sets out instructions for dealing with sin in the Church. The Church does not determine these things, but merely declares God’s judgment based upon principles set forth in God’s Word; any judgment based upon God’s Word is in accord with God, and heaven.
1 Pet 5:1 shows Peter’s view of himself; namely, he is a “fellow elder. The 2 and 3 John verses support Peter’s view of the office that he and the others hold—that of separate, equal, fellow elders, ie., “The elder to the chosen Lady…,” 2 Jn 1; and “The elder to the beloved Gaius…,
3 Jn 1. Peter recognizes that he is not the elder, but a fellow elder (1 Pet 5:1).
S
sandusky
Guest
I resemble that remark!
S
sandusky
Guest
I didn’t think that you did it intentionally; nevertheless, I decided to call it to your attention.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.
W
WordisLove
Guest
Truly people I believe we should strive for greater understanding between ourselves as to overcome the easy urge to mock and condemn those with different understandings of the faith. ALLFORHIM gave us a heartfelt explanation of her beliefs and why she finds them true, she holds Christ above all else yet finds a problem with the supreme power of the pontiff. I once held similar beliefs and I know some of you all did as well. Let us use this wonderful tool to build bridges instead of tearing them down. I have corresponded with ALLFORHIM on many occasions and can vouch for her deep love and devotion to Jesus, she is a sister in Christ, as all of you are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ. As a former Methodist, now Catholic I understand her qualms with the CC, she however seeks to know why we believe what we do and to explain her position. I believe we all could learn something from this dialog. I agree with much that you say ALLFORHIM, howvever I must disagree with this:
The church is not infallible, for it is made of men, but it was instituted by Jesus. He would not leave us to fend for ourselves. The faith and form of the church will not go asunder, a promside from Jesus’ mouth. The Pope himself is only infallible when speaking on matters of faith. As you know ALLFORHIM, it is my search for authority which pulled me towards the CC, In my thoughts, that is where discussions such as these must always lead. The CC is the original church and Jesus promised it would not go astray (even though men within might.) This would be my only disagreement with you. If only others could know your true character they may attempt more of a dialog and less of an inquisition with you. God Bless.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Thank you so much for your kind words
You brought tears to my eyes.
I do truly just want to know why people believe what they do. Im not trying to change anyone’s beliefs just understand and explain mine.I wish I had the gift of writing the way so many people here do.
Im not good at expressing myself verbally or in written form. The forums are helping me though:thumbsup: So thank you to all who challenge me.
M
Mickey
Guest
Nothing is more pleasing to God than expression from the heart!I wish I had the gift of writing the way so many people here do.
God bless you and your family.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Right back at ya Mickey
S
SusanL
Guest
Your turn.I should have known, your post was very cordial.
R
RNRobert
Guest
The Scriptures are God-breathed, but 2 Peter 3:16 also tells us that the unlearned and unstable wrest with them to their destruction. In other words Scripture in the wrong hands can be a deadly weapon (just look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc). Who is the believer to trust for a valid interpretation of the Scriptures?
S
sandusky
Guest
What can I say, Keikiolu? In Jn 10:28, Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;” the verb here is a "present, active, indicative,” ie., a continuous state of hearing/understanding; and, its person is singular, and therefore, exclusive, intimate, and personal; there can be no error for His sheep.
I don’t remember saying that; if you would refer me to a post number I’ll take a look.
Yes, they do.
That is one way to look at it.
Not at all.
A
apophasis
Guest
I apologize for coming on too strongly, but I believe this person was being extremely disingenuous in their post. How else could I confront this person if not personally. I didn’t exactly attack the person but the desingenuous response.
But I’ll try to keep the tone down. I hope you will rebuke fellow Catholics when they do it to me or others. That rarely ever happens; the scoldings are usually one-sided.
A
apophasis
Guest
Of course one must first possess the Holy Spirit before he can even attempt to accurately interpret Scripture (see 1 Cor. 1:12-13 contrasted with verse 14). But simply possessing the Holy Spirit, of course, does not guarantee that one will interpret accurately.
There is what is called in the world of theology, “hermeneutics,” which is the art and science of Biblical interpretation. Have you read the original post on this thread?
Therefore you, on your part, must assume that every Pope (and member of the Magisterium) possesses the Holy Spirit simply because the man occupies that lofty position.
But in reality, it’s Rome that makes that authoritative proclamation for itself, and its many devotees, as a personal act of submission and faith, accept that proclamation. It must be done without question.
Your whole line of reasoning here is filtered through your established tradition. In other words, a non-Scriptural idea that within the Body of Christ there is suppose to exist an appointed, infallible, intpreter of Scripture. But such a notion does not originate from within the Scriptures, but from within Vatican walls and from there proclaimed as binding tradition.
Of course it is. Because to defy any part of established RC tradition, including the infallibility of its exalted “Vicar of Christ” would brand you a heretic, and if not followed by recantation you are in danger of excommunication, and if excommunicated you are in danger of eternal damnation. In other words, they’ve got you by the proverbial _ _ _ _ _.
According to the church of Rome it is incumbent on its members to believe whatever its ecclesia docens declares to be a part of God’s revelation, which includes the so-called (oral) Apostolic tradition. Now it’s true that it does not claim to make new articles of faith (although that’s debatable), it does claim authoritatively what the Bible teaches and what, according to tradition, belongs to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Hence, a RC must find the ultimate ground of faith not in the Word of God (Scripture), but in the authoritative word proclaimed by/from Rome. Consequently, a RCs interpretation of Scripture must be filtered through its already established tradition.
A
apophasis
Guest
You guys keep dodging the whole point of this thread. The key word in your quote from PBXVI is “read.” However, any interpretation of the Bible must be filtered through the established tradition of your church. You may “read” it, but you may not privately interpret it. You have no authority.
S
sandusky
Guest
And Peter wrote that nearly 2,000 years ago; there is nothing new under the sun, and unfortunately, others are out there who will act-out similar scenarios in the name of Christ.
Couldn’t you load that question a bit more?
S
SusanL
Guest
Apophasis, I understand that you don’t like what Deb said but she was being most sincere and thought her posts through. For the most part, I agree with her and have applauded her in her writing. I understand that you disagree with her. Heck, you and I disagree.
We can still get along.I appreciate what you say about keeping the tone down. It’s hard for all of us. We are all passionate about our beliefs. It’s part of who we are, yes?
I am being honest with you, Apophasis. I always try to be. I honestly don’t remember any Catholic poster mocking you personally or Protestants as a group. If they did, then I apologize for them. None of us are supposed to do that and it hurts the dialogue. Rest assured. If they do attack you personally (or Protestants as a group) then yes. They will get a rebuke from me. I don’t like that stuff. I think that most of the other posters here will agree with me on that. Right guys?
God bless you, Apophasis. And all of our Protestant (and Non-Denominational) brothers and sisters.
A
apophasis
Guest
First of all I don’t agree with your sweeping statement. But none of the above claim within its denomination an ultimate teaching authority. But if any individual who belongs to one of those denominations puts undue emphasis on certain “pet” doctrines and filters their interpretation of Scripture through them, then there is the risk of arriving at a faulty interpretation. Point is, one must come to the study table empty handed in order to learn what the Scriptures themselves teach.
If she’d never read verses in the Bible which mention baptism, then I guarantee she’d never actually studied the BIble. She merely accepted what she was told by others. Even still, just pointing out verses that mention baptism in Scripture doesn’t necessarily prove its necessity for salvation. If she now accepted the “necessity” doctrine simply because someone pointed out certain verses to the contrary, then she is no better off than she was before.
These set themselves up as its ultimate authority. Those who join these cults (for whatever reason) choose to blindly follow their teaching authority. That’s why they’re called cults and cult followers. They’re not at all interested in an accurate interpretation of Scripture, they’re not even that interested in Scripture.
Every one of those cults those on your list founded has an extra-Biblical source as its ultimate authority (except maybe Koresh whose allegorical method of interpretation grossly distorted the Scriptures to mean anything he wanted them to mean). So how could they possibly come up with an accurate interpretation of Scripture? It would all be filtered through their ultimate authority.
S
SusanL
Guest
No, Apophasis, that was in response to someone asking us rather sarcastically if we even need to **own **a Bible. The premise to that post (as it seems to me) was a sarcastic crack about us not even needing to own a Bible, let alone read it. As if we didn’t even need to read the Bible.
Let me look at your point here. You are saying that we must interpret the Bible through the teachings of the Catholic Church? Yeah. What’s wrong with that? Other posters can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see a problem with that. The teachings of the Catholic Church are very Biblical. They’re totally Biblical. How do you interpret the Bible? (an honest question-not loaded). Do you do it totally by yourself (Praying first-granted)? Or do you find a good Bible study group to help you learn? Or do you purchase a Bible study on tape or book or DVD or something akin to that to help you learn? Then how is that different in regards to filtering? We’re just saying that we believe that the Pope is infallible in regards to teaching ethics and morality.
Now, I’m not the brightest bulb in the box so if I’m wrong…please let me know.
- Status