N
ncgolf
Guest
Do you hiss your sss’ss??
"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
Both.Do you hiss your sss’ss??
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Well I would say I/we who study Scripture are doing the same thing as the ECF. We are trying to better understand the Word of God. Just because Protestants dont follow the CC doesnt mean we are making things up and saying it is the HS.
Im sure you know that the ECF’s had disagreements as well as to what Scripture meant and so do the Jews BTW. The reason is because of what I said in my OP.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, except that you guys come up with stuff that neither the ECFs nor the Apostles ever even heard of, which is why we suspect your ancestors of just making stuff up.
Not to the extent of actually redefining the meanings of words, though. (For example, there are so many Protestants who don’t believe in “water baptism” even though the word “baptism” itself means “water immersion.” But they have redefined it to mean something “spiritual,” and then come up with a whole theology out of that that completely rejects traditional Christian baptism - even though Scripture is absolutely packed with examples of this tradition being practiced among the Apostles. But they become unable to see this, by the redefining of the word itself, such that no Protestant who has been taught the “spiritual baptism” idea would ever be able to find “water baptism” in the Bible, because he has been given a heretical interpretation of the word “baptism” that no ECF or Apostle would even recognize at all. That’s just one example of how the founders of the Protestant churches deceive their followers by coming up with these previously-unheard-of interpretations.)I’m sure you know that the ECF’s had disagreements as well as to what Scripture meant and so do the Jews BTW. The reason is because of what I said in my OP.
S
sandusky
Guest
Very true, and what sections of scripture do you think forbid private interpretation?
That is an interesting charge considering the Marian doctrines, and the papal infallibility doctrines, and the purgatory doctrines.
I do not make things up, and neither do any of the theologians whom I respect make things up.
S
sandusky
Guest
Such as?
What about the meaning of the word “all” as in “all have sinned…?”
What about the meaning of “brothers,” as in “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…?”
What about the meaning of “full of grace,” as in “Hail full of grace…?”
I’m not asking for the reasoning behind those examples of Catholic word redefinitions, I’ve heard them all before, and they don’t work; I’m just asking you to consider them in light of the charge you make against “us guys.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
It’s the difference between looking at the actual original language itself side by side with what the Apostles taught orally (while realizing that it would not be possible for them to contradict what they wrote with what they said - and by wondering, why would “James the brother of Jesus” insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary? Unless he were not Jesus’ literal brother, in which case the alternate meaning of “kinsman” for that same word is, by process of elimination, the correct interpretation) - and ordering one’s theology around that, OR starting with a novel theology, and then redefining words to fit the theology. (Ask a person who speaks Greek as their native language what they do when they go swimming, and the answer will probably contain something about “baptizo” - immerse or soak a human body in water.)
J
jmcrae
Guest
2 Peter 3:15-17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
All of which we find in the Oral Tradition, spoken by the Apostles and recorded by the ECFs in their sermons and letters, as well as coming down to us in their hymns, poetry, Creedal statements, and memory lists. (The Little Office of the Virgin Mary contains quite a few of these ancient poems - I have been praying that book, lately, and it’s very beautiful to read.)
I am absolutely certain that modern day Protestants have the best of honest intentions, but I also know, because I have seen the destruction for myself, that the Reformers were a lot more interested in wiping the Catholic Church off the face of the earth than in any quest for Christian truth.
S
sandusky
Guest
jmcrae said:
How many is “so many?” And name those Protestants who don’t practice water baptism, and yes, Baptize is a transliteration of the Gk word baptizo and it means to immerse.
You offer 2 Pet 3:15-17 as a “proof” that private of interpretation of scripture is prohibited:
There is in that passage neither a phrasing of words, nor any single word when read by itself that has even a hint of the meaning of a prohibition, or a forbidding of interpreting scripture.
In fact, I think it implies the exact opposite.
In that passage is contained a warning to believers to beware of unlearned and unstable men who wrest the scripture to their own destruction [and the believer’s, if he doesn’t understand the testimony (Word) of God] (cf Eph 5:15-17; Col 1:9; 2 Tim 2:15).
Beware!
J
jmcrae
Guest
Good - you’re half-way into the Catholic Church if you believe in traditional Christian baptism.
Well, it’s the unlearned and unstable who tend to come up with the most unique private interpretations, at least in my experience.
Any time we interpret the Scriptures differently than the Church (that is to say, privately), we are being the unlearned and unstable man, since the learned man learns from the Magesterium (teaching) of the Church, and the stable man is founded upon the Rock of Peter.
I think that part of the allure of private interpretation among Protestants is the false idea that the Scriptures have a different word to speak to each individual, and that if you can only find the private, personal interpretation of Scripture for yourself, then there, you have this secret message from God that is only for you. This is very attractive because it makes the individual seem to be very special, that God would have a private message just for that one person, that is not shared by any other person, and it’s in the Bible.
This idea comes out of the misunderstanding among many that it was the Bible that became flesh and dwelled among us - people read the first chapter of the Gospel of John and think it’s talking about the Bible ('Word of God"), where in reality it is talking about Jesus - so they think that the Bible can actually converse with them, and tell them things that it doesn’t tell other people.
N
ncgolf
Guest
You bring up something I still do not understand. What is the result when 2 private interpreters disagree on a particular passage. Obviously this happens as it is title of the thread. Both sincerly and earnestly searching for truth but neither reaching the same conclusion and maybe differing vastly not merely quibbling.
I guess the question becomes not why so many but what to do about it and what are the ramifications. The question is really not for Catholics but for Protestants. Do you sincerely believe this is not a problem or at least a question you wonder about. Is Scriptual interpretation based on what I need and then fluid enough to change when I change or is it God’s unchanging word and therefore difficult sometimes when I do not agree with it.
Another question is do any of the Protestants who have responded on this thread have hard teachings you have discovered in your search that you do not agree with and have a hard time following. I know Catholics do, contraception being the one of them. It seems that in private interpretation there would never be a hard teaching, the Bible is flexible enough to fit my particular situation.
I am not being flippant but wonder about these since it seems today we have many hard subjects to deal with …
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I have to admit I was shocked that you would plead boredom, of all things, as a reason for wanting to stop. You certainly don’t seem bored by others’ questions. And since all I asked for was a yes/no/I don’t know answer, my questions–as opposed to a lengthy dialogue–should have been a piece of cake for someone who gets bored easily.Hi,
It wasnt the question itself, I just feel the questioning is being drawn out too long. I have a short attention span–sorryI should have stated before I get bored real fast. I probably have adult ADD
I figure I would lay out where I am coming from since that is what you told others here you wanted to know–so I did. I figure that would move this questioning along.I know you are using logic–God did not give me a mind filled with logic. Im more of an emotional person. See we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Logic is my weakness.
I was also shocked you said you would not change your position. I would have thought you were willing to follow the truth, no matter where it lead.
As for explaining where you’re coming from, you haven’t answered the questions I wanted to ask. You haven’t even seen some of the questions I intended to ask. Therefore, I still have no idea where you’re coming from regarding them.
You say logic is not your strong suit and that you’re “more of an emotional person.” I don’t understand how that means you couldn’t answer my question. I gave you the option of saying “I don’t know.” I also gave you the option of answering yes or no and including an explanation. I even, at one point, offered you the opportunity to rewrite one of the questions. It seems to me I have been more than fair.
But I’m not going to force you to answer. That is, of course, your choice.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Im sorry I cant answer all of your thread because I have to go to church
Maybe later.I just wanted to say that I do have a hard time with some truths in the bible. Submission to husband is my biggest stumbling block and apologizing to him. Im stubborn. The fruit of the spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22 is very difficult to follow but doable and Im working on it daily moment by moment.
I hope any true Christian would admit the same thing.
Gotta go.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
Sorry I shocked you.
I am following the truth even though I know you think differently. I am following Jesus Christ and his commands in the bible, as are you. I just happen to be doing it in a different church.I will listen to your side if you would just put it out there instead of all these questions.
God Bless
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
It would seem from that passage that Peter had the same experience.
That is the Catholic position.
That’s a false assumption, in that your statement assumes that all protestants engage in that practice; they don’t.
If many protestant denominations teach that, then you should be able to provide the name of at least one specific denomination, and a link to their statement of faith clearly stating that they teach that the “Word made flesh = the Bible.”
S
sandusky
Guest
That is not surprising. A great mystique is built up around them, and it can cloud one’s perception concerning them. Read them, and learn from them, but remember, they were just men; and, “the best of men are men at best.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
Then I’m in excellent company.
No - rather, they base their theology upon the private (and totally unique) interpretations of their various founders - John Knox (only two recognizable Sacraments, no priesthood, replaced with “ministers of Word and Sacrament;” an unheard of innovation that had never been seen in Christianity before), John Calvin (double-predestination, and follows John Knox in replacing priests with “ministers of Word and Sacrament”), Martin Luther (faith alone, but - strangely - doesn’t mess with the Sacraments, and - equally strangely - messes with the Bible, instead), William Booth (no sacraments whatsoever, almsgiving is the only true form of prayer, Sunday meetings are for Bible study only, changes “ministers of Word and Sacrament” to “ministers of the Word”), George Fox (gets rid of all music based on the idea that hymnody was invented by the worshippers of Molech, also gets rid of all clergy, anyone in the congregation who feels moved to do so may give the preaching) - these are just the main stream Protestants. I’m sure you’d agree with me that the SDAs, JWs, and Mormons (who were founded in very much the same way - by the private revelation of the hither-to unknown meaning of one or two verses of Scripture to an individual of little theological training, but much faith in the Holy Spirit) have badly misinterpreted their foundational Scripture verses.
May I direct you to the sermons of Jerry Falwell, for example, and also the tract literature of “Campus Crusade for Christ,” and the writings of James H. Nichols, who (apparently) is Presbyterian.
I have yet to run across anything like a “list of current official teachings” for any Protestant denomination - they don’t seem to like to get tied down quite so specifically, and if one does cite something like the 39 Articles, one is usually informed that these are totally out of date (so much for the Reformation; maybe they should call it the Modernization, instead), and used only by theologians for historical reference, nowadays.
S
sandusky
Guest
That is a brand new set of assertions.
I called your last assumption a false assumption; here is your false assumption stated again:
Your brand new assertions have nothing to do with your previous false assumption.
Notice that the false assumption is a singular one in which each protestant believes that there is contained in the bible a singular, and secret “private message that is not shared by any other person.”
That is a false assumption, and it has nothing to do with your new assertions.
IOW, you can’t prove what you said.
That’s what I figgered.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I didn’t say that all Protestants do that.
However, all of the Protestant founders created their own private interpretations, and came up with stuff that no one had ever seen before (meaning they were not part of established Christian tradition, and not part of the public revelation of God in Christ) and they created their own religions around them.
To my way of thinking, there is very little difference between Martin Luther and Joseph Smith - both were equally innovative.
You can watch Jerry Falwell videos for yourself, and you can read Campus Crusade tracts for yourself. I leave it to you to do the research - as far as I know, these things aren’t on-line. But Jerry Falwell and Campus Crusade are as close as you’ll ever get to a unified Protestant statement of doctrines, and yes, they believe that the Bible (ink and paper) is the Word of God, Jesus Christ - not just teaches Him, but is Him.
- Status