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

[sandusky]

deb216:

Obviously one or both is wrong. The problem is that both believe they are right.

I agree with the former, but not the latter; the deadly problem, IMO, is with the one who is wrong, but thinks he is right.

deb216:

You cling to your understanding of the truth and cannot fathom the possibility that you may be wrong. You are so convinced that you are right that you have wagered your eternal soul on it.

The same is true of you; get a new argument.

deb216:

Every person who believes that they are right will show you the scriptures that support their false point of view.

That is a false assumption; some who claim to be right, are right, and the scriptures support their right position.

deb216:

Each will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. If you do not agree with them, you are wrong.

Another false assumption; Only those who recognize the truth of the HS claim to be led by Him; Muslims, Hindus and others do not claim to be led by the HS.

#1. Belief is not defined by a “change of heart.”…Since “change of heart” is defined by a reversal of feelings, a person would first have to deny God before they could embrace Him. This is illogical.

While it may be illogical to you that a person would first have to deny God before he could embrace Him, that is clearly stated in scripture as truth:Psalm 19:1-3
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.Their voice is not heard because men refuse to hear it; instead, they willing, and unrighteously suppress the truthful declaration of the creation, and their own conscience:Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.Notice as well, that the knowledge of God given through the creation and the conscience, while not sufficient to save them, is sufficient to condemn them.John 1:9
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

#3. Hermeneutics. Big word you toss out there. Do you truly understand it? Do you know that people can apply good hermeneutics and still disagree in interpretation? Protestant hermeneutics are no more valid than Jewish or Catholic hermeneutics. Again, this is illogical, especially in light of the fact that sola scriptura is dependent upon the idea that the Bible is perspicuous. How clear can it be if you need science to interpret it?

Right interpretation requires effort (2 Tim 2:15); that the study of scripture requires effort does not diminish scriptures perspicuity. For example:John 3:16-18
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 16:31
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” et al.

#4. Ignorance of the whole Word would lead to poor interpretation, but those who are not ignorant of the whole Word still disagree. Then what?

That assumes that fallible men, reading an infallible document, will all arrive at the same conclusion; it proves nothing but that it is your opinion that an infallible document requires an infallible interpreter. There are many who claim to have the infallible interpreter.

deb216:

Yet, the churches who follow apostolic tradition find support for it in the scriptures.

Such as?

 

[dessert]

Such as the trinitarian churches dessert

 

[RNRobert]

Church affiliation does not equal salvation.

In fact, sitting in a church makes one a saved Christian, as much as sitting in a garage makes one a car.

I agree that being a Catholic does not automatically make one saved. One must still have a personal relationship with Christ. But the Catholic Church *is *the Church that Christ founded.

And, sitting in the wrong church (correction: false church) compounds the problem.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is a false Church?

JWs and Mormons deny the trinity and the divinity of Christ.

But according to *their *intepretation of Scripture, it is we (Protestants as well as Catholics) who are wrong. What makes you so sure *your *interpretation is the correct one.

Your assumption that an infallible scripture requires an infallible teacher is false; it is your logic that demands an infallible interpreter; the ECFs didn’t demand one; as I said before, your church is one of many claiming to have the infallible interpreter.
sandusky;1967168:

Doubts?

.

None whatsoever. As St Augustine said, "I would not believe the Bible if not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Earlier I posted that Paul told Timothy that the OT was able to lead one to salvation; the New was in the works, and the writers knew they were writing scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

Don’t forget the OT.

If the OT was sufficient, then why bother to write the New Testament?

Salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone

, in God alone—eternally; as God does not change, so too does His gospel not change; God preached His gospel of grace to Abraham as Paul states (Gen 12:3; cf Gal 3:8) before Abe was circumsized, and before the law—a gospel of grace, not works.

The italicized part is probably the number one reason I eventually abandoned Protestantism. It is unbibilical. The only way it is workable is to focus on a couple of phrases in Romans, throw out the book of James, and the Gospels as well (Jesus said not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, and his parables in Matthew 25 make it abundantly clear that salvation or damnation is based on what we do or don’t do).

The Galatians had that scripture that was able to lead them to salvation in the form of the OT, and it taught salvation by grace alone, faith alone, God alone, and they had the teachings of the apostle in the form of oral, and written teaching, but stupidly, they were being led away from grace, and back to works

.

Specifically, works of the Law (Torah).

Get a new argument. The church that you believe in today, is not the church of the NT. Read the NT, you’ll see the difference.

Besides, how can something exist before that which inaugurates it?

Get a new argument.

No sir, I will not. This is another fallacy of Protestantism, that the church was supposed to remain frozen in the first century. Well, the last time I looked, we are in the 21st century. The Church needs to apply the deposit of faith to new challenges, it grows in its understanding of said deposit. By your reckoning, we should throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since it wasn’t defined until the 4th century.

The Church created the New Testament, not the other way around. Period.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu *You say that every person CAN (not necessarily WILL) inerrantly interpret scripture with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.*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.

Hmmm,… why would one not “interpret accurately” if one is possed of the Holy Spirit?

I think we may have a different definition of the function of the Holy Spirit.

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?

Reading scripture “in context” is good,… yes.

Quote: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. 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.

That would be correct. And you disagree with that. That’s fine.

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.

Once again you are correct. And the protestant does precisely the same thing, except that he assumes that he is “correct” in interpretation based solely on his “feeling” of correctness.

Catholics defer to what they consider a legitimate authority.

Protestants defer to no one, as even if they defer to someone “more wise” than themselves, that deference is based on how “correct” THEY decide their teacher is.

(( ie: a recipe for theological and ecclesial chaos ))

Quote:

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”.
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.

Once again you are correct. And that is why it is a stated principle that TRADITION as well as scripture is the “source of faith”.

If this is what we believe, then it’s obvious that it’s “OK” not to base interpretation entirely on only a portion of the “source of faith”.

I do love it when we agree on things…!

Quote:

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

Damn,… you are SO right…! Preach it Brother…!!

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.

That would be as opposed to the protestant tradition of filtering the interpretation of scripture though each and every person within the protestant community.

The “ultimate ground of faith” is Jesus, as defined as “The Word”.

The scriptures are NOT the sum total of “The Word”.

If you choose not to believe that,… that’s your choice, and the consequences of your choice are yours, which you will be held accountable for.

Thus,… we pray for you.

 

[dessert]

" But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before MyFather who is in heaven. Matt;10; 33
"An he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who losses his life for My sake will find it.
"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives me receives Him who sent me.
"He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophets reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
'And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward."Matt 10; 38-42

Now it came to pass, when Jesus finished commanding his twelve disciples, that he departed from there to teach and to preach in their cities.Matt 11; 1

All who receive the disciples of Jesus receive him, and God who sent him, and will be rewarded accordingly.
Dessert

 

[dessert]

Absolutely, are the scriptures suppose to be filtered through Sand no pun sanduskey, what makes you the authority ? Were you a disciple or and an apostle in the NT?
As you can say you don’t think the Church has the right to say we have an interpretation you think you do and everyone else that just reads the bible. the apostles lived the real walk and talk and Peter had the keys. Dessert

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Absolutely, are the scriptures suppose to be filtered through Sand no pun sanduskey, what makes you the authority ? Were you a disciple or and an apostle in the NT?
As you can say you don’t think the Church has the right to say we have an interpretation you think you do and everyone else that just reads the bible. the apostles lived the real walk and talk and Peter had the keys. Dessert

Hi,
Actually the scriptures are not suppose to be filtered through anything. The scriptures are absolute truth regardless of how someone intreprets them. Everything that we hear and are told to be true should be filtered through scripture not the other way around.

 

[sandusky]

Researcher:

Good question! The way you worded this question however I would have to answer no. The reason why I say that is regarding your use of the term “understand.” I believe what I demonstrated is that one can “read” scripture and draw some conclusions regarding its meaning when it si compared to an authoritive interpritation. Certainly I could read the scripture and claim to understand it. I could do the same with quantum physics without the aid of a teacher.

With respect to the bolded part of your post, you are admitting that you made a fallible decision, and that you might be wrong; is that correct?

Researcher:

Yes. Protestant theology contains some errors and/or is incomplete. Protestants however, are our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Catholic Church contains the fulness of the teachings of Jesus, a.k.a. the Truth.

The differences between the gospel that you believe, and the gospel that I believe, are such that I cannot comprehend how it is that you could call me a brother in Christ, except for the fact that the RCC takes that position, and therefore, so do you; unless, of course, you do believe that;
do you really believe that?

Researcher:

If we can read the scriptures and draw our own interpritation as the true meaning then we are susceptable to having millions of different interpritations. Was this what Jesus intended that we all define for ourselves what he teaching is all about? On the other hand, if there is only one correct interpritation of scripture and teaching of Jesus who has it and how are we to know? Because we read in the Gospels that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the “authority to bind and loose” I choose the Catholic Church as they have the successor to Peter heading the church.

You beg the question, assuming that the RCC’s, and your interpretation of the passage is the correct interpretation. The meaning of that passage has been in dispute for more than a millennia, and the only group that claims absolute authority via Peter’s papacy is the RCC; what kind of authority is that?

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

I gave it as just one example of many Protestant heresies. It’s interesting that you latched on to that particular one - does this mean that the rest of the list I gave is accurate?

You’ve not supported what I’ve asked you to support; why should I move on to something else with you?

jmcrae:

But I have heard Jerry Falwell give a sermon on “The Word Made Flesh,” using John 1 as his text, and the subject of the sermon was not Jesus Christ; the subject of the sermon was the Bible.

And when I was in college, I was often accosted by members of Campus Crusade for Christ, who gave me tract literature that stated that the Bible was “the Word made flesh.” I’m sorry I didn’t keep them, since then I could give you their ISBN numbers, and you could look them up. But I threw them out.

I provided a link to Falwell’s site, on which is a position paper entitled “Who is Christ?” And, I have provided a link to CCC’s statement of Faith.

I cannot come up with a reason as to why Falwell would teach something different from his statement, and why CCC, with respect to their statement of faith, would do likewise. Can you?

jmcrae:

In any case, I am quite sure that you have encountered the same in your travels, and if not, then you will, sooner or later - the point of my mentioning this was not to “accuse” you of anything personally, but to simply mention that the fruit of private interpretation is error, and it was just one of the many examples of Protestant errors that I listed.

I didn’t take it as a personal accusation; nevertheless, I asked for only one denominational substantiation to the claim.

Apparently that’s one more than you are able to come up with.

 

[rbarcia]

Hi,
Actually the scriptures are not suppose to be filtered through anything. The scriptures are absolute truth regardless of how someone intreprets them. Everything that we hear and are told to be true should be filtered through scripture not the other way around.

Yes,

Peter even regarded the Old Testament Scriptures to be a more sure word than his eye witness.

**

2 Peter 1

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

**

 

[ncgolf]

Originally Posted by Researcher
Because we read in the Gospels that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the “authority to bind and loose” I choose the Catholic Church as they have the successor to Peter heading the church.

You beg the question, assuming that the RCC’s, and your interpretation of the passage is the correct interpretation. The meaning of that passage has been in dispute for more than a millennia, and the only group that claims absolute authority via Peter’s papacy is the RCC; what kind of authority is that? The meaning of that passage has been in dispute for more than a millennia, and the only group that claims absolute authority via Peter’s papacy is the RCC; what kind of authority is that?

A very bold claim it is … this is the crux and either the claim is true and therefore the RCC is what it claims or it is such a outlandish and scandolous lie that has tricked its followers into worshipping bread and wine as Jesus himself.

The boldness of the statement is on the order when Christ said “I and the Father are one”. There just is no easy way around those statements either for the Jewish leaders 2000 years ago or modern post-apostolic Christians.

I must admit that looking at the size of the claim and it’s ramifications that from a purely intellectual standpoint it would be daunting. But then I remember that it was primarily poor, working class fishermen who believed Jesus was the Christ and it was the intellectuals who had the problem believing.

 

[deb216]

deb216:

You cling to your understanding of the truth and cannot fathom the possibility that you may be wrong. You are so convinced that you are right that you have wagered your eternal soul on it

Hi, as do you

Yes, I do. That is why I have studied both sides so thoroughly. I could not leave such an important issue to ignorance, lies or prejudice.

ALLFORHIM:

deb216:

Every person who believes that they are right will show you the scriptures that support their false point of view. Each will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. If you do not agree with them, you are wrong.

Yes, which all sides do.

You are missing the point. The Holy Spirit does not mislead us. People can believe that they are led by the Holy Spirit and still be wrong. You admit that. You believe that you have been led by the Holy Spirit. That means, by default, you know you can be wrong. Yet, you don’t think you are wrong because you believe that you have been led by the Holy Spirit. Can you see the circular reasoning?

 

[deb216]

deb216;1966490:

Your list of reasons do not explain why people interpret the Bible differently.

Based on your opinions of course

Not at all. An opinion is merely a point of view. Your “reasons” are dependent on the idea that all people who follow your suggestions for Biblical interpretation should be in agreement.

An argument is only considered valid if true premises cannot lead to a false concluson. Even assuming that your premises are true, two people who meet all of your criteria for correct biblical interpretation can still disagree. Therefore, the conclusion is falsified and the argument is considered to be invalid.

 

[deb216]

#1. Belief is not defined by a “change of heart.” It is defined by faith. Surely people who have not known God need to turn away from their lives of sin or vice, but what about those who have always known and accepted Him? What about those who, because of their faith, have always lived a righteous life? Are they unbelievers because they don’t meet your limited understanding? Are they unbelievers because they were raised by loving parents who taught them to know God from the cradle? Since “change of heart” is defined by a reversal of feelings, a person would first have to deny God before they could embrace Him. This is illogical.

When one puts their faith in Christ, they get a new heart(spiritually of course) Before they do this they have rejected God. There are people out there who think because they go to church and are involved that they have accepted but God, but the truth is they havent. Its called playing church. Peopl who belong to both sides of the church coin do this. They have the head knowledge but not the heart knowledge. I use to be one.

No. You are trying to establish the conclusion in the premise, again. It is not a given that all Christians reject God and “play church” until they put their faith in God and “get a new heart.”

What does it mean to reject God? Reject means to refuse, to discard, to cast out, to vomit. It is a conscious act. To reject God, you must first acknowledge Him and then willfully deny Him.

What does it mean to accept God? Accept means to receive with favor, to agree, to consent, to regard as true. It is also a conscious act. To accept God you must believe in Him and receive Him with favor.

Your contention is that people can believe in God and receive Him with favor but they are, in fact, rejecting Him, even though they don’t know that they are.

It is illogical because rejection takes a conscious mind and acceptance is not synonymous with rejection. One who believes in God, by definition, is not rejecting Him, even if they have never experienced a profound religious experience.

 

[dessert]

Hi,
Actually the scriptures are not suppose to be filtered through anything. The scriptures are absolute truth regardless of how someone intreprets them. Everything that we hear and are told to be true should be filtered through scripture not the other way around.

Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life and he said if we receive him we are to receive the disciples.
There is only absolute light in Him there is no darkness none whatso ever.
Peter through tradition is the first Pope.
The catechism of the Catholic Church follows the scriptures.
Dessert

 

[deb216]

deb216:

Failure to interpret the Bible is not due to a lack of training. As far as I know, most legitimate churches require their ministers to be educated. They go to college or seminaries where they spend a significant portion of their lives reading the scriptures. Theologians from every denomination could recite chapter and verse and still disagree with each other. Lack of agreement does not stem from a lack of training. This, too, is illogical.

#Im talking about people like you and me–not leaders of the church. I agree they are well trained(at least mine are).

Irrelevant. You listed lack of training as a reason for “the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible.” People like you or me do not teach the Bible, the church leaders do. They are all well trained. Therefore, lack of training is not the reason why people misinterpret the Scriptures.

I’m trying to get you to think critically. Our ability to reason comes from God. If none of these reasons you have listed are the cause of that divergence in belief, what is?

 

[deb216]

deb216;1966490:

Hermeneutics. Big word you toss out there. Do you truly understand it? Do you know that people can apply good hermeneutics and still disagree in interpretation? Protestant hermeneutics are no more valid than Jewish or Catholic hermeneutics. Again, this is illogical, especially in light of the fact that sola scriptura is dependent upon the idea that the Bible is perspicuous. How clear can it be if you need science to interpret it?

#This is how the scholars intrepret the bible. I admit I dont know much about this.

Ah. Well you are right. Scholars do use hermeneutics to interpret the scripture. It is fascinating, really. If you decide to research it at all, start with exegesis and eisegesis. Objectivity versus subjectivity. As I said, people can use good hermeneutics and still disagree in interpretation so that isn’t the reason for the wide divergence of beliefs, either.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

As I said, people can use good hermeneutics and still disagree in interpretation so that isn’t the reason for the wide divergence of beliefs, either.

Can it be said that the divergence of beliefs stemmed from folks being raised with different backgrounds and in different environments? They molded beliefs to fit around what was best for them and their region.

 

[jmcrae]

Church affiliation does not equal salvation.

No - but belonging to the Church that Christ founded is the first step towards salvation.

In fact, sitting in a church makes one a saved Christian, as much as sitting in a garage makes one a car. And, sitting in the wrong church (correction: false church) compounds the problem.

On this, we agree.

JWs and Mormons deny the trinity and the divinity of Christ.

They deny the divinity of Christ and the Trinity because they can’t find these ideas in the Scriptures - the same Scriptures that you use, and that we use. That’s because our interpretations are based on Apostolic Tradition, and not solely on the “plain sense” of the text, in isolation.

The “plain sense” of the text is actually kind of confusing, since when reading certain passages, it does often sound like Jesus is not really God at all (yesterday’s Gospel, for example, was very confusing in that regard), and especially when reading the Old Testament, there are places when it seems as though God is only one person; not three persons.

This is why we need the support of Apostolic Tradition - so that we can make sense of the Scriptures in the places where they seem confusing to us.

Your assumption that an infallible scripture requires an infallible teacher is false; it is your logic that demands an infallible interpreter; the ECFs didn’t demand one; as I said before, your church is one of many claiming to have the infallible interpreter.

Actually, we are told in Scripture that the fallible judge must rely on the testimony of at least two witnesses. (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6, Daniel 13:45-64), Catholics have three witnesses - Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium.

 

[jmcrae]

Can it be said that the divergence of beliefs stemmed from folks being raised with different backgrounds and in different environments? They molded beliefs to fit around what was best for them and their region.

God’s Truth doesn’t change according to culture or geography, though - and, somehow, the Catholic Church manages to be a world-wide organization that works with every culture we’re in contact with, in the whole world, without ever changing any of its teachings. (Discipline is another matter - at the Sign of Peace they kiss in Greece, shake hands in America, and bow in Japan - but this doesn’t affect our theology in any way. Japanese Catholics, Greek Catholics, and American Catholics all go to the same Mass, hear the same readings, and read the same Catechism.)