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

[Blue_Serenity]

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.)

I agree that God’s Truth can’t change. The question is: what is God’s Truth?

 

[jmcrae]

I agree that God’s Truth can’t change. The question is: what is God’s Truth?

It’s what we are taught in God’s Church.

 

[Researcher]

Blue Serenity I just love your signature! It is like a breath of fresh air.

To get back to your Pilate impersonation when ask “what is God’s truth” we can look toward scripture for the answer. Of course it can all depend upon who’s authority you use to aid you in your interpritation. You can use mine but I am of a simple mind and often misspell my words so I don’t know why you want to do that. There are many more eloquent writers out there than me that can present of much stronger argument.

However, I do like to go back to the beginning, in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve reject God’s authority regarding the knowledge of good and evil. This has a very similar theme to the battle the church has been fighting from the beginning after the assention of Jesus. Although the Gospel’s show Peter to have the authority many in the early years rejected this authority and went their own way. We refer to them as the Gnostic writers. Many followed in their footsteps with Arien being one of the most challenging. So the revolt that happened during the reformation was really nothing new. It was much of the same rejection of authority that has plagued the church, as well as the Jewish faithful, from the time of Adam & Eve.

Where is the Truth? I can only recommend the chair of Peter. To whom else can we go?

 

[sandusky]

RNRobert:

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.

The point of my response is that they deny the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ; it was not to begin a new topic on why they are wrong in doing so.

RNRobert:

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

He also said:…Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles.—Augustine De unitate ecclesia, 3, as cited by Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Prt I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 157.

And:

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.—Augustine, *In Epistolam Johannis tractus, *2. See NPNF Series I, VII: 469.

RNRobert:

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

Read the second Augustine quote above.

RNRobert:

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 whole thing is italicized so I’m not sure what you are referring to. The underlined and bolded part above is why I am no longer an RC.

RNRobert:

Specifically, works of the Law (Torah).

Yes, both the moral law, and the ritual law given in the Torah.

RNRobert:

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

The eastern church, or the western church.

 

[jmcrae]

The point of my response is that they deny the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ; it was not to begin a new topic on why they are wrong in doing so.

On what basis would a Protestant be able to say that they are wrong?

After all, they find their doctrines in Scripture, and feel them to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit. This is the method of discernment that has been presented to us as being the definitive test of authentic doctrine for Protestants.

It would be hypocritical for Protestants to then argue from sacred tradition, because they themselves reject most of it. If you are going to reject Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, the Sacraments, and the Liturgy, then why not reject the Trinity and the divinity of Christ? Since all these teachings come from the same place - not the Bible.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

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.

If you can’t find the trinity in scripture, you are not working hard enough.

jmcrae:

On what basis would a Protestant be able to say that they are wrong?

On the basis of scripture; as did the ECFs.

jmcrae:

After all, they (JWs, and Mormons) find their doctrines in Scripture, and feel them to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit. This is the method of discernment that has been presented to us as being the definitive test of authentic doctrine for Protestants.

John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.I would submit that He who denies the Son does not have the Spirit as well (cf 1 Cor 12:3;
1 Jn 4:2).

jmcrae:

It would be hypocritical for Protestants to then argue from sacred tradition, because they themselves reject most of it. If you are going to reject Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, the Sacraments, and the Liturgy, then why not reject the Trinity and the divinity of Christ? Since all these teachings come from the same place - not the Bible.

How many Catholics agree with Jmcrae’s statements above, that none of those doctrines he mentions are found in Scripture? (I agree with him, with the exceptions of the trinity and the deity of Christ).

 

[jmcrae]

If you can’t find the trinity in scripture, you are not working hard enough.

And if you can, then you are reading them through the lenses of the Sacred Tradition.

John 2:23
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.I would submit that He who denies the Son does not have the Spirit as well (cf 1 Cor 12:3;
1 Jn 4:2).

Only by Sacred Tradition do we know that this is a reference to the Trinity and to the divinity of Christ.

The plain sense of the passage merely indicates that God favours Jesus; it doesn’t actually state that God the Father and Jesus are members of the same Godhead, nor does it state that Jesus is God - after all, in the Old Testament, King David was called “son of God,” yet no one thinks that he was divine.

 

[Northwind]

On what basis would a Protestant be able to say that they are wrong?

JW’s and Mormons need extrabiblical works or a bible that has been manufactured for them that specifically denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Protestants and Catholics however do not require modified works to compliment their teachings. It is on this basis we can say that they are wrong.

why not reject the Trinity and the divinity of Christ? Since all these teachings come from the same place - not the Bible.

These teachings are most certainly in the bible and not a little bit. I also don’t think that is the orthodox Catholic answer regarding the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

JW’s and Mormons need extrabiblical works or a bible that has been manufactured for them that specifically denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Protestants and Catholics however do not require modified works to compliment their teachings. It is on this basis we can say that they are wrong.

That’s an argument from Sacred Tradition, though - that the Apostles never wrote about it, and that Christians have never believed this before, and therefore, we should not believe it, even if it seems to us as though the Bible says it - that to determine which Bible is the correctly translated Bible, and which extra-biblical helps are going to be useful to us, we need to look at history to see where the Bible came from, and look at the authors of our extrabiblical helps to ensure that they are following the tradition given to us by the Apostles.

These teachings are most certainly in the bible and not a little bit. I also don’t think that is the orthodox Catholic answer regarding the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

These and all the teachings of the Church are certainly alluded to and assumed as true in the Scriptures. If you read the Scriptures while assuming these things are true, you will never have any occasion to wonder whether the writers of Scripture thought they were true - you will read what they wrote, and understand perfectly what they are alluding to, as though they had written it out plainly.

However, there is no statement in the Bible where it says, God is three persons who share one Divine nature and one Divine will, and these three persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Trinity. This we deduce by noticing that the Apostles believed in it, and putting together seemingly unrelated Bible verses that, when collated together, show a belief in the Trinity. But if one were not looking for the Trinity, one would not find it - and the proof is that those not looking for the Trinity in Scripture never find it.

There is also no place in Scripture where it says, Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, and has two natures, 100% Divine, and 100% human. Again, we begin with what the Apostles taught their first followers, and put together groupings of Bible verses, but again, those not looking for Christ’s divine nature in the Scriptures never find it there.

The fact that they interpret the Scripture verses that we see as alluding to these teachings means nothing, since if “the Holy Spirit” is telling them that these verses are referring to something else, the “Bible alone” approach isn’t going to convince them that there are alternative explanations from theirs for the meanings of these verses.

I encounter this sort of thing every day on various fora - not so much here at CAF, but on other fora such as christian.net and others there are quite a few of them - no one is ever going to convince me that these people don’t exist, because I chat with them via computer nearly every day.

 

[SusanL]

That was a good answer, jmcrae.

 

[ncgolf]

Here is my attempt at an explanation based ont the original title of the thread.

No matter what has been written on this thread the question still remains … why. I still wonder how so many sincere seekers can be so different. Still I always return to a part of John 6 where the followers admit “These are hard sayings, who can accept them”. I have thought about what that means and what keeps coming back to me is that Jesus did then and still does have hard teachings, ones that are hard to accept … even when spoken directly by Christ. Those that could not accept them left probably to find their own solution when the solution stood right before them. I also, upon meditation, have reflected that the apostles too would have liked to have left but stayed not because they understood what Christ said but they believed in Christ … that somehow, somewhere they would come to understand. That is the basis of faith … an acceptance of what Christ teaches sometimes without fully understanding or accepting those teachings but admitting like Peter … “To whom else shall we go.”

I asked before and received little response on what are hard teachings for Protestants. Catholics seem to have many and those seem to divide Christians rather than unite. Marian doctrine, Eucharist, infallability, purgatory, contraception … the list is many. It seems when hard teachings hit Protestant or Bible-based churches they merely split with some going one way and some the other. The Catholic Church does not back away from those hard teachings but people are free just like those in John 6 to walk away.

I submit that it is the hard teachings of the Catholic Church and it’s determination never to dilute or minimize those teachings that has lead to mulitple interpretations. Every one of those differing interpretations makes it seemingly easier to believe a private interpretation rather than what the Catholic Church teaches. I would like to see a Protestant interpretation that is more difficult to believe than the Catholic interpretation. Christ never made it easier for those present in John 6 or even required them to understand fully but only to have faith.

from Merriam-Webster

faith: 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

understanding: 1 a: to grasp the meaning of b: to grasp the reasonableness of c: to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of d: to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of
2: to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty

Those two are completely and utterly different in regards to the hard teachings of the Church. If you try understanding before faith it will never work, the mind will not allow it but it can work the other way faith then understanding.

 

[Northwind]

That’s an argument from Sacred Tradition, though - that the Apostles never wrote about it, and that Christians have never believed this before, and therefore, we should not believe it, even if it seems to us as though the Bible says it - that to determine which Bible is the correctly translated Bible, and which extra-biblical helps are going to be useful to us, we need to look at history to see where the Bible came from, and look at the authors of our extrabiblical helps to ensure that they are following the tradition given to us by the Apostles.

These and all the teachings of the Church are certainly alluded to and assumed as true in the Scriptures. If you read the Scriptures while assuming these things are true, you will never have any occasion to wonder whether the writers of Scripture thought they were true - you will read what they wrote, and understand perfectly what they are alluding to, as though they had written it out plainly.

However, there is no statement in the Bible where it says, God is three persons who share one Divine nature and one Divine will, and these three persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Trinity. This we deduce by noticing that the Apostles believed in it, and putting together seemingly unrelated Bible verses that, when collated together, show a belief in the Trinity. But if one were not looking for the Trinity, one would not find it - and the proof is that those not looking for the Trinity in Scripture never find it.

There is also no place in Scripture where it says, Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, and has two natures, 100% Divine, and 100% human. Again, we begin with what the Apostles taught their first followers, and put together groupings of Bible verses, but again, those not looking for Christ’s divine nature in the Scriptures never find it there.

The fact that they interpret the Scripture verses that we see as alluding to these teachings means nothing, since if “the Holy Spirit” is telling them that these verses are referring to something else, the “Bible alone” approach isn’t going to convince them that there are alternative explanations from theirs for the meanings of these verses.

I encounter this sort of thing every day on various fora - not so much here at CAF, but on other fora such as christian.net and others there are quite a few of them - no one is ever going to convince me that these people don’t exist, because I chat with them via computer nearly every day.

So just to clarify, you don’t think that the concepts of the Trintiy or the deity of Christ are not explicitly taught in scripture? But rather that they ‘alluded’ to? And I don’t mean apart from any teachings from ECF’s or any other source. Just want to make sure where you are coming from. And I don’t really want to occupy this thread with side discussions but it would be helpful to know what youre thinking here.

 

[guanophore]

Sepremacy over the Scriptures? Sepremacy over the Word of God itself?But did it exist before its Divine Author? Is a creature greater than its Creator? Is a student greater than its Teacher?God used
individual men to write the Scriptures. Individual men copied
the original autographs, thus preserving them.

What are you saying? do you think your book was in heaven before the creation of the world?

John 1:1-5
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 5:39-41
39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Jesus is the Word! He expressed His Divine message by the written and spoken word, in His presence throught the Incarnation, and through the establishment of His Church on earth.

And as far as I know there never was an Ecumenical Council that set the canon of N.T. Scriptures.And you know this how? Tradition?First of all, how do you know that they’re not both wrong? The final arbiter will be Christ Himself since all Christians must stand before His judgment seat (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Ja. 3:1). So for this reason alone, one must be very careful how he handles the written Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15). He WILL be held accountable (you might want to read those seven guidelines again).

Simply assigning “infallibility” and all authority over to other men and then blindly following their lead won’t get you off the hook. Adam didn’t get away with “passing the buck” in the Garden, did he? Nor will you when you stand before Christ in the future.

It is good that you know what you need to study, in terms of how the canon was formed. Ignorance is not a sin, just acting on it without correcting it! Yes, Tradition assures us that the canon is “the Word of God”. How do I know they are not wrong? Because Jesus promised that he would guide His Church into all truth, and I take Him at His word. Why would you think they could be in error? People did not assign authority to men, Jesus did. Neither are their teachings followed blindly (as you will know from my signature line). However, if I do not agree with the teachings of the Church, I must assume that I just don’t understand it, rather than the teaching being wrong. This is an attitude of humility that I find absent in most Protestants.

 

[SusanL]

ncgolf: wow. That is probably the best explanation that I have read on 11 pages yet.

I think that that is probably one of the main reasons people leave the church and why they struggle so much with their decision afterwards.

 

[guanophore]

 In like manner the inerrancy of the Scriptures does not rest in men but in the One who cannot error, the One who inspired (breathed) them.

Well, at least we agree about SOMETHING!

And you know this how? … You’re distorting the Scriptures with your traditions.I have no “religion.”

I must have missed something in here. What scripture are you saying is distorted by Traditions? At first, you seemed to imply that you did not believe that the scriptures, upon which you are basing this whole rant, were NOT produced by the Church. Now you are saying it is possible to distort the scripture? You must be referring to the MEANING of the scripture, since we have already come to an agreement that the scriptures themselves are infallible,a nd cannot be distorted. The understanding of what they mean can certainly be, however.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Blue Serenity I just love your signature! It is like a breath of fresh air.

Thanks!

Researcher:

To get back to your Pilate impersonation when ask “what is God’s truth” we can look toward scripture for the answer. Of course it can all depend upon who’s authority you use to aid you in your interpritation.

I like to rely on the authority of the HS. But that’s just me.

Researcher:

Where is the Truth? I can only recommend the chair of Peter. To whom else can we go?

John 6:68-69
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

I asked before and received little response on what are hard teachings for Protestants. Catholics seem to have many and those seem to divide Christians rather than unite. Marian doctrine, Eucharist, infallability, purgatory, contraception … the list is many. It seems when hard teachings hit Protestant or Bible-based churches they merely split with some going one way and some the other. The Catholic Church does not back away from those hard teachings but people are free just like those in John 6 to walk away.

I submit that it is the hard teachings of the Catholic Church and it’s determination never to dilute or minimize those teachings that has lead to mulitple interpretations. Every one of those differing interpretations makes it seemingly easier to believe a private interpretation rather than what the Catholic Church teaches. I would like to see a Protestant interpretation that is more difficult to believe than the Catholic interpretation. Christ never made it easier for those present in John 6 or even required them to understand fully but only to have faith.

I cannot speak for all protestants, but only for those with whom I am more closely associated, ie., those at my church.

The church I attend has a membership that is close to 6,000 souls; about 73% of those are former RCs, of which, I am one.

From my perspective, and the perspective of those with whom I am associated, we do not find the teachings of the Marian doctrines, the Eucharist, infallibility, purgatory, etc. hard; we find them to be utterly without biblical merit, and ridiculous.

You asked.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I cannot speak for all protestants, but only for those with whom I am more closely associated, ie., those at my church.

The church I attend has a membership that is close to 6,000 souls; about 73% of those are former RCs, of which, I am one.

From my perspective, and the perspective of those with whom I am associated, we do not find the teachings of the Marian doctrines, the Eucharist, infallibility, purgatory, etc. hard; we find them to be utterly without biblical merit, and ridiculous.

You asked.

Ridiculous? Is that charitable of you to say?

 

[guanophore]

I cannot speak for all protestants, but only for those with whom I am more closely associated, ie., those at my church.

The church I attend has a membership that is close to 6,000 souls; about 73% of those are former RCs, of which, I am one.

From my perspective, and the perspective of those with whom I am associated, we do not find the teachings of the Marian doctrines, the Eucharist, infallibility, purgatory, etc. hard; we find them to be utterly without biblical merit, and ridiculous.

You asked.

Wow! That is really scary. How do you dispense of the passages in John where Jesus speaks about eating His Body and drinking His Blood?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wow! That is really scary. How do you dispense of the passages in John where Jesus speaks about eating His Body and drinking His Blood?

For those 70%…

70% of Catholic Converts came from Protestants…There has a large number of Protestant coming to Catholic Church since 1990s.