Why do protestants have such varied understanding of what the Bible say's and actually means?

[Mickey]

I “believe” that Matthew 16:13-19 offers us a glimpse into the developing theology of one of the early Christian communities. The Rock of Peter’s statement is what the body of believers would be founded on…“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”…not Peter.

Correct. And St Augustine agreed.

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (*Sermon *229).
St Augutine

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**No, I am saying there should be and in fact there is one interpretation, ** among trinitarian Christians.

**The different interpretations exist because someone **wrongly thought ****the Holy Spirit was leading them to another interpretation-cults.

The Holy Spirit leads us to the different applications of that one interpretation.

This is how we become the many parts of the Body of Christ.

Bolded for emphasis above is mine. Sounds like what Catholics have been trying to explain…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Infallible Pope? I don’t see this any where in Scripture.

Scriptures are the only authority? I don’t see this anywhere in scriptures.

Different applications of scriptures, due to different interpretations of scriptures or private interpretation of scriptures? I don’t see this anywhere in scriptures.

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;6410428]Who determines that they are “qualified” to determine the meaning? Are not those “qualified” to interpret elected or appointed by another “elected” or “appointed” human?

Great question. Thanks for asking.

Here’s why…

John 14: 16 And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever [the Holy Spirit /God Himself], 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

And this John 17:14 "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

As the CC was the ONLy Christian Church when this was written and Codified; it was the CC Jesus Himself as sureity was speaking of and for. Therefore it must be the singular truth.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Bill_Pick]

Catholics tend to lump all Protestants in together when there should really be a distinction. Are you including Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Penatcostals, Christdephlians ,etc. in with Protestants? These groups aren’t really Christians in the true sense of the word.

They either have multiple GOD’s, Jesus is a mnor god or simply GOD with no Trinity.

AND it might help us find the answer if you tell us what differences you are talking about.

You will see from this board under religion all say Christian they will not give you the denomination because of a question they can not answer. And do not like getting in a debate

 

[BrianH]

***Perhaps?

BUT all the more reason [logic here] to allow the Church and those qualified within that Church to determine it’s meaning as they alone are th ones for whom it was written.

[Notice please I did not say applies to.] ***

Love and prayers,

LOL
If you start with all the presuppositions neccessary to make THAT statement:shrug: no wonder you get that conclusion…

 

[BrianH]

Great question. Thanks for asking.

Here’s why…

John 14: 16 And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever [the Holy Spirit /God Himself], 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

And this John 17:14 "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

As the CC was the ONLy Christian Church when this was written and Codified; it was the CC Jesus Himself as sureity was speaking of and for. Therefore it must be the singular truth.

Love and prayers,

Pat

So explain to me historically whey that is not applicable to all the other churches that go back that far again…
Oh because THEY are not the original church…but they say they are just like you say you are.
They all have Apostolic Succession. This is an assertion based upon a presupposition that it appears to me ignores the complexity.

 

[Publisher]

Great question. Thanks for asking.

Here’s why…

John 14: 16 And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever [the Holy Spirit /God Himself], 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

And this John 17:14 "I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

As the CC was the ONLy Christian Church when this was written and Codified; it was the CC Jesus Himself as sureity was speaking of and for. Therefore it must be the singular truth.

Love and prayers,

Pat

I understand your beliefs…I do not hold them. The Catholic church is a man made organization…like the Methodists…like the Episcopalians…like every other instituitonal church organization…it simply shares with the Mormons and JW’s and perhaps a few other man made organizations that it was established by Jesus of Nazareth…what it confesses about itself is not the same thing as “being established by Jesus”.

 

[PJM]

=BrianH;6411135]So explain to me historically whey that is not applicable to all the other churches that go back that far again…
Oh because THEY are not the original church…but they say they are just like you say you are.

They all have Apostolic Succession. This is an assertion based upon a presupposition that it appears to me ignores the complexity.

OK! LET’S Make a deal!

You provide historical evidence that other Christian [non-Catholic] Churches of ANY signifiance [there are always heritics… Judas ect.] around from 100 AD on and then, I’ll further prove my point. Your evidence [like mine has been, MUST BE verifiable.]

I can even prove that today’s CC is thee One True Church, even factoring in the Eastern - sec Catholic Churches.

God Bless you my friend!

 

[BrianH]

OK! LET’S Make a deal!

You provide historical evidence that other Christian [non-Catholic] Churches of ANY signifiance [there are always heritics… Judas ect.] around from 100 AD on and then, I’ll further prove my point. Your evidence [like mine has been, MUST BE verifiable.]

I can even prove that today’s CC is thee One True Church, even factoring in the Eastern - sec Catholic Churches.

God Bless you my friend!

Assyrian Church of the East
Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox

 

[pismopal]

I would like to quote Martin Luther…" I did not want a pope, now I have a hundred." No central leadership led and protected by the Holy Spirit…the result is confusion and discord. Luther might have listed this under the category of unintended consequences.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Assyrian Church of the East
Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox

If you truly believe those Churches were separate from the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning, why don’t you belong to one of them?

 

[pismopal]

So you don’t think GOD was capable of making sure HIS Word, the only true infallible, inerrant guide to our salvation be revealed to us exactly as HE wanted it?

God apparently made foolish…as well as wise men. If His word cannot be corrupted by unwise or evil men who are not led by the HS…why then is it so?

 

[BrianH]

If you truly believe those Churches were separate from the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning, why don’t you belong to one of them?

Its not a matter of belief. It would be a matter of history.
And the answer to your question is, I might.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Its not a matter of belief. It would be a matter of history.
And the answer to your question is, I might.

If you look closely, you’ll see there was one Church until the great schism. Then each side accused the other, to the extent of excommunicating each other. Prior to the great schism, there was only one Church. Either way, most all Catholics, from either, view the others as being of the ‘Catholic Church’, or the Apostolic Church.

 

[Karmartia]

Not necessarily true:

There have been splits off of Christianity from the very beginning-
Apollinarianism
Arianism - c. 318
Docetism
Collyridians – 4th century Arabian sect
Ebionitism - 1st century Jewish sect
Eutychianism
Gnosticism - pre-Christian
Marcionism - c. 140
Monarchianism c. 190s
Monophysitism - 371
Monothelitism
Montanus - c. 157
Nestorianism - c. 428
Noeticism
Quartodecimanism - c. 155

Even some of the earliest Church fathers wavered in their thinking.

While it’s certainly true that the RCC has always faced opposition, the LDS uses the King James Bible, so it is historically tied to Protestantism. The Book of Mormon even uses King James-style English. Comparing the origin of the Mormon heresy to the origin of past heresies is apples and oranges.

 

[BrianH]

If you look closely, you’ll see there was one Church until the great schism. Then each side accused the other, to the extent of excommunicating each other. Prior to the great schism, there was only one Church. Either way, most all Catholics view either as being of the ‘Catholic Church’, or the Apostolic Church.

The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian is prior to the Great Schism…what are you talking about???
And even excluding these, other groups that did not last with Trinitarian baptism like the Montanists (but certainly not in communion with Rome) and other groups were around prior to the Great Schism. Not that we are talking about them right now but thats basic history Prodigal

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not necessarily true:

There have been splits off of Christianity from the very beginning-
Apollinarianism
Arianism - c. 318
Docetism
Collyridians – 4th century Arabian sect
Ebionitism - 1st century Jewish sect
Eutychianism
Gnosticism - pre-Christian
Marcionism - c. 140
Monarchianism c. 190s
Monophysitism - 371
Monothelitism
Montanus - c. 157
Nestorianism - c. 428
Noeticism
Quartodecimanism - c. 155

Even some of the earliest Church fathers wavered in their thinking.

Quite a list of heretical groups there. What’s your point, or do you feel affiliated with one of them? I don’t expect you to say you are, but you have to see using a list of heretics to validate Protestantism, or Mormonism, seems to work in the opposite, in my opinion.

Peter denied, most ran away, Thomas doubted, all were men. Wavering has been going on from the beginning. It’s those who persevere until the end that shall be rewarded.

 

[BrianH]

Quite a list of heretical groups there. What’s your point, or do you feel affiliated with one of them? I don’t expect you to say you are, but you have to see using a list of heretics to validate Protestantism, or Mormonism, seems to work in the opposite, in my opinion.

Peter denied, most ran away, Thomas doubted, all were men. Wavering has been going on from the beginning. It’s those who persevere until the end that shall be rewarded.

The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians are heretics???
Someone better tell the Pope that!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian is prior to the Great Schism…what are you talking about???
And even excluding these, other groups that did not last with Trinitarian baptism like the Montanists (but certainly not in communion with Rome) and other groups were around prior to the Great Schism. Not that we are talking about them right now but thats basic history Prodigal

You’re right, the Montanists were not in communion with Rome and were considered heretics.

Montanists

Schismatics of the 2nd century, named from Montanus, a Phrygian, who, c.156, shortly after his conversion to Christianity, proclaimed himself a prophet of the “Spirit.” He called the people to gather in the plain of Pepuza, there to live a more spiritual life in preparation for the second coming of Christ which he said was near. In his frenzied ecstasies, he spoke not as God’s messenger, but as God, thus, “I am the Lord God Who dwell in man.” Two women, Maximilla and Prisca, were associated with him and had similar ecstasies. At first the innovations were not doctrinal but disciplinary. The “Spirit” ordered three Lents to be observed, and re-marriage and flight from persecution were forbidden. The greatest danger lay in the claim that the Holy Ghost was now supplementing the revelation of Christ, for this tended to overrule the authority of the bishops. The Asiatic Churches were in a turmoil, but the new prophecies were declared heretical, and the Montanists were excommunicated by local bishops. The news of the so-called “new outpouring of the Spirit” traveled all over the Catholic world, to Rome, Africa and Gaul. Pope Zephyrinus, c.202, definitely withheld letters of communion with the Montanists. In Africa, c.206, Montanism won to its side the great lawyer Tertullian; he taught that there were some unforgivable sins. The Montanists lingered in Africa until c.400, when they handed over themselves and their basilica to Saint Augustine. Little is heard of them in the East after the end of the 4th century. Some critics consider that the Montanistic controversy made the Church the Catholic Church; one would better say that Montanism brought out the innate Catholicity, the unanimity of the Church.

Remember, there were those in John 6:66 who left Him and walked with Him no more. Schismatics, or heretics, have been in existence since Christ Himself taught the Gospel…