Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[tqualey]

Hi, Pismopal,

Great post!

God bless

I am going to round off what I meant. It is not an itchy scalp that is the issue…mine or yours. The issue is why you keep refering to yourself as a “Catholic”. By your own admission you do not cling to the same faith and this could be verified by you by a simple visit with your priest…assuming that you have one. You have put the claims of islam on the same level with Christianity, as if truth means nothing…and that truth is relative. Read your own post here. You think truth is found anywhere it is claimed. This is total barking at the moon nonsense and this cannot be sugar coated and I am not going to do so. Everyone has some minor doubts in their faith, at least on occassion but to reject the Sacrament of Holy Communion, the center piece of the faith and still claim to be claim to be Catholic is nothing less than absurd and the most outrageous of your contributions here and that is an accomplishment of the worst kind.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Luther then went on to invent his own beliefs and ‘traditions of men’.

Incorrect. Luther let because the Spirit revealed to him through a study of the word of God that many of the church’s teachings were completely absent from Holy Writ, thus rendering them contrived “vain teachings of men” (Matt 15:9)

 

[vsedriver]

I’ll try to remember all that, but I don’t really think Protestants care that much about what we call Priests as never has anyone asked me.

well they sure have asked me. This is often used by protestants to point to the Catholic Church as being sinful for violating Jesus’ teachings. It’s one way for them to say the Catholic Church is false.

 

[vsedriver]

Incorrect. Luther let because the Spirit revealed to him through a study of the word of God that many of the church’s teachings were completely absent from Holy Writ, thus rendering them contrived “vain teachings of men” (Matt 15:9)

Luther is the example of “vain teachings of men” because Luther isn’t the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Incorrect. Luther let because the Spirit revealed to him through a study of the word of God that many of the church’s teachings were completely absent from Holy Writ, thus rendering them contrived “vain teachings of men” (Matt 15:9)

How do you know the “spirit” revealed anything to Luther?

Did the spirit also reveal that he should compromise his belief in the Immaculate Conception because other reformers were not up to par with his education and understanding?

Oh wait he must have been deceived here also by the vain teachings on the CC?

Seems to me while we are on the topic of vanity, Luther was the most mislead by this underwhelming personality flaw. Or would you say his humility preceeded him?

Just Saying.

 

[pismopal]

Incorrect. Luther let because the Spirit revealed to him through a study of the word of God that many of the church’s teachings were completely absent from Holy Writ, thus rendering them contrived “vain teachings of men” (Matt 15:9)

Is it the revealed study of the word of God that leads some believers in a section of Appalacia to handle rattlesnakes during their religious meetings? They will tell you that this is what the spirit revealed to them…" …and they will take up poisonous serpents and not be bitten…" There are more, less dramatic, examples of the “vain teachings of men” found in non Catholic denoms but you get my point. If you are concerned about the vain teachings of men in your faith, seems to me that a good way to guard against such a possibility would be in the Church founded by Christ and protected by His promise. Sometimes the truth can be found where you would least expect it.

 

[Publisher]

You are mistakenly applying your Protestant paradigm to the CC, Publisher.

There are the teachings of the Catholic Church, Publisher, and then there are those who have divorced themselves from these teachings.

Again, there is NO SINGLE CATHOLIC understanding of every passage of scripture…there is allowed in Catholicism a range of interpretation that can conflict with other Catholics interpretation…as has been stated on this forum more than once, the Catholic church has except for a few passages NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scripture…my question is why are Protestants expected to interpret every passage the same, when Catholics are not required to do so?

The title of this thread seems to suggest…at least to me, or why would it be asked in the first place… there is something “wrong” with Protestant understanding because we don’t understand scripture in the exact same way…Catholics don’t…so why are we expected to?

 

[Luvtosew]

****I found the writings of Clement of Alexandria , the Paedagogus, Book 1 to be interesting, I will share just a bit of it,

An interesting read is the Paedagogus of Clement of Alexandria, Book 1 on the net,

a part says,

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed. If, then, some would oppose, saying that by milk is meant the first lessons— as it were, the first food— and that by meat is meant those spiritual cognitions to which they attain by raising themselves to knowledge, let them understand that, in saying that meat is solid food, and the flesh and blood of Jesus, they are brought by their own vainglorious wisdom to the true simplicity.

He is refering to the flesh and blood as symbols, and that Jesus was using metaphor. theres of course more to read about it as he goes into detail. Food for thought.

We all know how flesh means man and body in the Bible also, its almost like Jesus meant the members of his body(church) are held together by the blood (faith and life) of its members.
Of course he also refers to blood as milk which is how a newborn baby is fed,

and lets not forget spirit and divinity of Christ. He fed us.

 

[Traverse]

That’s fascinating, Luvtosew. Do you know what year that is from? I’d like to read more on that.

Thanks.

 

[Luvtosew]

That’s fascinating, Luvtosew. Do you know what year that is from? I’d like to read more on that.

Thanks.

Heres the link, Book 1

earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

 

[Nicea325]

Again, there is NO SINGLE CATHOLIC understanding of every passage of scripture…there is allowed in Catholicism a range of interpretation that can conflict with other Catholics interpretation…as has been stated on this forum more than once, the Catholic church has except for a few passages NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scripture…my question is why are Protestants expected to interpret every passage the same, when Catholics are not required to do so?

The title of this thread seems to suggest…at least to me, or why would it be asked in the first place… there is something “wrong” with Protestant understanding because we don’t understand scripture in the exact same way…Catholics don’t…so why are we expected to?

Again YOU ARE WRONG and keep applying Protestant ethics to Catholicism. ONE MORE TIME: ANY Catholic is FREE to interpret as he or she pleases,but at the end of the day…the CHURCH which Jesus promised to guide with the Holy Spirit is the one who determines interpretation.

So again,why do you keep on insisting there is NO single Catholic interpretation?

 

[Publisher]

Again YOU ARE WRONG and keep applying Protestant ethics to Catholicism. ONE MORE TIME**: ANY Catholic is FREE to interpret as he or she pleases,but at the end of the day…the CHURCH** which Jesus promised to guide with the Holy Spirit is the one who determines interpretation.

So again,why do you keep on insisting there is NO single Catholic interpretation?

And again, Catholics have no SINGLE understanding any more than Protestants do…the church HAS NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scritpure…the reality as it exists NOW Catholics can interpret scripture as THERE IS NO SINGLE interpretation which exists among Catholics…the church HAS NOT provided a SINGLE interpretation…could they? Sure…have they? No. This leaves NO SINGLE UNDERSTANDING of scripture among Catholics NOW…why do I keep insisting there is NO single Catholic interpretation…becasue there isn’t one…there COULD BE…but there ISN’T NOW.

Protestants could formulate a SINGLE understanding in some nebulous future event…not likely to happen…the Catholic church isn’t likely to do so either…saying they CAN and THERE IS…isn’t the same…there’s not a single understanding among Catholics…and not likely to be UNTIL the church does so…but it isn’t likely from all indications as far as I can see.

 

[Nicea325]

And again, Catholics have no SINGLE understanding any more than Protestants do…the church HAS NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scritpure…the reality as it exists NOW Catholics can interpret scripture as THERE IS NO SINGLE interpretation which exists among Catholics…the church HAS NOT provided a SINGLE interpretation…could they? Sure…have they? No. This leaves NO SINGLE UNDERSTANDING of scripture among Catholics NOW…why do I keep insisting there is NO single Catholic interpretation…becasue there isn’t one…there COULD BE…but there ISN’T NOW.

Sorry,but are you experiencing comprehension issues? THE CHURCH…THE CHURCH is the ONE WHO has the FINAL SAY! What part do you not grasp? Does not matter if 1,000 Catholic lay folks have different interpretations,it is the CHURCH which also gave us DOCTRINES who determines interpretations it…period…end of case! Do there exist thousands of doctrines on the Trinity or merely one official doctrine? Who determined it Publisher? The common folks or the church?

Stop applying your Protestant ideals to Catholicism. And you have yet to answer:

Under the Protestant umbrella who determines the final interpretation? You? Your pastor? Which denomination?

 

[Publisher]

Sorry,but are you experiencing comprehension issues? THE CHURCH…THE CHURCH is the ONE has the FINAL SAY! What part do you not grasp? Does not matter if 1,000 Catholic lay folks have different interpretations,it is the CHURCH which also gave us DOCTRINES who determines interpretatyions it…period…end of case!

Stop applying your Protestant ideals to Catholicism. And you have yet to answer:

Under the Protestant umbrella who determines the final interpretation? You? Your pastor? Which denomination?

I understand that…but the church HASN’T done so…so at this time THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UNDERSTANDING of the Bible concerning every passage in scripture…could be, can be, might be is not the same as IS.

Where has the church interpreted every passage of scripture? It hasn’t…do Catholics have a single understanding of scripture? No…could the church interpret it…yes…have they…no…end of case!

 

[Nicea325]

I understand that…but the church HASN’T done so…so at this time THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UNDERSTANDING of the Bible concerning every passage in scripture…could be, can be, might be is not the same as IS.

Where has the church interpreted every passage of scripture? It hasn’t…do Catholics have a single understanding of scripture? No…could the church interpret it…yes…have they…no…end of case!

I beg your pardon? When has the church said it has interpretated every single passage? Has it ever made such a claim? The Bible was not written and complied for that sole purpose. First of all,you are going off on another tangent not related here at all. The issue at hand is not how much of the Bible has the church interpretated the past 2,000 years. That is not the argument you presented. The Church has interpretated enough from scripture to support doctrines such as the Trinity,Incarnation,etc,etc. If it took them over 300 years to ratify the Trinitarian doctrine based on development,what makes you believe it has remotely interpretated all of God’s Word in the Bible?

If there is no single understanding by ANY Catholic (clergy,theologian,lay,etc) than how in God’s name did they develop and ratify any doctrine? The church as a WHOLE did. Again…does the church have multiple doctrines on the Trinity based on no single interpretation by many individuals or does it have ONE doctrine based on an official interpretation? How about the NT canon? Did church allow every single Christian determine for himself or herself what books should make the canon? Or was it one collective body (Church) who determined that for the followers of God? Again, Catholicism is not Protestanism where there exist no authority to make such declarations.

 

[Publisher]

I beg your pardon? When has the church said it has interpretated every single passage? Has it ever made such a claim? The Bible was not written and complied for that sole purpose. First of all,you are going off on another tangent not related here at all. The issue at hand is not how much of the Bible has the church interpretated the past 2,000 years. That is not the argument you presented. The Church has interpretated enough from scripture to support doctrines such as the Trinity,Incarnation,etc,etc.

If there is no single understanding by ANY Catholic (clergy,theologian,lay,etc) than how in God’s name did they develop and ratify any doctrine? The church as a WHOLE did. Again…does the church have multiple doctrines on the Trinity based on no single interpretation by many individuals or does it have ONE doctrine based on an official interpretation? How about the NT canon? Did church allow every single Christian determine for himself or herself what books should make the canon? Or was it one collective body (Church) who determined that for the followers of God? Again, Catholicism is not Protestanism where there exist no authority to make such declarations.

We can talk in circles…but the truth is that there is no single understanding conerning the Bible among Catholics…if and when the church defines every passage of scripture of scripture for Catholics I’ll continue to assert there is no single understanding…you may continue to assert there is…even though in reality…there is not…there could be…but as of now…there’s not.

 

[Nicea325]

We can talk in circles…but the truth is that there is no single understanding conerning the Bible among Catholics…if and when the church defines every passage of scripture of scripture for Catholics I’ll continue to assert there is no single understanding…you may continue to assert there is…even though in reality…there is not…there could be…but as of now…there’s not.

Sorry my friend, I am not the one making the circle;moreover,your refusal to hear anything I say in regards to the church,causes your own inner circle. Peace and God Bless

 

[Publisher]

Sorry my friend, I am not the one making the circle;moreover,your refusal to hear anything I say in regards to the church,causes your own inner circle. Peace and God Bless

Peace to you to friend.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt25,

What I said has nothing to do with one’s Baptism.

When a Catholic willfully denies an Article of Faith (e.g., denying that Christ is physically present in the Consecrated Host under the appearance of Bread and Wine [the Real Presence]) one excommunicates themselves Latae sententiae. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae Simply stated, one can not deny a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church and still remain a Catholic.

The character of Baptism is permanent, but it does not prevent one from denying the Truths of the Faith and renouncing their Catholic Faith. Here is a link on what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm Your attention is specifically directed to items 1272-1274.

God bless

From your own source CCC 1273 “Incorporated into the Church by Baptism”. I’m assuming you believe the Catholic Church is the Church. So when one is baptized according to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, they are Catholic. Are you familiar with the Catholic answer that excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics? Short of being reconciled they are told not to receive the Sacraments nor are they to serve in any parish capacity.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you familiar with the Catholic answer that excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics? Short of being reconciled they are told not to receive the Sacraments nor are they to serve in any parish capacity.

Yeah…and?