Catholics on, Interpreting the Bible

[RND]

You are taking those out of context. Those verses describe the relationship between the Christian and the secular world.

Brother, if what one teaches and what one professes is at odds with scripture and the word of God then we are called not to join in anyway with these types of people and teachings.

 

[RND]

He doesn't understand anything about biblical context.

Brother, I'm not weighted down with a dogma that is outside the realm of solid Bible understanding.

 

[2 King]

but rather reprove [them].

agreed. To avoid them is not enough.

But all things that are reproved are made manifest

Shown in their true colours

by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Which means,nothing but light, light from heaven, can make anything manifest.

 

[Memento Mori]

Brother, if what one teaches and what one professes is at odds with scripture and the word of God then we are called not to join in anyway with these types of people and teachings.

You posted those verses in response to Yarddog's post here:

We are not to separate ourselves but to try and bring unity.

Which again brings us back to the question of whether or not Jesus has preserved the Church He built. If His intention was for His sheep to be gathered together in one flock, as seems clear, would He not guard and watch that flock? What kind of Shepherd is He?

If the Church fell into terrible apostasy almost immediately after it was built, what do we make of Jesus' intentions in the prayer below? Should He really have prayed for them to be united, or should He have prayed for them to avoid the great apostasy they were about to experience?

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:20-23

 

[RND]

Which again brings us back to the question of whether or not Jesus has preserved the Church He built.

Jesus will always have a faithful remnant.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

If His intention was for His sheep to be gathered together in one flock, as seems clear, would He not guard and watch that flock? What kind of Shepherd is He?

The flock is gathered by the Shepperd and abides in His word.

If the Church fell into terrible apostasy almost immediately after it was built, what do we make of Jesus' intentions in the prayer below? Should He really have prayed for them to be united, or should He have prayed for them to avoid the great apostasy they were about to experience?

What do the scriptures say? He warned that there would be a great apostasy to come. John told us specifically that antichrist entered into the church even in his day.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:20-23

What was the one singular way that these were to be brought into unity?

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The bottom line is that truth and the word of God are not popular. Thus, if there are those that reject it then that doesn't mean we stop being true Christians before them but we are to reject the false beliefs they hold. There is but one truth.

 

[Memento Mori]

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The bottom line is that truth and the word of God are not popular. Thus, if there are those that reject it then that doesn't mean we stop being true Christians before them but we are to reject the false beliefs they hold. There is but one truth.

You are pulling out all sorts of Bible verses that have nothing to do with unity. I stand by Jesus' clear prayer, which three times prays that Christians would be one. If schism and separation were not part of Jesus' plan for the Body of Christ, who are we to try pulling it apart limb by limb?

Jesus is the Head of the Body. You agree? Do you think He has been a good Head?

 

[RND]

You are pulling out all sorts of Bible verses that have nothing to do with unity. I stand by Jesus' clear prayer, which three times prays that Christians would be one.

Yeah, He prayed that they would all be one. I get that. So, does Christ want us to be together if we don't agree? Nope. He calls us to be separate from those that stray from the word of God.

If schism and separation were not part of Jesus' plan for the Body of Christ, who are we to try pulling it apart limb by limb?

Look brother, it doesn't seem that you comprehend this very well. If there are segments of the church that drift away from the plain word of God then we aren't to be apart of that group.

Jesus is the Head of the Body. You agree?

Of course. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. As a King He has a Kingdom and kingdoms have rules and rulers. As Lord He claims ownership over something. Thus we are to abide in His word....no one else's.

Do you think He has been a good Head?

Without a doubt! He has led me into understanding all truth in His word.

 

[Memento Mori]

Look brother, it doesn't seem that you comprehend this very well. If there are segments of the church that drift away from the plain word of God then we aren't to be apart of that group.

No, I completely understand. You are saying that the original Church taught error and thus it is necessary to break away.

I am saying that it is unnecessary, even wrong, to break away from the Church because Jesus has guarded it and preserved it from error. I am saying that He intended for Christians to be united, and that division is unnecessary because His word will always remain in that Church.

The difference in our views centers on divine providence. I don't believe there is just cause for separation precisely because Jesus is in control of the Church.

 

[RND]

No, I completely understand. You are saying that the original Church taught error and thus it is necessary to break away.

Your saying that....not I.

I am saying that it is unnecessary, even wrong, to break away from the Church because Jesus has guarded it and preserved it from error.

No, there is plenty of error in the church today so they weren't preserved from error.

I am saying that He intended for Christians to be united, and that division is unnecessary because His word will always remain in that Church.

Nope. "That" church is in error and teaches many false doctrines that have nothing to do with the word of God.

The difference in our views centers on divine providence.

Which means nothing without the true word of God.

I don't believe there is just cause for separation precisely because Jesus is in control of the Church.

If that were true that church would teach and abide in His word.

 

[Memento Mori]

If that were true that church would teach and abide in His word.

And that's a whole other issue. When you say word, you mean what God has taught through the Bible. When I say word, I mean everything God has taught.

I'm bowing out for now.

 

[Yarddog]

If the Church fell into terrible apostasy almost immediately after it was built, what do we make of Jesus' intentions in the prayer below? Should He really have prayed for them to be united, or should He have prayed for them to avoid the great apostasy they were about to experience?

What is your definition of apostasy? And why do you think that it has already occurred?

 

[Yarddog]

Brother, I'm not weighted down with a dogma that is outside the realm of solid Bible understanding.

Neither am I brother.

 

[Memento Mori]

What is your definition of apostasy? And why do you think that it has already occurred?

I don't. I was assuming one of RND's belief (that the early Church adopted pagan beliefs) for the sake of my argument.

 

[Trento]

Brother, I'm not weighted down with a dogma that is outside the realm of solid Bible understanding.

In other words you are infallible in understanding scripture.
To ignore what the Apostles thus The Word of God taught, in favour of what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, White,ad infinitum devised from Scripture alone, is a traversity of subjective truth. A cursory look at SDA, JW, Baptists, Lutherans,Quakers, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Christedelphians, Plymoth Brethen, Methodists, Pentecostals, A.O.G. Revival Centres,UNiting, all those that come and go etc; for the next few thousand smorgasbords of belief - all claiming to strictly adhere to what "Scripture Preaches" renders it all of little credibility - and a rejection of God's Word.
In the area of Salvation - we have those who promote OSAS yes, those who reject it, those who say we are saved if we speak tongues, those who promote faith alone and those who say it cannot be alone, those who say it is by works, those who say a faith working in love, those who promote by election alone - so what is one to believe if one accepts your criteria??? All claiming the same inspired authority.

Scripture is authorative but not an authority as it cannot speak or be dogmatic. The Constitution of the USA is specifically written to serve as a clear dogmatic reference (unlike Scripture) yet we need Lawyers to discern it and others to rule on it - there has to be a Divinely delegated authority to make decisions on faith and morals or we have chaos as we see in multiplying Denominations.

- Scripture does not preach - it is a written reflection/record of what Apostles and others preached during that time when the revelation ("once given the saints")that was Jesus was passed down embodied in the Church by the Apostles

-Scripture whilst it does contain some emphatic clear statements does not answer back and as a result it cannot correct false conclusions - not by itself and not alone, as measured against what the Apostles understood.



In the OT there was such - Jesus endorsed this authority when He said that the Jews MUST obey those who sit on the seat of Moses as they have Divine authority. Jesus passed on all His authority to His Apostles to do whatever and they in turn set up sucession - Barnabas is an example.
The Word of God" unlike those who promote interpretation of Scripture alone - that thus rejects what Scripture itself defines as God's Word. Scripture should be seen in the light of Apostolic teaching and vice versa and there must be a DIvine duly appointed earthly authority as that is also clear in the sacred record we have of Christ's teaching

 

[Yarddog]

I don't. I was assuming one of RND's belief (that the early Church adopted pagan beliefs) for the sake of my argument.

Oh, okay. You are very wise for a young man and I'm sure God has played a big part in that.

BTW, I don't think that it has occurred yet either.

 

[MamaZ]

Wow It was occuring even in the time of scripture was being written.


1Jn 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

 

[Standing Up]

You posted those verses in response to Yarddog's post here:



Which again brings us back to the question of whether or not Jesus has preserved the Church He built. If His intention was for His sheep to be gathered together in one flock, as seems clear, would He not guard and watch that flock? What kind of Shepherd is He?

The sheep have free will. The assigned leaders have free will.

If the Church fell into terrible apostasy almost immediately after it was built, what do we make of Jesus' intentions in the prayer below? Should He really have prayed for them to be united, or should He have prayed for them to avoid the great apostasy they were about to experience?

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:20-23

He did warn of apostasy, falling away.

It was God's will for the first generation out of Egypt to go into the promised land. They disbelieved and didn't. He didn't abandon His people and there was a remnant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


From the RCC perspective....


1. The "Scripture" which the RCC "inteprets" is not found on any page or in any tome or in any documents - it is found on it's own heart. See Catholic Catechism # 113, "The Sacred Scriptures is written in the [Catholic] Church's heart rather than in documents and records." Thus, the Protestant is looking at the words God inspired - those black and white words on the page - while the RCC is looking inward at it's own "heart." So, it may well "see" things no one else can see because it is "looking" into its own heart whereas the Protestant is looking at the words inspired on the page.


2. The RCC reserves all rights, abilities and authority to interpret this Scripture to it and to it itself alone. Soly. Individually. Exclusively. See Catholic Catechism # 85, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God whether in its written form [bible] or in the form of [RCC] Tradition has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone."So WHATEVER a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or Baptist thinks, reads, says or interprets (individually or collectively) is entirely, completely, absolutely moot and irrelevant and nonauthoritative. The RCC reserves all authoritative interpretation soly and only to it and to it itself. It is the only voice it itself will listen to.


3. The RCC views God's Holy Scripture as simply ONE PART of God's revelation that it and it itself alone chooses, defines and interprets. See Catholic Catechism # 80, "[Catholic] Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together and communicate one with the other." CC # 82, Both Scripture and [Catholic] Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments, devotion and reverence." CC # 95, [Catholic] Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated with each other that one of them cannot stand without the other." God's holy inerrant written word is just ONE part of the "three-legged-stool" (as Mormons call it). The other two parts are "Tradition" (what the CC teaches) and "CC Magisterium" (the leadership, rulings, decisions and interpretations of the Catholic Denomination). ALL of these are seen as EQUALLY divine revelation, infallable, inerrant, authoritative and normative. What God "said" in the views of the Catholic Denomination's leadership and in the Catholic Denomination's interpretation of what it chooses from the authors it chooses are JUST AS TRUE, authoritative and normative as what God said in His holy written word. God cannot contradict Himself, thus, the RCC argues, the Scripture in its heart MUST be interpreted so as to agree with the RCC's Tradition and the RCC's Leadership - or else God would be lying (and that's unthinkable). Thus, as my Catholic Deacon put it, "The [Catholic] Church must read the Bible through the lens of her Tradition and Magisterium." In other words, the RCC (which ALONE may interpret Scripture in its heart) MUST interpret the Scripture in its heart so as to agree with the RCC's own interpretation of it's own "Tradition" and "Leadership" - no matter what that takes, or else God would be lying and that just CANNOT be the case. Since the RCC's interpretation of the snippets it chooses, and the rulings of its own self are typically more expansive and clear (at least to the RCC), they provide the template to which God's Holy Word must be interpreted to "fit" to keep God out of trouble there, thus it's the "LENS" THROUGH WHICH the RCC's "reads" what is in its own heart.



I hope that helps to understand the Catholic epistemology and why the RCC may, at times, come to conclusions Protestants perhaps deem remarkable in its hermeneutic.



Pax!


- Josiah


.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The sheep have free will. The assigned leaders have free will.

He did warn of apostasy, falling away.

It was God's will for the first generation out of Egypt to go into the promised land. They disbelieved and didn't. He didn't abandon His people and there was a remnant.

As will a Remnant at the End of the Age

Romans 9:27 "Isaiah yet cries-out over the Israel 'if-ever may be the Number of the sons of Israel as the Sand of the Sea, the Remnant shall be being saved'". [Isaiah 10:22,23/Reve 20:8]

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out to deceive the nations, the in the Four Corners of the Land, the Gog and Magog, to be together-assembling them into the battle of which the Numberof them as the Sand of the Sea.[Ezekiel 7:1-2]

 

[Montalban]

It's good to trust in Him.

However for many Protestants their trust is, I think, unwaranted.

I see a great many who come to an interpretation of the Bible and believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them, so in effect any interpretation they come to is believed to be genuine, because, if the Holy Spirit is guiding them, the Holy Spirit's not going to lead them astray.

The problem is, I don't think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them.

There's so much divisions in the Protestant world.

I know some might want to believe that they're all part of one big happy invisible church of believers, but then why not have a unity in the type of worship?

Some Protestant churches handle snakes. Others believe in only adult baptism. Some believe the Eucharist, others the Lord's Supper (they have a celebratory/communal meal), and others don't go anywhere near this. Still other Protestant groups think only to worship on a Saturday. Some believe in polygamy. I mentioned this on another thread, and the fact that I saw a documentary the other day where one preacher, and all his flock have their service naked. There's a very small Protestant church that does the Lord's work by protesting funerals of fallen US service personnel.

Now either this stuff matters, or it doesn't.

Why would the Holy Spirit be guiding each of these groups to disunity, which is the exact opposite of what Paul called on the churches in his day to do.

The 'trusting in the Holy Spirit' is about subjective truths.