Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[Tzaousios]

There are specific truths that I have been expressing however that I do believe God has led me to.

I am not saying my biases are right, I am saying that God has led me to the truth DESPITE my biases.

No, I place my trust in God. I believe He has led me to those interpretations.

Yes, but I still do not see on exactly what. Salvation? Creationism? Eschatology? Has he led you correctly to only a certain number of things or EVERYTHING? In most instances it would appear that you think he has led you to the correct interpretation every single time concerning Catholic doctrine in almost a magically exclusive way.

I tend to focus on issues that I am most confident about when posting here though, so I can see how you would get that impression. I struggle to understand parts of Hebrews, big chunks of the OT, and my interpretation of Revelation keeps changing - I am not really certain of much in Revelation. Does it help to know that I recognize my own weaknesses?

Great! Thank you for being candid with me. It helps.

I don't believe I even said I don't interpret, I think it is common sense that everyone interprets.

Okay, but I still don't understand how you think interpretation works and the exact scope of it that God has led you to interpret correctly or rightly.

No. You asked me, and it made me curious about you.

Actually, it is very similar to yours, that is, Scripture, history, logic, and certain presuppositions that I think are necessary from the beginning.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The methodology for interpreting Scripture that I described has been true across the board for the Evangelical Protestant churches that I have attended or visited throughout my life.

Opps, sorry, meant to comment on this too.

The methodology for interprting scripture that you described may have been what you experienced but it's not the way the large majority of Protestant churches and denominations believe scripture should be interpreted and is not the way they interpret scripture. They may have used that methodology in the church you were raised, I don't know, but for the majority of the Protestant denominations out there, they don't.

 

[Tzaousios]

The methodology for interprting scripture that you described may have been what you experienced but it's not the way the large majority of Protestant churches and denominations believe scripture should be interpreted and is not the way they interpret scripture. They may have used that methodology in the church you were raised, I don't know, but for the majority of the Protestant denominations out there, they don't.

Oh, I do not doubt that it is not the way that they are supposed to interpret it, or even that it is the way their pastors interpret it, but in actual practice, my experience is how the laity actually approach it IN PRACTICE. But please see the rest of my comments.

 

[Pteriax]

Yes, but I still do not see on exactly what. Salvation? Creationism? Eschatology? Has he led you correctly to only a certain number of things or EVERYTHING? In most instances it would appear that you think he has led you to the correct interpretation every single time concerning Catholic doctrine in almost a magically exclusive way.

The things I have focused most of my study time on, which includes spiritual warfare and counter-cult apologetics to a large degree. I have spent a huge amount of time on the RCC due to case studies of demonic possession cases for my training with the American Association of Exorcists. It is unusually common for practicing and / or devout Catholics to become possessed or severely oppressed by demons, and Catholic priests routinely have great difficulty (sometimes taking years of exorcism sessions) casting anything out. On the other hand, some evangelical deliverance ministers routinely cast demons out of possessed nonbelievers (usually resulting in a full conversion) in a matter of moments. My wife had the same problem. She was raised Mormon, and became demon possessed and oppressed in her early twenties. The men in her church were powerless to do anything to help. Then she met me, and the demons would leave her alone if she was simply in the same room with me, or even just talking to me on the phone. It didn't take long for the demons to simply leave her alone, in fact it was when she denounced Mormonism that it stopped once and for all. She was saved at that time as well. I am sure you can see where this logically leads. The RCC priests did not have the ability to cast out devils they way they were cast out in the Bible, or the way I had seen them cast out by protestants. This is why I researched them so deeply. This research, my own experience, history, and God leading me to it, is why I feel so strongly about the doctrines and practices of the RCC.

Great! Thank you for being candid with me. It helps.

Okay, but I still don't understand how you think interpretation works and the exact scope of it that God has led you to interpret correctly or rightly.

It is a process. Read, reread, cross reference, examine contexts, pray, etc.

Actually, it is very similar to yours, that is, Scripture, history, logic, and certain presuppositions that I think are necessary from the beginning.

 

[Cappadocious]

First off this isn't even true.

So who/what did you have in mind?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Oh, I do not doubt that it is not the way that they are supposed to interpret it, or even that it is the way their pastors interpret it, but in actual practice, my experience is how the laity actually approach it IN PRACTICE. But please see the rest of my comments.

Sounds to me then that you grew up in the wrong church then. I mean that's the samething I told my wife, "you grew up in the wrong parish", and "you should've had some of my priests". It is what it is.

 

[Pteriax]

So who/what did you have in mind?

I think more people believed it, that's all. Of course no Christians ever believed it though, which is kinda my point.

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh, I do not doubt that it is not the way that they are supposed to interpret it, or even that it is the way their pastors interpret it, but in actual practice, my experience is how the laity actually approach it IN PRACTICE. But please see the rest of my comments.

If I may, for clarification, you've stated you are not RC/EO, yet you referred to protestant church members as "laity". May I ask why? I'm a bit confused as I've never heard the term used outside of the RCC.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Okay, but then the question must be asked: do they make interpretation and then refuse to admit it, or perhaps do they conflate interpretation with "what the Bible plainly says"? These things often are manifestations of saying that no interpretation is needed.

Ok, I think I know where you're coming from.

All I can say is that I see people honestly wanting to know what God is saying through the scriptures. They look through the scriptures, and only the scriptures, for collaborations, do word studies, learn the original languages of Hebrew and Greek.

The Bible plainly says "thou shalt not kill", what more do you need? Well, if you do a word study, the Hebrew also suggests that the word means murder, taking of another humans' life. Some will hold to the meaning of kill very stubbornly, while some, like me, take it to mean murder. We now have a difference in interpretation due to the difference we have in what the original language was really saying. This happens alot I admit.

Oh? The waffling between default literalism and allegory/metaphor happens all the time concerning the Evangelical Protestant understanding of the Eucharist. It must be allegory or metaphor in order for their presuppositions about what Catholics believe to be maintained.

Most Protestants simply believe we're to break bread and drink wine together in rememberance of Jesus Christ, exactly like He told us to. The Roman Catholics take the whole last super instructions of Jesus way too literal, Jesus was useing allegory/metafor. Why should I believe that the bread actually turns into Jesus' body, and why should I believe that the wine actually turns into Jesus' blood? Why? Please tell me why? We see Jesus useing allegories and metafors all the time, including parables, but I never had a Protestant ever tell me that they truely believed that when they get to heaven they expect to see 5 wise virgins, or a landowner and his vineyard. To suggest that Protestants never see allegory or metafor in scripture simply isn't true. And we do see it in Jesus' instructions in the last super. It's simply just another case in which He does.

Again, who is taking this too literal? It's not the Protestants. And the reason for why the Protestants don't take this to the literal extreme is because the rest of scripture does not support it.

Then there is the taking of the Song of Songs as a kind of God-permitted sex manual from which rockstar pastors can take all sorts of cues for 60 Day Marital Sex sermon series and so forth.

I didn't say this type of literalism never happens but that it isn't as previlent as you seem to suggest it is. In fact, I've never had a sex course in church where they used the Song of Songs as the text book. Never heard a sermon on it either. But then I remember the Pope telling all us Catholics that birth control is wrong and that it's supported in some stange way in the Bible. I'd actually rather have someone tell me that they believe something wierd in the Bible because of some literal reading of it than because of something that is written here and there, and everywhere without taking any reading of the Bible literally. It's simply easier to refute.

Well, we both agree entirely here.

There, yah see? Agreement, it can be a wonderful thang.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Oh, I do not doubt that it is not the way that they are supposed to interpret it, or even that it is the way their pastors interpret it, but in actual practice, my experience is how the laity actually approach it IN PRACTICE. But please see the rest of my comments.

If I may, for clarification, you've stated you are not RC/EO, yet you referred to protestant church members as "laity". May I ask why? I'm a bit confused as I've never heard the term used outside of the RCC.

^^ Seconded. As an Evangelical Christian (and thread lurker) it would be helpful if you declared yourself a bit more than the generic "Christian" faith icon. It seems that some generalizations are being made about how 'most' Evangelicals approach scripture that may not be true in all cases. To know your frame of reference would help.

 

[Rev Randy]

^^ Seconded. As an Evangelical Christian (and thread lurker) it would be helpful if you declared yourself a bit more than the generic "Christian" faith icon. It seems that some generalizations are being made about how 'most' Evangelicals approach scripture that may not be true in all cases. To know your frame of reference would help.

I kinda thought your faith icon was a bit vague. But your post (in the Quote) helps a bit. Protestant does not necessarily mean evangelical.

 

[Cappadocious]

I think more people believed it, that's all.

Where's your historical evidence?

Of course no Christians ever believed it though

Most Christians hold to the real presence or at least are members of faiths that do. So I don't really know what you're talking about, unless this is a no true Scotsman argument.

 

[Tzaousios]

If I may, for clarification, you've stated you are not RC/EO, yet you referred to protestant church members as "laity". May I ask why? I'm a bit confused as I've never heard the term used outside of the RCC.

I simply meant to distinguish between those who are pastors of the churches and those who are not pastors but members of the congregations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If I may, for clarification, you've stated you are not RC/EO, yet you referred to protestant church members as "laity". May I ask why? I'm a bit confused as I've never heard the term used outside of the RCC.

If I am not mistaken Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and some Presbyterians and Reformed folk refer to clergy and laity.

 

[Metal Minister]

I simply meant to distinguish between those who are pastors of the churches and those who are not pastors but members of the congregations.

Ok, thanks!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Again, I doubt you even read everything I posted but Catholics seem to have a misinterpretation of Christs sacrifice.

Then protestants would by extension have a worse interpretation?

can't stand penut substitution . can never pick the shell the peanut is under .

 

[Metal Minister]

Then protestants would by extension have a worse interpretation?

How did you come to that conclusion?

can't stand penut substitution . can never pick the shell the peanut is under .

I'm not sure I follow what you mean....

 

[Rev Randy]

I simply meant to distinguish between those who are pastors of the churches and those who are not pastors but members of the congregations.

I used the term as a baptist. Layman, laity and Clergy.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Well .. Protestants are the apple that falls from the Catholic tree . so for the seed of that apple to critize the tree . is .. well more of a reflection on itself .

I'm not sure I follow what you mean....

Was in relation to penal substitutionary theory of atonement . as the topic can get very serious . i usually open with a joke .

 

[Rev Randy]

Well .. Protestants are the apple that falls from the Catholic tree . so for the seed of that apple to critize the tree . is .. well more of a reflection on itself .




Was in relation to penal substitutionary theory of atonement . as the topic can get very serious . i usually open with a joke .

Oh no you didn't.