Martin Luther and Rome

Tzaousios said:

You have not answered my questions. What happens when you interpret the Bible? Is your interpretation of the infallible text also infallible?

Click to expand...

What's to interpret with the clear text? It's the unclear, symbolic texts that requires interpretation. However, any conclusion from the unclear can't contradict the clear, written word.

BTW, I don't need a Pope to interpret for me, if that's what you are getting at....

Keachian said:

I thought you said you didn't interpret Scripture? .

Click to expand...

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (Christ is speaking of Himself for He is the cornerstone) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you (not Peter alone, but the disciples including Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20 RSVCE)

Click to expand...

It's not interpretation... It was commentary....No man is between Christ and the believer.

Keachian said:

Commentary is interpretation in this context

Click to expand...

Here's something I'm open to:

First, when Jesus said "Upon this rock I will build my church," he was referring to Peter. I say that because the two Greek words - petros and petra - basically mean the same thing. They are different forms of the same word. One is masculine and the other is feminine. That's the only real difference. Jesus was saying, "Peter, you are a rock-man."

Second, when Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," he said it after Peter made his great confession of faith. The timing is crucial. It's not as if Jesus looks around and says, "Well, you're the best I've got so you'll have be the one." No, Jesus wasn't looking for some fall guy on which to build his church. Peter could not have been the rock until he made the great confession. That is, the rock is not Peter the doubter or Peter the denier. The rock is Peter the believer and Peter the confesser. The rock is Peter as he publicly confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Upon that rock Jesus will build his church.

Third, when Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," he said it to Peter as representing all the apostles. Remember I mentioned that the question was in the plural - "Who do you (plural) say that I am?" Jesus wasn't asking Peter alone; he was asking all of them. When Peter answered, he wasn't answering only for himself; he was answering for all of them. And when Jesus said, "You are the rock," he wasn't speaking of Peter alone. He was speaking of all the apostles.

I think Jesus was saying, "Peter, you are a rock. And upon you, and men like you, I will build my church." Now, to say that is not to agree with everything else that other people may say about Peter being the rock. But it is to say that Peter is the foundation of the church in the sense that, when he made that confession - and all the apostles with him - he was the rock - and they were the rocks upon which the church is built.

Excerpted from "Upon This Rock" The Rock-Man? - Disciples

Tzaousios said:

Do you mean to say the only texts that you comment on are ones that are supposedly "clear" in every instance?

Click to expand...

I mean you don't go to parables and symbolic books like Revelation & Daniel, etc, to understand basic doctrine. You go to the gospels...to Paul, etc. Then those symbolic texts must agree with the clear texts. Otherwise you could make the Bible say just about anything. That's where false doctrine comes in...

Tzaousios said:

This would seem to indicate that you do actually engage in the interpretation of Scripture. Also, there is plenty of material from the Gospels that has been interpreted and re-interpreted over the ages. Are you saying that you have personally been delivered the correct view of those texts by the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

No...but I'll be happy to debate....

My argument here is that the Pope is not the last word. He is not infallible, as he thinks he is. Neither is he in line with Peter and the Apostles.

In the past the Popes had the power of the state at their side. Then, if you disagreed, you did so at peril to your own life. That's where this heresy (both "succession" & "infallibility") leads...to persecution of dissenters.

Question to all Catholics:

Is the Pope's teaching (or the Papacy's teaching) on the gospel infallible?

Keachian said:

You are interpreting the text when you say you don't. Not only that but you are interpreting the text aligned with your own preconceptions, neither of these things are bad in and of themselves but you need recognise both if you are going to be honest with yourself and others.

Click to expand...

Fine...call it what you will.

Here's how I look at any passage of Scripture:

1] Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.

2] Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.

3] When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.

4] Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application.

5] Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.

6] The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfillment. Both complement each other.

7] For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.

Setyoufree said:

Question to all Catholics:

Is the Pope's teaching (or the Papacy's teaching) on the gospel infallible?

Click to expand...

Never mind, I'll "Google" it....

"...the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true." [Ref: Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers]

Under "heresies", I found this:

"...virtually all (Protestants) claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20...." [Ref: The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers]

Now, having quoted the above, what is the gospel as taught by RCC?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

Ref:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

yhwhismysalvation said:

For the truth about the anti-Catholic charge of “Lord God the Pope” check out the link below.....

The truth about the anti-Catholic charge of “Lord God the Pope” | Beati mundo corde

Ed

Click to expand...

I found a lot of squirming in the link you provided; a lot of doing the backstroke to try to get out of the statement above.

But here's something you can't squirm out of and that is that Catholics refer to the Pope as "His Holiness". Squirm out of that one....

"The honorific His Holiness (Latin: Sanctitas) is the official style used to address the Roman Catholic Pope" [Wikipedia]