Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree however, there are (as I've said many times) 100,000 different denominations based on 100,000 differing interpretations of God's word. How are we to know which is the correct interpretation?I would say any one who believes God can't prevent His own word from being completely corrupted worships a very small God.
Acts 17:11 even NON-Christians have been given the power by God to actually read the Bible and "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken - were SO"Everyone does not have the ability nor the inspiration to interpret properly. Feel free to trust yourself to have the proper interpretation of the Bible but remember this:
And some of them claim to be Catholic.I agree however, there are (as I've said many times) 100,000 different denominations
Do you believe the words of Jesus?I agree however, there are (as I've said many times) 100,000 different denominations based on 100,000 differing interpretations of God's word. How are we to know which is the correct interpretation?
Anyone can "read" but can just anyone interpret properly?
We see Catholicism has split and splintered many times -- demonstrating the point that "just get other people to believe whatever my magisterium says" did not work for the Jews of Christ's day in Mark 7:7-13 and does not work to this very day.We see that is not the case with Protestantism
Nope - I accept the same 27 that the NT saints were already reading long before the Catholic church came along a number of centuries later.Correct, and you trust the Church to do that
It failed that test in Mark 7:7-13 which you seem to refuse to Christ though it is stated outright.Again, I remind you that tradition is tested by scripture
Apparently non-Christians in Acts 17:11 had it. Is it your claim that you do not have the ability of those non-Christians??Everyone does not have the ability nor the inspiration to interpret properly.
An Old testament teaching also used by those Acts 17:11 non-Christians to test the teaching of Paul and ignore their own magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine.Feel free to trust yourself to have the proper interpretation of the Bible but remember this:
Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.?
Your question then turns into "Why should they have been allowed to exclude any of the books being read in the first century".
It is not so much the books they invented/wrote/came-up-with in the 4th century but rather the books they rejected. And our 27 is not then a new set of books in the 4th century but the same ones as in the first century only fewer.
We trust ourselves to be able to "read" and we note that the 27 were never rejected in the first century to start with.
So then nobody says "believe whatever my magesterium says - that is your solution" -- because that is 'no solution at all' for clearing up divisions.
As you already admitted - they were not coming up with new books in the 4th century - they were removing books.
In fact in Mark 7:7-13 tradition gets slam hammered - sola scriptura.
Then you should have no problem with everyone doing that very test.
Just as Christ did in Mark 7 when He slam-hammered tradition in his day.
Just as the Acts 17:11 example shows as they "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were So"
Acts 17:11 even NON-Christians have been given the power by God to actually read the Bible and "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken - were SO"
Is it your claim that you do not have that same ability that even non-Christians have?
And some of them claim to be Catholic.
We have seen strong differences even between certain Catholic groups like Orthodox vs Roman Catholic on this very board.
The idea that each one paying attention only to his/her own magisterium results in zero divisions - has not proven to be true.
You are responding to a post where it is pointed out explicitly that we have outright approval for individuals "reading scripture" that are not even Christians at all - and using what they read in scripture to 'test' the teaching of the Apostle Paul -- EVEN though their own magisterium is on record as condemning Paul's doctrine.
How is that even a little bit confusing?
How is it that some Christians are claiming to have less ability to read scripture accurately than these non-Christians in Acts 17? It does not appear logical to me
We see Catholicism has split and splintered many times -- demonstrating the point that "just get other people to believe whatever my magisterium says" did not work for the Jews of Christ's day in Mark 7:7-13 and does not work to this very day.
They were reading those and reading and writing many more books and letters. The original Church voted on which books and letters are the most important. If you believe they were divinely inspired enough to choose which writings would be included, why not also believe their interpretation of those scriptures that they chose?Nope - I accept the same 27 that the NT saints were already reading long before the Catholic church came along a number of centuries later.
Even you admit that the first century church was reading those texts as inspired of God.
This is really the easy part - it seems to me.
This passage does not dispute that tradition has been tested by scripture.It failed that test in Mark 7:7-13 which you seem to refuse to Christ though it is stated outright.
This passage does still not say that we are to lean on our own understanding. It simply confirms the law is available for anyone to read for themselves what the law says. It still does not indicate that the Church's tradition is not tested by scripture.Apparently non-Christians in Acts 17:11 had it. Is it your claim that you do not have the ability of those non-Christians??
Still, you add your own interpretation of what that passage is saying. It does not say that there is no need for a teacher, it simply says, (in a nutshell) if you don't believe it you can read it for yourselves.An Old testament teaching also used by those Acts 17:11 non-Christians to test the teaching of Paul and ignore their own magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine.
Tradition is just that something that man made of their own and then claim that its valid as law..Anyone can "read" but can just anyone interpret properly? We see that is not the case with Protestantism as there are 100,000 different interpretations by those who "read" and interpret however they please.
Correct, and you trust the Church to do that but don't trust it to know how to interpret the books that they chose. Why trust their ability to discern what is and isn't divine revelation but reject that same church's revelation?
Again, I remind you that tradition is tested by scripture so scripture/tradition.
Everyone does not have the ability nor the inspiration to interpret properly. Feel free to trust yourself to have the proper interpretation of the Bible but remember this:
Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.?
Should you trust the Church Christ founded or trust yourself?
The OT text that they had says to trust in the LORD and lean not on your own understanding. It does not say "trust your magisterium even when they condemn the teaching of Paul".This passage does still not say that we are to lean on our own understanding.
Not only read - but as the details show - apply and then conclude in direct opposition to the traditions/teaching of their magisterium that had condemned Paul's doctrine.It simply confirms the law is available for anyone to read for themselves
Testing tradition by scripture is exactly what Christ did in Mark 7:7-13 when he condemned it as well as "many such things that you do " according to the details in that text you are not quoting.It still does not indicate that the Church's tradition is not tested by scripture.
If you skim over enough details in the text we are reading you can eventually blame those details on me - but anyone actually reading the text can see that that solution does not work.Still, you add your own interpretation
I am happy with one.Is the fullness of truth found in 100,000 different ways or is there one truth?
And many Catholic groups in opposition to each other100,000 different churches with 100,000 different interpretations
In Acts 17:11 it is how they reached the correct conclusion even though their magisterium was on record as condemning the doctrine of Paul.should show you that reading scripture by yourself with no guidance is why everyone has their own interpretation
So say we all.The Catholic Church was split in two however both have the same origin, the Apostles.
I agree 100%. That is the way to test whether the Catechism is presenting sound doctrine in every case or if in some cases it is in error.I can agree with you here Bob. Test the catechism by scripture. Don’t read what people say about the Catechism or even another Catholic’s interpretation of it. Read the Catechism and tell us where it contradicts scripture
I never denied scripture testing, but relying on one’s own wits and constructing doctrine from scripture while ignoring history of those that have gone before us is the most concerning.I agree 100%. That is the way to test whether the Catechism is presenting sound doctrine in every case or if in some cases it is in error.
This thread is simply establishing the baseline point that the text should be done and that in fact it is seen to be successfully done - even by non-Christians in cases like Acts 17:11 where the accepted magisterium was on record as condemning Paul's doctrine.
But as we all can see -- there are some responses on this thread that state we should not be doing that same sola-scriptura testing that even the non-Christian Bible students of Acts 17:11 were able to do, without first checking to see if some other group's magesterium agrees with it first. Not a very compelling solution and I don't see anyone ever using such a method.
Like I have said before, tradition is always tempered by scripture. IMO, man-made tradition has its roots in all of the 100,000 individual interpretations of scripture in the 100,000 different Protestant churches. One God, one Church, one interpretation coming from the Church founded by the Apostles, not the Church founded by Calvin, or Zwilingi, King Henry VIII or whoever didn't like something already established and changed the things they didn't like and kept the things they did like.Tradition is just that something that man made of their own and then claim that its valid as law..
100,000 different churches are leaning on their own understanding not the understanding the Apostles had but the understanding the they personally had. Trusting the Lord means trusting his Church to disseminate the text properly. It doesn't mean to study the Bible yourself and draw your own conclusions that are different than the church next door and them drawing different conclusions from the church up the street.The OT text that they had says to trust in the LORD and lean not on your own understanding. It does not say "trust your magisterium even when they condemn the teaching of Paul".
Paul was Pharisee - their own magisterium was composed of Pharisees - yet these non-Christians only had to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so" according to the Acts 17:11 text you are not quoting.
So the point remains and your reference to an OT text which they had access to - as non-Christians is not helping your case that appears to be that they could not possibly do what the text says they did.
That was the magisterium of the Jewish religion. Not the magisterium of the newly founded universal church.Not only read - but as the details show - apply and then conclude in direct opposition to the traditions/teaching of their magisterium that had condemned Paul's doctrine.
I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing given what Acts 17:11 actually says.
Yes, there are conservative Catholics and Liberal Catholics. Most of that is people's politics affecting their religion. It doesn't mean they differ on basic doctrine, how salvation works, who is a Christian, or the Liturgy and Mass, The real body of Christ in the Eucharist. Som believe more rigidly in the need to be obedient than others.And many Catholic groups in opposition to each other
Just believe whatever my-magisterium says - never solved any differences.
Peter actually changed his mind about obedience to Levitical law when he was convinced by Paul that they had no need for physical circumcision as long as they has spiritual circumcision. The division was mended and The Church was united and still is.In Acts 17:11 it is how they reached the correct conclusion even though their magisterium was on record as condemning the doctrine of Paul.
You keep skimming past that detail.
I'm not confused. What scripture were they referring to? The Book of Acts or the Old Testament? Did Peter change his mind and include the Gentiles and their unclean ways? How could they test scripture that wasn't even written yet? What you seem to be confused about is the number of different interpretations by Protestant church are as varied as the opinions of the people in those Churches. They say they can figure it out for themselves but did you not have a teacher?So say we all.
That is not the solution. Both the Bereans and the Thessalonians and Paul had the same Jewish church origins. But one was right and the other was wrong. The solution (as the details in the text that you are skimming past point out) was to "study the scriptures daily to see IF those things were so" -- rather than simply follow whatever their magisterium said.
How does this appear to be even a little bit confusing?
It never was established, just imposed by force and death, by man...Like I have said before, tradition is always tempered by scripture. IMO, man-made tradition has its roots in all of the 100,000 individual interpretations of scripture in the 100,000 different Protestant churches. One God, one Church, one interpretation coming from the Church founded by the Apostles, not the Church founded by Calvin, or Zwilingi, King Henry VIII or whoever didn't like something already established and changed the things they didn't like and kept the things they did like.
And Protestantism and Anglicanism was imopsed on practicing Catholis. So they weren't doing anything different than The Church. The thing is, it was different version of Christianity that was imposed on people depending on what country they came from whereas the One True and Apostoplic Church's rules were the same everywhere in the Western world with Church Law being enforced by the Kings who submitted to the one true and Apostolic Church.It never was established, just imposed by force and death, by man...
Likely every single one of them would say that same thing about the Catholic church.100,000 different churches are leaning on their own understanding not the understanding the Apostles
We all believe our church is His Church and that it presents His doctrine properly.Trusting the Lord means trusting his Church to disseminate the text properly.
Not true. The Jews believed in a magesterium that was headed up by Pharisees and tended to be very opened to what Paul said as a Pharisee coming from Jerusalem. They had not value at all for "we don't care about the Jewish nation church , just our own local congregation" and you see that in the way they condemn Paul.It doesn't mean to study the Bible yourself and draw your own conclusions that are different than the church next door and them drawing different conclusions from the church up the street.
That was the magisterium of the Jewish religion.
Where do you see the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 standing in your model above - as they totally rejected the one-true nation-church's condemnation of Paul's doctrine and then by studying the scriptures daily - to SEE IF - Paul was correct - sided with Paul against their own magesteriumI never denied scripture testing, but relying on one’s own wits and constructing doctrine from scripture while ignoring history of those that have gone before us is the most concerning.
The non-Christians of Acts 17:11 listened to Paul and modeled their worship after his teaching. They consulted scripture to make sure he was not deceiving them, but when verified they followed his teaching.Where do you see the non-Christians of Acts 17:11 standing in your model above - as they totally rejected the one-true nation-church's condemnation of Paul's doctrine and then by studying the scriptures daily - to SEE IF - Paul was correct - sided with Paul against their own magesterium
The Catholic CHurch leans on the understanding of the Apostles and their students. Not the writings of Calvin for example who was a lawyer. Others go with the interpretation they like the most and we go with the interpretation of the original Church founded by Christ and his disciples.Likely every single one of them would say that same thing about the Catholic church.
So there are 100,000 different "proper" ways to interpret scripture? I don't think that is accurate.We all believe our church is His Church and that it presents His doctrine properly.
A lot of people believe they can do what even the non-Christians could do in Acts 17:11 "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were SO - that were spoken by the Apostle Paul - even though THE CHURCH magesterium condemned Paul's doctrine"
Could it be because the CHurch of Jerusalem was made up of Jewish Christians? At that point there were no Gentile believers or they were few and far between. Are you forgetting how St Peter ended up agreeing with Paul that the Gentiles should not be bound by Jewish Law? Did you forget that part or does that fact make it inconvenient to believe whatever you want to glean from the text?Not true. The Jews believed in a magesterium that was headed up by Pharisees and tended to be very opened to what Paul said as a Pharisee coming from Jerusalem. They had not value at all for "we don't care about the Jewish nation church , just our own local congregation" and you see that in the way they condemn Paul.
The infallible tradition actually WAS handed down from the early Church. The Mass hasn't changed in a couple thousand years but every other church came up with its own order of service that suited the own understanding. By the way, checking the scripture does not mean that you do it with no guidance. If that were so the church would be unified but instead it s splintered into 100,000 peices.What is more they were convinced they had infallible tradition beyond their decrees "handed down" -- Just as Jesus points out in Mark 7:7-13
Not true.The non-Christians of Acts 17:11 listened to Paul and modeled their worship after his teaching. They consulted scripture to make sure he was not deceiving them, but when verified they followed his teaching.
They did not read the scriptures on their own and construct their own teaching apart from Paul.
I would liken that to a believer today that reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church fully and in context and searches the scriptures to see weather it is true and consistent
Reading the scriptures on our own and constructing a teaching is a daunting task, and some concepts are difficult to grasp. Even Peter speaks of Paul having some hard teachings
Indeed if you were to read scripture to non-Christians and perhaps even make stuff up, for a people whose own magisterium was on record as condemning your doctrine as heresy - it would be very illogical to tell them they must first accept your doctrine as true - before they tested it no matter that their established magesterium had condemned you.It would be difficult if I would read the scriptures, and command people to listen to my interpretation
For myself, I remain open to reproof and correction. I rely on the Catechism and 2000 years of history. That reliance does not preclude me from reading and practicing contemplative prayer with the scriptures.
According to Christ in Mark 7:7-13 they most certainly did that very thingThe magisterium cannot contradict scripture
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?