Who has the Authority to Interpret Scripture?

[Guest]

May I suggest: The HOLY SPIRIT has that Authority.

Lone,

I think we would all agree with the above statement. Where we disagree is how the Spirit works. Catholics believe He works primarily (not exclusively) through the Church He founded. We have the Church to "guide...to all truth", not merely subjective personal interpretation of Scripture.

How, in practice, do you reconcile two honest, Spirit-filled people who both read the same Scriptures, yet come to the exact OPPOSITE conclusions on important matters of faith and morals?

If you have one Pastor "guided by the Spirit" who claims we can NOT lose our salvation, and another claiming we CAN, how are we to know, and therefore believe, the Truth?

Jesus set up His Church for this exact reason, to guard and proclaim the Truth. He gave her the gift of infallibility, which is HOW the Spirit works.

God Bless,

Mark

History shows were Rome has changed on doctrine. So, forgive me, but your point is moot.

 

[unred typo]

quote by dadof10 on Fri Oct 05, 2007:

How, in practice, do you reconcile two honest, Spirit-filled people who both read the same Scriptures, yet come to the exact OPPOSITE conclusions on important matters of faith and morals?

If you have one Pastor "guided by the Spirit" who claims we can NOT lose our salvation, and another claiming we CAN, how are we to know, and therefore believe, the Truth?

Jesus set up His Church for this exact reason, to guard and proclaim the Truth. He gave her the gift of infallibility, which is HOW the Spirit works.

Why do we have to reconcile them? The eye is not part of the ear, even though they both belong in the body. Having perfect understanding of the nature of God, the doctrines of the church and the full details of the history of mankind are not the essentials of our faith and salvation. Scripture is profitable. Profitable is not essential. Jesus taught love for God and one another, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to be humble and merciful, to have faith in God and his promises to reward those who do those things that he tells us are important and to seek the things that endure unto life eternal, not things on the earth.

Every person must live according to their own conscience and follow truth, faith and love to the best of their ability. That is what we will be judged on. We don’t need to judge one another except that we don’t cause another to stumble. Our own hearts are what we must use to gauge truth, no matter if it is something we read, or hear, whether in the Bible or from the Church or the RCC or directly from the Holy Spirit.

Take your example. The one who believes we cannot lose our salvation may just be more complacent and let his rewards slip away. The Holy Spirit will bring conviction of this and if they are truly seeking God’s will, they will learn to follow in spite of their doctrine. If they are not really interested in pleasing God, they won’t care even if the Spirit tries to convict them of error. Their doctrine is not going to be any more their downfall than their lifestyle is. The one who believes that they might lose their salvation will be more vigilant and aware of the danger but that is not a guarantee they will endure.

Dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s was the preoccupation of the Pharisees, while they neglected the important matters of faith, love and mercy. Do we want to be like them?

 

[Heidi]

Again, you are in error: Matthew 18:2, "Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Again? Where have you shown me wrong the first time? Tossing John 1:1-2 and telling me that this proves the Bible alone is the sole source of Christian doctrine???

God Almighty, I pray that you help this person...

So how do you think that Jesus reveals himself to children? Through the code of Hamurabi?

Through their parents.

Or perhaps Jesus says that scripture is a lie and don't listen to His or God's words?

Where on earth do you get this stuff from? Where did I EVER say anything that remotely resembles that I think Scripture is a lie? Because I tell you that you cannot interpret Scriptures, based on the texts you toss at me that are supposed to prove "Sola Scriptura"?

Please, READ THEM, Heidi. Even a child could figure out that John 1 is NOT talking about a book! For heavens sake, again, I ask you

Is the bible God? WAS THE BIBLE WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING?

And you are mad at me because I don't swallow that ...whatever you want to call it...? You have the GALL to accuse ME of not being able to read the Scriptures?

So sorry, francis, but since you deny scripture to keep your beliefs, then your belifs don't ome from the Word of God but from your imagination instead, which makes them imaginary beliefs. ;-)

Rather than read me the riot act, go back and sit down and read John 1:1-2. Think of what you are proposing....

The bible is God...?

Oh boy...

I read John 1:1-2 and as you can read, it's not me that's proposing anything because I didn't write the words in the bible. So If you don't think that the word is God, then how do you know God? :o How do you know what he said? :o

You can't which means you can't worship someone you don't know or understand. So your faith is in the pope's words because you can see the pope. But the pope is as mortal as you and I are. Everything seen is finite.

So the Word is as alive as it is eternal as every born again Christian knows once he becomes born again of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said his words will never pass away, which makes them eternal, and Hebrews 4:12 tells us they are living and active. So the word is God-breathed. But since you don't believe any of those passages, then you don't believe the God of the bible. It's that simple.

 

[francisdesales]

History shows were Rome has changed on doctrine. So, forgive me, but your point is moot.

Alone,

You are confused with "dogma" and "doctrine". The former is not changeable, but reformable. The later is changeable as the Spirit guides the Church of the day.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I read John 1:1-2 and as you can read, it's not me that's proposing anything because I didn't write the words in the bible. So If you don't think that the word is God, then how do you know God? :o How do you know what he said? :o


Heidi,

It is you proposing that the "Word" of John 1 is refering to a book with pages. The Word is the Son of God, a living Being who came in the form of flesh, whom we call Jesus Christ. Jesus is NOT a book of the Bible, nor the entire bible. The Bible is made up of pages. Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

I cannot believe I have to explain such things to another person... Has your community fallen so far that they cannot teach such a distinction?

this has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope, Heidi! He didn't email me or call me on the catholic hot line to ensure that I set you straight! This is common sense talking here. The Word is alive because the Word is God Himself! If you think the Bible is God, you are an idolater and are breaking the commandments of God.

I have nothing further to add. I could add some sarcastic remarks, but I actually feel sorry for you and your mindset that you have fallen to thinking a book is God...

:

 

[unred typo]

quote by Heidi:

I read John 1:1-2 and as you can read, it's not me that's proposing anything because I didn't write the words in the bible. So If you don't think that the word is God, then how do you know God? :o How do you know what he said?

You can't which means you can't worship someone you don't know or understand. So your faith is in the pope's words because you can see the pope. But the pope is as mortal as you and I are. Everything seen is finite.

So the Word is as alive as it is eternal as every born again Christian knows once he becomes born again of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said his words will never pass away, which makes them eternal, and Hebrews 4:12 tells us they are living and active. So the word is God-breathed. But since you don't believe any of those passages, then you don't believe the God of the bible. It's that simple.

The Word is not the Bible. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Bible is not living. The Bible is a book. It’s a wonderful book and it has the words of Jesus in it and it tells about him but it is not him. He is the Word, Heidi. Don’t make the Bible into your god. Making the Bible to be god is making an idol of it. Don't do that.

 

[dadof10]

History shows were Rome has changed on doctrine.

Where and when? From REPUTIBLE sources, please. Not Dave Hunt or Lorraine Boettner, who have been shown over and over again to be outright liars. Now, back to our original point...

You claimed the Holy Spirit has the authority to interpret Scripture. How does this work, in practice?

 

[dadof10]

Why do we have to reconcile them? The eye is not part of the ear, even though they both belong in the body. Having perfect understanding of the nature of God, the doctrines of the church and the full details of the history of mankind are not the essentials of our faith and salvation. Scripture is profitable. Profitable is not essential. Jesus taught love for God and one another, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to be humble and merciful, to have faith in God and his promises to reward those who do those things that he tells us are important and to seek the things that endure unto life eternal, not things on the earth.

Every person must live according to their own conscience and follow truth, faith and love to the best of their ability. That is what we will be judged on. We don’t need to judge one another except that we don’t cause another to stumble. Our own hearts are what we must use to gauge truth, no matter if it is something we read, or hear, whether in the Bible or from the Church or the RCC or directly from the Holy Spirit.

Take your example. The one who believes we cannot lose our salvation may just be more complacent and let his rewards slip away. The Holy Spirit will bring conviction of this and if they are truly seeking God’s will, they will learn to follow in spite of their doctrine. If they are not really interested in pleasing God, they won’t care even if the Spirit tries to convict them of error. Their doctrine is not going to be any more their downfall than their lifestyle is. The one who believes that they might lose their salvation will be more vigilant and aware of the danger but that is not a guarantee they will endure.

Dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s was the preoccupation of the Pharisees, while they neglected the important matters of faith, love and mercy. Do we want to be like them?

I'm curious as to where you get these ideas:

"Having perfect understanding of the nature of God, the doctrines of the church and the full details of the history of mankind are not the essentials of our faith and salvation."

"Scripture is profitable. Profitable is not essential."

"Every person must live according to their own conscience and follow truth, faith and love to the best of their ability."

"We don’t need to judge one another except that we don’t cause another to stumble."

"Our own hearts are what we must use to gauge truth, no matter if it is something we read, or hear, whether in the Bible or from the Church or the RCC or directly from the Holy Spirit."

"The Holy Spirit will bring conviction of this and if they are truly seeking God’s will, they will learn to follow in spite of their doctrine."

Do you read Scripture, interpret it and come to these conclusions, or do you have some other way? You seem to be saying "just let your conscience be your guide in all matters" (which has never been taught in historic Christianity, Catholic or Protestant), but I don't want to comment on something you're not saying.

Jesus taught love for God and one another, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to be humble and merciful, to have faith in God and his promises to reward those who do those things that he tells us are important and to seek the things that endure unto life eternal, not things on the earth.

Dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s was the preoccupation of the Pharisees, while they neglected the important matters of faith, love and mercy. Do we want to be like them?

You used the word "important" in both of these statements. How are we supposed to know which "matters" are and are not "important"? It seems to me that if a doctrine or teaching divides a group of people it's important, even if someone thinks it's merely "dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s."

Their doctrine is not going to be any more their downfall than their lifestyle is.

I don't understand. Are you saying that a persons lifestyle cannot contribute to a person's spiritual downfall? I'll wait to comment on this one.

 

[unred typo]

quote by dadof10 on Sat Oct 06, 2007

I'm curious as to where you get these ideas:

"Having perfect understanding of the nature of God, the doctrines of the church and the full details of the history of mankind are not the essentials of our faith and salvation."

Not sure where it comes from but I don’t see Jesus telling us about the ‘triune’ nature of God, or whether God has chosen some for salvation and some to be damned, or even that it is by grace and not works we will be saved. Apparently it is not essential to know what color God’s eyes are or where paradise is located, either. He didn’t give a list of the best books of scripture to hold on to, or which ones were so corrupted they should be tossed out. He concerned himself with matters of love and faith and repentance from sin not from ‘works.’

"Scripture is profitable. Profitable is not essential."

Dictionary. ‘Profitable’ is not a synonym of ‘essential.’


"Every person must live according to their own conscience and follow truth, faith and love to the best of their ability."

That’s a combination of verses that I can’t pull up at the moment. One is
Romans 14:5
One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.


"We don’t need to judge one another except that we don’t cause another to stumble."

That principle comes partially from:
1 Corinthians 8
7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But meat commends us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when you sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

"Our own hearts are what we must use to gauge truth, no matter if it is something we read, or hear, whether in the Bible or from the Church or the RCC or directly from the Holy Spirit."

Common sense. We have to think and evaluate what we accept as truth.

"The Holy Spirit will bring conviction of this and if they are truly seeking God’s will, they will learn to follow in spite of their doctrine."

Personal experience and the experiences of others for the most part.

quote by dadof10
Do you read Scripture, interpret it and come to these conclusions, or do you have some other way? You seem to be saying "just let your conscience be your guide in all matters" (which has never been taught in historic Christianity, Catholic or Protestant), but I don't want to comment on something you're not saying.

Yes, I read scripture, interpret it and come to these conclusions. When something bugs me and doesn’t sit well, I talk to others, sometimes in person and sometimes on here or both. Our consciences can be our guide but if we spend too much time ignoring it, it can make us dull of hearing. It seems to me that our consciences are some sort of interface to the Holy Spirit. And no, I can’t prove it or back it with scripture. :wink:

quote by dadof10
Unred said: “Jesus taught love for God and one another, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to be humble and merciful, to have faith in God and his promises to reward those who do those things that he tells us are important and to seek the things that endure unto life eternal, not things on the earth.â€Â
and “Dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s was the preoccupation of the Pharisees, while they neglected the important matters of faith, love and mercy. Do we want to be like them?â€Â


You used the word "important" in both of these statements. How are we supposed to know which "matters" are and are not "important"? It seems to me that if a doctrine or teaching divides a group of people it's important, even if someone thinks it's merely "dotting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘t’s."

Faith, love and mercy are important. If dotting ‘I’s and crossing ‘t’s is causing division, someone is neglecting what’s important. I’ve heard some people who both worship the God of the Bible say that they didn’t worship the same God because their God was triune and the other person’s was one single entity. What if they get to heaven and find out God has a twelve-fold nature?

Unred said “Their doctrine is not going to be any more their downfall than their lifestyle is.â€Â

quote by dadof10
I don't understand. Are you saying that a persons lifestyle cannot contribute to a person's spiritual downfall? I'll wait to comment on this one.

No, I’m saying if their doctrine is correct and they live like an unbeliever, what good will it do them? If their doctrine is incorrect and they live like an unbeliever, will it really matter whether their doctrine was also wrong? Does that answer your question? If not, I'll try again. :-D

 

[Heidi]

The greatest tool of cult leaders is to make their followers think they're too stupid to understand the bible. And it works beautifully. The cult leaders claim they were sent from God and are the only ones in the world who can interpret the bible correctly. Brainwashing can only happen when those who are brainwashed are told they must not think for themselves.

Once the followers have become neutered and completely under the control of the cult leader, then he alone can "interpret" the bible for them and make it say anything he wants it to say. That's what Jim Jones, David Koresch, the pope and all cult leaders do.

But since the catholic church has been brainwashing its congregation for a much longer time than any other cult, then it's much harder, if not impossible to de-program Catholics, which is why only God has the power to do that. There are actually groups called "recovering catholics" for people who have received the Holy Spirit and started to read the bible on their own.

So the title of this thread shows that the Catholics have been brainwashed to believe that only their leaders can interpret scripture for them. That's the first sign of a cult. :roll:

A cult also gets its power by the numbers in it. The cult leader uses to fear to keep his followers in line. And Catholics use fear to keep their followers in line by declaring who will go to heaven and who will go to hell because the leaders think they are Peter or God himself, thus the title, "Our Holy Father." And it works with anyone who's told that he can't think for himself. :roll:

 

[Guest]

History shows were Rome has changed on doctrine. So, forgive me, but your point is moot.

Alone,

You are confused with "dogma" and "doctrine". The former is not changeable, but reformable. The later is changeable as the Spirit guides the Church of the day.

Regards

Why do you create divisions in an attempt to defend your denomination? Perhaps you should worry about defending the Christian faith and not your denomination:

These are from Roman sources:

It is a historical fact the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpretation; the church has proved itself infallible." (My Catholic Church, p. 145).

Has the Catholic Church ever changed its teaching? No, for 2000 years the Church has taught the same things which Jesus taught." (Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 57).

If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility." (Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p74)

"if it be not identical in belief, in government etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ." (Catholic Facts, 27)

"Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten tradition." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 7)

Am I the one that is really confussed?

 

[francisdesales]

Why do you create divisions in an attempt to defend your denomination? Perhaps you should worry about defending the Christian faith and not your denomination:

First, I don't belong to a "denomination". I belong to the Church that Christ established.
Secondly, be defending the teachings of this Church, I am defending the Christian faith.
The reason for your quotes confuse me. What exactly do they prove?

 

[Guest]

Why do you create divisions in an attempt to defend your denomination? Perhaps you should worry about defending the Christian faith and not your denomination:

First, I don't belong to a "denomination". I belong to the Church that Christ established.
Secondly, be defending the teachings of this Church, I am defending the Christian faith.
The reason for your quotes confuse me. What exactly do they prove?

Unfortunately, you attempt to call the RCC the "body of Christ". While there are those who in the RCC are born-again and as such are then baptized into the "Body of Christ" - the RCC is not the Church of Christ - but rather a denomination within Christendom.

My quotes invalidate your notion of doctrine vs dogma.

The RCC teaches that it has not changed it's doctrine - which we all know it has.

 

[francisdesales]

Unfortunately, you attempt to call the RCC the "body of Christ". While there are those who in the RCC are born-again and as such are then baptized into the "Body of Christ" - the RCC is not the Church of Christ - but rather a denomination within Christendom.

I never said anything about the "RCC"... You are so busy trying to win an argument that you don't read what I have written.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church of Christ SUBSISTS within the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 didn't say that "RCC" = "Church of Christ". Thus, there are people who are remotely attached to the Catholic Church and may not even realize it because they are "Catholic" in the sense that they worship and believe as we do.

The "RCC" is NOT the sum total of the Body of Christ. It is, however, the visible unity for Christians on this earth.

If you are going to discuss these issues because you are interested and curious, or is this another of your inquisitions?

My quotes invalidate your notion of doctrine vs dogma.

Not at all. People sometimes use the term "doctrine" and "dogma" interchangeably, which is technically a mistake. Dogma and doctrine means two different things. I have already explained the difference. When people are careless, they write "doctrine" while meaning "dogma". It happens. But can you point to any changes of dogma? Teachings that were given that were meant to be held by all Christians for all time (the definition of "dogma")?

The RCC teaches that it has not changed it's doctrine - which we all know it has.

LOL! "We" all know nothing of the sort. "We" should provide the evidence of where the Church taught something as dogma (de fide) and then changed its mind and taught something opposed to that.

Regards

 

[aj830]

The greatest tool of cult leaders is to make their followers think they're too stupid to understand the bible. And it works beautifully. The cult leaders claim they were sent from God and are the only ones in the world who can interpret the bible correctly. Brainwashing can only happen when those who are brainwashed are told they must not think for themselves.

Once the followers have become neutered and completely under the control of the cult leader, then he alone can "interpret" the bible for them and make it say anything he wants it to say. That's what Jim Jones, David Koresch, the pope and all cult leaders do.

Heidi, quit kidding yourself. You are the only person I have heard to suggest that a billion people have been "brainwashed" in the "cult" of the Catholic Church. You have no idea what brainwashing is. Let's use your definition anyway however,

A)The Church has never said that people are to stupid to understand the Bible. On the contrary the Church exhorts the people to read the Bible and reads it to them everyday.

B)Your second paragraph putting the Pope on level with Jim Jones and David Koresch shows a very distorted view of what the Church is.

But since the catholic church has been brainwashing its congregation for a much longer time than any other cult, then it's much harder, if not impossible to de-program Catholics, which is why only God has the power to do that. There are actually groups called "recovering catholics" for people who have received the Holy Spirit and started to read the bible on their own.

So the title of this thread shows that the Catholics have been brainwashed to believe that only their leaders can interpret scripture for them. That's the first sign of a cult.

Well if they weren't reading the Bible on their own to begin with they weren't being very good Catholics anyway were they? I have heard many people who say "Oh, In the Church I never read the Bible and I didn't think it was necessary." , even though every time they went to Church they heard Scripture and the Church states many times in many places that it is absolutley necessary to study Scripture.

A cult also gets its power by the numbers in it. The cult leader uses to fear to keep his followers in line. And Catholics use fear to keep their followers in line by declaring who will go to heaven and who will go to hell because the leaders think they are Peter or God himself, thus the title, "Our Holy Father." And it works with anyone who's told that he can't think for himself.

Hahaha. Wow, I was unaware that I was unaware that the Church was declaring who on earth would go to hell. Tell me when they started this Heidi? So explain John Henry Neuman to me? His converesion from Protestanism to Catholicism seemed highly based on intellect rather than fear. Heidi you saying that I am staying in the Church out of fear is equivalent of me saying you are American out of fear. It has no back up. You cannot genralize a billion people and say "They are simply there out of fear". Doesn't work that way, next time try and use factual basis to support your claims.

 

[Guest]

aj - If you were to go to the RCC forum and read the topic of RCC and Salvation - I have already provided the quotes from Rome which shows the teachings that those outside of the RCC are "going to hell".

francis - I suggest you re-read the quotes I provided from Roman sources, even the Adult catechism.

As I said, the Body of Christ is made up of members who have been "born again". So, yes there are those within the RCC who have professed faith in Christ that are born again and members of the Body of Christ.

But please, try not to suggest that the RCC is the Body of Christ.

 

[Guest]

aj - what were the official RCC "opinions" (shall we say?) in regards to Hus and Wycliffe?

 

[francisdesales]

aj - what were the official RCC "opinions" (shall we say?) in regards to Hus and Wycliffe?

It is irrelevant to the idea of "dogma".

 

[Guest]

aj - what were the official RCC "opinions" (shall we say?) in regards to Hus and Wycliffe?

It is irrelevant to the idea of "dogma".

I was asking aj a specific question in relation to his/her assertion that

{quote]
A)The Church has never said that people are to stupid to understand the Bible.[/quote]

I beg to differ that the "Church" in fact did say that (perhaps not in those few words). Therefore, I was wondering what the official church position was on Hus and Wycliffe.

They were not "protestants".

 

[francisdesales]

As I said, the Body of Christ is made up of members who have been "born again". So, yes there are those within the RCC who have professed faith in Christ that are born again and members of the Body of Christ.

But please, try not to suggest that the RCC is the Body of Christ.

Try to stick to what is written here, not your imagination. I have already said that the "RCC" does not equal the Body of Christ.