Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Are you Protestant? Or, are you sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. Register in less than a minute, it is simple, fast, and free! We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another forum.

Enjoy your fellowship

In order to understand the importance of Christian fellowship, we must first understand what Christian fellowship is and what it isn’t. The Greek words translated “fellowship” in the New Testament mean essentially a partnership to the mutual benefit of those involved. Christian fellowship, then, is the mutually beneficial relationship between Christians, who can’t have the identical relationship with those outside the faith. Those who believe the gospel are united in the Spirit through Christ to the Father, and that unity is the basis of fellowship. This relationship is described by Jesus in His high-priestly prayer for His followers in John 17:23. The importance of true Christian fellowship is that it reinforces Christ centeredness in our mind and helps us to focus on Christ and His desires and goals for us. As iron sharpens iron, in true Christian fellowship Christians sharpen one another's faith and stir one another to exercise that faith in love and good works, all to God’s glory.
Sign in to follow this  
Bede

Authority

Recommended Posts

There are some differences between (Roman) Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox over interpretation of scriptures. There are many differences between Catholics (and Orthodox) and most Protestants. There are many differences between the multitudinous Protestant denominations and church groups.

 

Who is right?

It all boils down to authority.

Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?

Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

 

Let’s say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. And so on!

 

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

 

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth. Right?

 

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

 

Welcome to Protestantism!

 

Let’s try another scenario.

For 1500 years Christians throughout the world have interpreted a particular passage from one of Paul’s letters as meaning ABC. The some guy – let’s call him Luther - studies scripture and decides it has been interpreted wrongly and means XYZ, and teaches a doctrine based on his interpretation. Now just suppose that Paul himself appears and says “Actually Luther, you are wrong. It does mean ABC”. Who do you believe – Paul or Luther?

 

Well Paul obviously – he wrote it. But suppose the apostle Peter came along instead and says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Still Peter - he was an apostle. He was taught by Christ and was given authority by Christ. Luther was not.

 

But suppose neither Paul not Peter turned up, but Timothy instead. And Timothy says – “Luther is wrong, Paul meant ABC and Luther’s doctrine is wrong.” Who do you believe? Timothy has been taught personally by Paul. Paul has laid hands on him and appointed him to be a minister of Christ Jesus and an overseer in Ephesus; instructed him to pass on to other faithful people the teaching that Paul has given him. Of course I would trust Timothy. He was given teaching and authority by Paul. Luther was not.

 

That’s how we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is. That’s how we know what true doctrines are. We get it from the apostles because they were given true doctrines by Christ and the authority to teach them by Christ. We don’t get it from personal opinions of those who have not been given such authority.

 

It all boils down to authority!

 

Let’s simplify it another way.

 

Group 1 proposes a doctrine based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

Group 2 proposes a different doctrine based on a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

 

You have three choices – yes three!

 

1. You decide that no-one has any authority and their interpretations are just opinions. In that case there is no absolute truth. But then why study the Bible if all you get are conflicting opinions? You might think there is absolute truth but in fact all you have are differing opinions.

 

2. You decide that one group is right because their interpretation is the most “biblical”. But all you have done is decide that your own opinion trumps the others. Who gave you the authority to decide which is “biblical”, which is right or wrong? Does a particular group seem ‘right’ to you? But that doesn’t mean it is right. You are not infallible.

 

3. You look to see where there is a group that God has given the authority to interpret scripture definitively and teach true doctrine. Such a group must go back to the apostles because they were given the teaching and authority by Christ. To whom did the apostles pass on the true doctrine and the authority to interpret scripture correctly? Is there one? Or did Christ abandon his Church to fall into error, despite his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it?

 

Jesus said:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 15:17-18)

(Some early manuscripts omit the “against you” to read just If your brother sins….”)

 

Jesus’ words only make sense if there is a visible Church with authority over its members; a Church that was founded by Christ himself, not by any man 15+ centuries later.

 

Of course, you may decide that the Holy Spirit is infallibly telling you that Mt 15:16-17 doesn’t really mean what it appears to mean….

 

I maintain that there is only one Church that can be traced back to the apostles and contains all the authority that Christ gave it. And that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is close but it doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter.

 

The Catholic Church has the four scriptural marks of the Church Christ founded, as described by Paul and proclaimed in the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

 

Eph 2:19-22

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [catholic]

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [apostolic]

in whom the whole structure is joined together [one]

and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [holy]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there Bede,

 

I'm glad you posted about this, it's a topic I've long considered and after several years of painful skepticism after my conversion to Christianity, God had me see things in the most peculiar way regarding authority.

 

You see, as with most of the world, Catholic theology maintains this belief in human free will. Now, I realize it's defined in different ways by different people and groups of people, but the most common way I see is that man is the ultimate authority regarding his own choices, including his own choices as to what he believes. So basically, when people usually speak of free will, they're getting at this assumption that man is the ultimate authority behind his choices, that God wouldn't cause him to choose one thing over another, at least not without his own authoritative decision.

 

Different from that, there are those of us who hold that God outright causes us to believe particular things, namely regarding Christ, His work and how it relates to us. We believe this is done via the Holy Spirit, who illuminates our minds, overcoming the sinful tendencies so that we know for a fact that we've seen things correctly.

 

On the former view, man's beliefs are based on his ultimate choice. It's his choice ultimately as to what he'll believe. Obviously, the authority behind his belief is thus his own.

 

On the latter view though, God necessitates the choice of belief in Christ. Thus it is God's authority behind it.

 

On the one view, it is man's authority behind the belief. It is thus constrained to be an opinion given that there's no way for him to objectify his own authority. On the other, it's objective because it's God's work and His authority is behind it, He is objective.

 

I will argue that Catholicism, with its belief in this free will, entails the former consequence to where authority is man's.

 

Only on the latter view, where God causes the belief, entailing it is rightly called knowledge, is the authority God's, necessarily so.

 

I will demonstrate this simply in arguing that God causes my belief, including my belief about this very thing. It is not an opinion, and one who wishes to argue that it is only my opinion will be forced to admit that all we human beings have is opinion, thus entailing that an absurdity is true (that we can only have opinions, but there's one fact we can know, that we can only have opinions).

 

For sake of clarity with this argument, I would ask the pope himself if he has free will. And if so, is it by his free will that he chose to believe he's the vicor of Christ?

 

I hope these words find you well and that they're easy on the eyes (I personally hate sophisticated speech and prefer simpler words).

 

In Christ,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RCC, LDS, JWs, and other non-Protestant denominations claim their church leadership is the final authority on the meaning of scripture. Protestants sometimes go to the opposite extreme, and act as if each person, no matter how ignorant, is rightly his own final authority on the meaning of scripture. The HS leading us personally? Then why do we have Pastors? Why did Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside to educate him? Why did Jesus and the Apostles teach? Why did Paul write letters to various churches, and why do we read those letters? Why do two Christians disagree on an interpretation if they're led by the same Spirit?

 

Blameless and learned elders, standing on 2000 years of Christian wisdom and in submission to the Holy Spirit, should be our source of authority of the meaning of scripture. But, if there are such men, we're not following them. And, the Church is a sick mess for it.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cornelius,

 

Fortunately, God has provided many blameless and learned elders since the Church was formed. It's just a matter of seeking them out to hold oneself accountable under their guidance. Could I ask if you're under such guidance and accountability?

 

I ask out of care, hoping you do have godly men under whose council you have accountability and fellowship.

 

Regarding your statement about Protestants going to an opposite extreme regarding authority, I hope you'll see that you've actually presumed some sort of authority in order to make that statement. God has designed it that way, every statement we make comes with some form of authoritative assumption. Our worldview must account for that.

 

My reason for posting here is that it was being claimed that Catholicism has the correct authority and others do not. However, that's proved false by the fact that on the Catholic assumption of free will, every human being's authority is necessarily his own. One simply couldn't say that one's authority is God, because one chose to believe that by one's own authority.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the Holy Spirit leading on a personal basis, but most certainly, it is He who guides believers into all truth. He'll use pastors and other believers to do so. And by no means does that entail that all believers will interpret everything without flaw. Because of sin, errors will still occur. However, God has designed it so that the truth can always be meted out. One of the ways this is done is for the believer to expose a contradiction in the opposition's view.

 

Jesus exemplified this for us.

 

Mark 12:17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

 

We can simply do the same and pray God will bless our doing so, granting repentance to the opposing party so that we can enjoy fellowship with them. :)

 

In Christ,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DavidM, Cornelius may be referring to comments I made regarding 1 John 2:26-27 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4. What was ignored was my caveat that we are to have teachers and preachers but always test the spirits to make sure they do not spout false doctrine, and not to blindly follow what they say without question. The Holy Spirit is our teacher who teaches us all things, ultimately from what we study on our own and from what we get from others according to truth. I might also add to that 1 John 4 explains many of these details.

 

Bede, what you are saying is not only wrong, but heresy in that you are essentially saying that unless we are RCC's, we are going to hell. That is what your reasoning boils down to. God does not go by a denomination, but by the personal relationship we have with Him (or do not have, as the case may be). This personal relationship must match up to God's word or it is a false god one serves.

Edited by Stratcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RCC, LDS, JWs, and other non-Protestant denominations claim their church leadership is the final authority on the meaning of scripture. Protestants sometimes go to the opposite extreme, and act as if each person, no matter how ignorant, is rightly his own final authority on the meaning of scripture. The HS leading us personally? Then why do we have Pastors? Why did Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside to educate him? Why did Jesus and the Apostles teach? Why did Paul write letters to various churches, and why do we read those letters? Why do two Christians disagree on an interpretation if they're led by the same Spirit?

 

Blameless and learned elders, standing on 2000 years of Christian wisdom and in submission to the Holy Spirit, should be our source of authority of the meaning of scripture. But, if there are such men, we're not following them. And, the Church is a sick mess for it.

 

This was most apparent to me the first time I worshiped in a Presbyterian church. Although I was baptized in youth by a Presbyterian church, I attended a Roman Catholic H.S. for my education. Went through the military and some time after not attending any church or worshiping in a personal or corporate atmosphere. Found myself in a non-denominational and then Evangelical church, and finally became a member of the OPC around a year or two ago. One of the most appreciated forms of summary of those things that every Christian must believe came in form of Creeds. The Creeds and Confessions had become the beginning of a study, not only including the statements or answers themselves, but the history surrounding each Creed and Confession. Each Creed and Confession unpacks much history surrounding a specific time period and some issues that crept into the church, throughout the 2000 years many debates and arguments were understood, and I soon began to appreciate the fact that those who do not remember or know history are doomed to repeat it. The Creeds and Confessions themselves became and/or still becoming what I embrace, and therefore am finding myself submitting to church leadership through them.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeds and confessions can be a good thing to help a church stay on the mark, but that certainly does not negate the teaching of 1 John 2:26-27. And we are warned about falsehoods from false teaches in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. The best answer is, what does the Bible teach? The Bible does not scratch itching ears, and if people aren't going to believe the Biblical teachings through the Holy Spirit, they are already in trouble. Jumping ship from the Bible to false teachers/preachers is exactly what we are warned against doing in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

 

Teachers and preachers can bring up applicable Bible verses to certain topics being discussed and once led to those verses it is our responsibility to adhere to the teachings from the Lord. There is no new teaching that is not in the Bible, and we are given guidelines in the Timothy epistles to help us stay on track, and that applies to teachers/preachers as well. Human beings are not perfect in their understanding of Scripture no matter who they are. Since when does Dr. so-and-so know more how to teach us than the Holy Spirit does? If we want to look for the source of schisms and cults, read Timothy letters which tell us where this comes from.

 

False doctrine does NOT come from the Bible; it comes from people and Satan. I have learned much truth from pastors and teachers over the years, but I find that they are not always right when I compare what they say with what the Bible says. Churches must be Bible-centered, for the Bible is Christ-centered. People simply cannot outperform the Holy Spirit in this arena. This is not to say churches with creeds and confessions and so forth are all wrong, but many are. The RCC and OP churches both have creeds and confessions of faith, yet they are far apart in their doctrine. They cannot both be right.

 

We cannot blame God or the Bible. We must blame ourselves for not making the Bible study of ours based on the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our teacher for each of us, not just church leaders, old or new. Where did they get their doctrine that some believe them? Hopefully from the Bible, but we can know for ourselves by doing what the Lord tells us to do and that is to study the word of God for ourselves, or else how do we know which teacher is good and which is evil?

 

As it is written, God is not the author of confusion, so if we are in such disarray, guess whose fault it is? The congregations for not doing as God commands and studying His word. By not studying the Bible for ourselves to know directly from the Holy Spirit who is a good teacher and what is the truth, we show that we don't trust God. To put it simply, study from God. He is the best teacher. He taught many good teachers, true, but we must also get knowledge directly from God and rely on those teachings above all if we are to overcome the evil one when he attacks, or when we are to grow in our faith, which comes from God anyway. I am not against the teachings of man that are in line with the Bible, just against the ones that aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there Bede,

 

I'm glad you posted about this, it's a topic I've long considered and after several years of painful skepticism after my conversion to Christianity, God had me see things in the most peculiar way regarding authority.

 

You see, as with most of the world, Catholic theology maintains this belief in human free will. Now, I realize it's defined in different ways by different people and groups of people, but the most common way I see is that man is the ultimate authority regarding his own choices, including his own choices as to what he believes. So basically, when people usually speak of free will, they're getting at this assumption that man is the ultimate authority behind his choices, that God wouldn't cause him to choose one thing over another, at least not without his own authoritative decision.

 

Different from that, there are those of us who hold that God outright causes us to believe particular things, namely regarding Christ, His work and how it relates to us. We believe this is done via the Holy Spirit, who illuminates our minds, overcoming the sinful tendencies so that we know for a fact that we've seen things correctly.

 

On the former view, man's beliefs are based on his ultimate choice. It's his choice ultimately as to what he'll believe. Obviously, the authority behind his belief is thus his own.

 

On the latter view though, God necessitates the choice of belief in Christ. Thus it is God's authority behind it.

 

On the one view, it is man's authority behind the belief. It is thus constrained to be an opinion given that there's no way for him to objectify his own authority. On the other, it's objective because it's God's work and His authority is behind it, He is objective.

 

I will argue that Catholicism, with its belief in this free will, entails the former consequence to where authority is man's.

 

Only on the latter view, where God causes the belief, entailing it is rightly called knowledge, is the authority God's, necessarily so.

 

I will demonstrate this simply in arguing that God causes my belief, including my belief about this very thing. It is not an opinion, and one who wishes to argue that it is only my opinion will be forced to admit that all we human beings have is opinion, thus entailing that an absurdity is true (that we can only have opinions, but there's one fact we can know, that we can only have opinions).

 

For sake of clarity with this argument, I would ask the pope himself if he has free will. And if so, is it by his free will that he chose to believe he's the vicor of Christ?

 

I hope these words find you well and that they're easy on the eyes (I personally hate sophisticated speech and prefer simpler words).

 

In Christ,

David

 

I’ve been away for a week. Looks like an interesting discussion has been going on. I’ll try and catch up.

 

Regarding your post, I don’t see free will and authority as being about the same thing.

 

Authority comes from a person and is given to another person. Yes God has free will and can (and I believe has) given man free will. However that is not what I understand authority to be.

 

Authority concerns power and legitimacy.

 

Power is the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done — either to enforce one’s own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Legitimacy is a socially constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise power. A person can have legitimacy but no actual power (the legitimate king might reside in exile, destitute and forgotten). A person can have actual power but not legitimacy (the usurper who exiled the king and appropriates the symbols of office).” (my emboldening)

(http://www.academia.edu/5858833/Power_Authourity_and_Legitimacy_the_similarities_and_Disperities)

 

To put it simply, I consider authority to be the legitimacy and power to speak and act in another persons name (within the scope of the authority they are given). That is not about free will. I can give you biblical examples of that if you wish. But a very simple one is where Jesus says “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons” (Mt 16:17). Jesus will give his disciples authority to cast out demons.

 

That is nothing to do with free will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bede, what you are saying is not only wrong, but heresy in that you are essentially saying that unless we are RCC's, we are going to hell. That is what your reasoning boils down to.

 

I have said no such thing. That is an utterly false claim.

 

God does not go by a denomination, but by the personal relationship we have with Him (or do not have, as the case may be). This personal relationship must match up to God's word or it is a false god one serves.

 

Of course we must have a personal relationship with God; that is what Covenant is about. However that does not address my post.

 

Creeds and confessions can be a good thing to help a church stay on the mark, but that certainly does not negate the teaching of 1 John 2:26-27. And we are warned about falsehoods from false teaches in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. The best answer is, what does the Bible teach? The Bible does not scratch itching ears, and if people aren't going to believe the Biblical teachings through the Holy Spirit, they are already in trouble. Jumping ship from the Bible to false teachers/preachers is exactly what we are warned against doing in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

 

What teaching of 1John 2:26-27?

 

If you are suggesting that it teaches that the Holy Spirit leads everyone personally into all truth then you are wrong. And it is that teaching which, as I suggested in the OP, leads to the multiplicity of personal interpretations of scripture with people claiming that the Holy Spirit has led them personally into the truth.

 

And we are warned about falsehoods from false teaches in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. The best answer is, what does the Bible teach?

 

Which goes back to the OP.

 

How can you be sure what the Bible teaches?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you be sure what the Bible teaches?

 

Oddly enough, this is linked with your earlier authority claim. Believers will all recognize the voice of the shepherd in Scripture. Why? Because the same shepherd lives in them authenticating His own message. That's what the work of the Holy Spirit is. It is by His authority that a believer proceeds to speak and act on His behalf.

 

A simple question, did the pope freely choose to believe he has the authority of Christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In post #9, I never said that the Holy Spirit leads everyone in all truth. The Bible says that those with the Holy Spirit are led into all truth. To answer your question, by letting the Holy Spirit be your teacher using the Bible. How can you be sure that the teachers and preachers are always right if you don't know the Spirit or the Bible? If you don't check what they say to make sure it concurs with Scripture. Man tends to put other men on a pedestal. That is how cults form, not from trusting in the Lord with all our hearts and leaning not unto our own understanding. Trust in the Lord--not other people. There are far more warnings about what other people say, no warnings about individually studying the word of truth to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed. We are to trust God, not man. Man must be questioned and scrutinized, but the Bible is to be studied and trusted. Only as individuals can we do that, no matter what denomination you hail from.

 

Post number 10 nails it. Quite correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oddly enough, this is linked with your earlier authority claim. Believers will all recognize the voice of the shepherd in Scripture. Why? Because the same shepherd lives in them authenticating His own message. That's what the work of the Holy Spirit is. It is by His authority that a believer proceeds to speak and act on His behalf.

 

You, like others, have failed to engage the issues raised in the OP.

 

If as you say “the same shepherd lives in them authenticating His own message. That's what the work of the Holy Spirit is.” Then how do you explain so many different and conflicting interpretations of scripture by believers who all claim to have the Holy Spirit leading them into the truth? They are all sure what the Bible teaches, yet they cannot all be correct.

 

Where in scripture does it say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit will personally guide all believers into all truth?

 

Where in scripture does Jesus give the believer the authority to speak and act on his behalf?

 

At the beginning of the OP I wrote:

 

Who has the authority to make definitive interpretations of scriptures?

Who has the authority to pronounce which doctrines are true?

 

You seem to be saying that all believers have that authority

 

But then the next part of my OP follows:

 

Let’s say someone says a particular passage should be interpreted metaphorically. Someone else says it should be interpreted literally. A third person says it has to be interpreted in the light of bible passage X. A fourth person says it should be interpreted in the light of a different passage Y. A fifth person says it is not relevant to the current situation however it is interpreted. And so on!

 

Who is right? Whose interpretation do you go along with? Perhaps you come up with your own.

 

Whatever you do you will be right because the Holy Spirit is leading you personally into all truth. Right?

 

Except the others all believe the Holy Spirit is leading them personally into all truth!

 

To which you seem to have no answer.

 

 

 

A simple question, did the pope freely choose to believe he has the authority of Christ?

 

As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with free will so I do not consider your question relevant to this discussion on authority, and in particular the authority to interpret scripture to determine doctrine.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In post #9, I never said that the Holy Spirit leads everyone in all truth. The Bible says that those with the Holy Spirit are led into all truth.

 

But surely all believers have received the Holy Spirit.

 

And we still come back to the point that those with the Holy Spirit claim to have the truth and yet they are teaching conflicting truths.

 

To answer your question, by letting the Holy Spirit be your teacher using the Bible. How can you be sure that the teachers and preachers are always right if you don't know the Spirit or the Bible? If you don't check what they say to make sure it concurs with Scripture.

 

In the end that boils down to - do these people agree with your personal interpretation of scripture. In the end you put yourself on a pedestal as the correct interpreter. Other people are right if they agree with you.

 

I know the Catholic Church teaches the truth because Jesus promised that it would. He didn't promise that I could reach the truth by studying the scriptures however hard I tried.

 

 

Man tends to put other men on a pedestal. That is how cults form, not from trusting in the Lord with all our hearts and leaning not unto our own understanding. Trust in the Lord--not other people. There are far more warnings about what other people say, no warnings about individually studying the word of truth to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed. We are to trust God, not man. Man must be questioned and scrutinized, but the Bible is to be studied and trusted. Only as individuals can we do that, no matter what denomination you hail from.

 

Post number 10 nails it. Quite correct.

 

All you are saying is trust yourself and not others.

 

But then there are a multitude of others, all claiming to have the Holy Spirit, but all teaching different interpretations of scripture and different doctrines.

 

I trust the Catholic Church because I trust God. I believe his promises.

 

 

 

Edited by Bede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my interjection here.

 

No one is to interpret Scripture, and it is "not of any private interpretation, but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Private interpretation is why we have so many different beliefs. Also, too much emphasis on trusting church leaders; not that they can't be trusted at all, but the fact is, they all have their private interpretations, which is why their are so many denominations. Even the RCC does not believe everything unilaterally within the church. I know Catholics with different beliefs.

 

The Scriptures interpret themselves. We are commanded by the Lord to "preach the word. Be instant in season, out of season. Reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." There is your authority. "Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." There is where we are not to privately interpret the Bible but to "rightly divide" it. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, by whom all other teachers must conform. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer, thereby making the believer have God-given authority to teach and preach the word of God in Spirit and in truth, which is how we are to worship Him. God seeks such to worship Him. Nobody is trying to sneak anything between the lines, but what is written so far in this thread is to be taken at face-value.

Edited by Stratcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bede, you fail to see the point I was getting at, or rather, you don't want to see it. You're here declaring to us that your Catholic organization is authoritative. You're doing so on the basis of your choice to believe that, so it's by your authority, not anyone else's. Likewise with the pope, thus why I asked that question.

 

Free will is nothing more than the belief that oneself is the authority behind one's choices. Consider the definition from Merriam-Webster.

 

authority: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

 

Your free will theology most certainly bares on this matter, to the disproof of Catholicism. I'm rather sure you see that, thus why you'd rather evade the issue by trying to dismiss free will as irrelevant.

 

If you wish to know how it is that differing beliefs can still occur in light of the Spirit's movement in human hearts, I'll gladly discuss that. You simply wrote off the possibility as if it couldn't occur. But there's a biblical answer. You'd know that if you actually thought it through rather than pushing an argument that defeats your own view. Eastern Orthodox, Seda Vacantism and scores of fractured beliefs within Catholicism disprove your own view as well if you wish to pursue that line of argument.

 

I suspect you'll again assert your personal authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pardon my interjection here.

 

No one is to interpret Scripture, and it is "not of any private interpretation, but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Private interpretation is why we have so many different beliefs. Also, too much emphasis on trusting church leaders; not that they can't be trusted at all, but the fact is, they all have their private interpretations, which is why their are so many denominations. Even the RCC does not believe everything unilaterally within the church. I know Catholics with different beliefs.

 

In this context it is not relevant what individual Catholics believe but what the Catholic Church teaches. It does not teach conflicting doctrines.

 

I agree that private interpretations are not to be trusted. What we need to trust is God and the guarantees he gave to his Church that it would teach the truth.

 

The Scriptures interpret themselves.

 

No they do not. Interpretation takes an intelligent mind.

 

I think what you mean is that you use one piece of scripture to interpret another. But that is you using scripture to interpret scripture. It is still your personal interpretation of scripture.

 

We are commanded by the Lord to "preach the word. Be instant in season, out of season. Reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." There is your authority.

 

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2Tim 4:1-2)

 

Paul is instructing Timothy to preach and teach. Paul is giving Timothy the authority to teach and preach not you. Paul has personally instructed Timothy not you.

 

"Study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." There is where we are not to privately interpret the Bible but to "rightly divide" it.

 

But what does rightly divide it mean?

 

“Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.” (2 Tim 2:15, Amplified Bible)

 

Note that Paul is still addressing Timothy whom he has personally taught and given authority to teach. Timothy can rightly handle and skilfully teach because he has received correct teaching from Paul. He has not derived it from Scripture himself.

 

BTW – if you quote scripture could you please give the references.

 

 

The Holy Spirit is our teacher, by whom all other teachers must conform. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer, thereby making the believer have God-given authority to teach and preach the word of God in Spirit and in truth, which is how we are to worship Him. God seeks such to worship Him. Nobody is trying to sneak anything between the lines, but what is written so far in this thread is to be taken at face-value.

 

 

Firstly I note that you say all that without a single piece of scripture to support it.

 

Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit gives you authority to teach?

 

Where does it say in scripture that the Holy Spirit will guarantee that you will teach the truth?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scriptures I gave you in post 14 do instruct all believers, not just Timothy, or they wouldn't have been canonized. I quoted the Scripture to you. What do you expect the Holy Spirit to do, lie?

 

Post #15 seems to be an accurate account of your lack of belief. You believe in Churchianity, not Christianity. Have you heard of the Great Commission? We are all as believers supposed to preach the Gospel to every creature. Anyone who is a believer is a saint, a man of God (or woman of God). That is the authority God gives us by which to work for the Lord.

 

As for trusting the churches, we are not to trust them. There are all kinds of epistles and the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation 1-4 which criticize the churches for their behavior and lack of stewardship, from Romans through Jude. Today, we are experiencing the apostasy. Churches are turning away from the truth, some have for a long time. When you check your Bible with what is being taught, you will see that.

 

We are supposed to go there to worship as a congregation, but must do our own homework as well, from the Bible. All the principles taught in the Bible are for all believers, even though they are letters addressed to specific people or churches. Otherwise, you might just as well throw half the NT out, which is what you seem to be doing. You simply don't appear to believe them.

 

I apologize for my laziness in not giving you the scripture references with the quotes in #14. You seem to know them anyway, though.You just don't seem to think they apply to all believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what you mean is that you use one piece of scripture to interpret another. But that is you using scripture to interpret scripture. It is still your personal interpretation of scripture.

 

By your personal interpretation of Scripture, you think the papacy has authority. Your argument can legitimately be turned around on you.

 

Paul is instructing Timothy to preach and teach. Paul is giving Timothy the authority to teach and preach not you. Paul has personally instructed Timothy not you.

 

Note that Paul is still addressing Timothy whom he has personally taught and given authority to teach. Timothy can rightly handle and skilfully teach because he has received correct teaching from Paul. He has not derived it from Scripture himself.

 

His very words to Timothy were Scripture. Scripture is now completed, so we don't need external instruction. In fact, that's the very reason the gifts were poured out on the early Church. Given your assumptions about all this, do tell us, where does Scripture say that Paul or anyone else has personally instructed the pope? To clarify too, I don't mean for you to give us your personal interpretation of what some Scriptures might mean for you, but what they necessarily mean.

 

Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit gives you authority to teach?

 

Where does it say in scripture that the Holy Spirit will guarantee that you will teach the truth?

 

The Holy Spirit is the teacher. We just reiterate what He's said. We give people the sense of the Scriptural text and let the Spirit do the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Bede, you fail to see the point I was getting at, or rather, you don't want to see it. You're here declaring to us that your Catholic organization is authoritative. You're doing so on the basis of your choice to believe that, so it's by your authority, not anyone else's. Likewise with the pope, thus why I asked that question.

 

Free will is nothing more than the belief that oneself is the authority behind one's choices. Consider the definition from Merriam-Webster.

 

authority: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

 

Your free will theology most certainly bares on this matter, to the disproof of Catholicism. I'm rather sure you see that, thus why you'd rather evade the issue by trying to dismiss free will as irrelevant.

 

If you wish to know how it is that differing beliefs can still occur in light of the Spirit's movement in human hearts, I'll gladly discuss that. You simply wrote off the possibility as if it couldn't occur. But there's a biblical answer. You'd know that if you actually thought it through rather than pushing an argument that defeats your own view. Eastern Orthodox, Seda Vacantism and scores of fractured beliefs within Catholicism disprove your own view as well if you wish to pursue that line of argument.

 

I suspect you'll again assert your personal authority.

 

Eastern Orthodox are not Catholics.

 

Sedevacantists are not Catholics.

 

"fractured beliefs within Catholicism" -depends what you mean. Do some Catholics not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches? Perhaps, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is what the Catholic Church teaches as doctrines. There is only one set of doctrines. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

 

I'm declaring that the Catholic Church has the authority to define doctrines authoritatively on the basis of scripture. It’s not a matter of personal authority.

 

You seem tom have an issue with free will which is not relevant here. I suggest you raise that as a separate thread rather than take this one off topic.

 

Regarding Merriam-Webster, the definition is very poor. I gave a more complete one, and one that is more relevant to this discussion – see post #8.

 

The authority we are discussing is the legitimacy and power to speak and act in another persons name. Since Jesus declares in Mt 28:18 that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him, and as we are discussing the authority to interpret scripture in the context of defining doctrines, then such authority must come directly, or indirectly from Jesus.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Scriptures I gave you in post 14 do instruct all believers, not just Timothy, or they wouldn't have been canonized. I quoted the Scripture to you. What do you expect the Holy Spirit to do, lie?

 

Sorry, but that is simply nonesense. Scripture being canonised does not make something said to one person applicable to all. There is no biblical justification for such a claim.

 

Post #15 seems to be an accurate account of your lack of belief. You believe in Churchianity, not Christianity. Have you heard of the Great Commission? We are all as believers supposed to preach the Gospel to every creature. Anyone who is a believer is a saint, a man of God (or woman of God). That is the authority God gives us by which to work for the Lord.

 

The great commision was addressed to the apostles. They were to go and preach the gospel. They in turn commissioned others to go and preach the gospel.

 

As for trusting the churches, we are not to trust them. There are all kinds of epistles and the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation 1-4 which criticize the churches for their behavior and lack of stewardship, from Romans through Jude. Today, we are experiencing the apostasy. Churches are turning away from the truth, some have for a long time. When you check your Bible with what is being taught, you will see that.

 

Just because some churches are criticised does not mean that all are not to be trusted. That is false logic.

 

 

We are supposed to go there to worship as a congregation, but must do our own homework as well, from the Bible. All the principles taught in the Bible are for all believers, even though they are letters addressed to specific people or churches. Otherwise, you might just as well throw half the NT out, which is what you seem to be doing. You simply don't appear to believe them.

 

You make that claim with no evidence to support it.

 

I would agree that principles in scriopture are applicable to all believers. But not all statements. commands etc. are principles.

 

When Jesus sent out disciples in Luke 9:1-2 and 10:1-6 he gave them a specific mission with the authority that goes with the mission. Then he says in Lk 10:16 "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." Now that is a priciple that is applicable to all. If you reject those who Jesus gave authority (directly or indirectly) then you are rejecting Jesus and rejecting the Father.

 

 

I apologize for my laziness in not giving you the scripture references with the quotes in #14. You seem to know them anyway, though.You just don't seem to think they apply to all believers.

I took time to hunt them down.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By your personal interpretation of Scripture, you think the papacy has authority. Your argument can legitimately be turned around on you.

 

Not my personal interpretation of scripture.

 

The evidence of scripture, affirmed by the Church.

 

 

His very words to Timothy were Scripture. Scripture is now completed, so we don't need external instruction. In fact, that's the very reason the gifts were poured out on the early Church. Given your assumptions about all this, do tell us, where does Scripture say that Paul or anyone else has personally instructed the pope? To clarify too, I don't mean for you to give us your personal interpretation of what some Scriptures might mean for you, but what they necessarily mean.

 

Scripture alone is a false doctrine and unscriptural.

 

And there is nothing in scripture to say that you need no external instruction.

 

You keep making claims unsupported by any evidence.

 

The Holy Spirit is the teacher. We just reiterate what He's said. We give people the sense of the Scriptural text and let the Spirit do the work.

 

In other words you have no answer to my questions.

 

There is no scripture that says the Holy Spirit gives you authority to teach

 

There is no scripture that says that the Holy Spirit will guarantee that you will teach the truth.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scripture alone is a false doctrine and unscriptural.

 

Scripture-alone is a conservative principle to help avoid error and false teachers. The Bible was vetted by Jesus and the Apostles, and the early church. Nothing is the Bible's equal in authority. I was raised in a Pentecostal church and found the content of "prophecy", "interpretation of tongues", etc. to be worthless. If it agrees with the Bible, it was redundant, if if doesn't agree, it has no authority. Their English words might as well all might as well be unintelligible gibberish. (Ironically, the whole Pentecostal movement seems to accept it all as worthless, as they don't use this supposed revelation for doctrine.)

 

And there is nothing in scripture to say that you need no external instruction.

 

True. A verse that says the Spirit provides all teaching needs to be understood in context, including the fact that Paul is teaching us that the Spirit teaches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scripture alone is a false doctrine and unscriptural.

 

And there is nothing in scripture to say that you need no external instruction.

 

You keep making claims unsupported by any evidence.

 

Read 2 Timothy 3:14-16 for your answer to the first statement.

 

Read 1 John 2:26-27 for your answer to the second statement.

 

Your third statement is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bede, I did answer your question about authority with interpretation, you just didn't appear to like it. Moreover, you didn't even care enough to have addressed it but simply proceeded to assert your own authority to declare Catholicism as authoritative. In fact, you still need an authority to interpret what Catholicism accepts as authoritative (all church documents and declarations still require interpretation as well). That is only contradictory because you're on the side of untruth.

 

It's also ironic you say that Eastern Orthodox and Seda Vacantists are not Catholic because someone from the Protestant side could easily argue the same about divisions, for instance that the Westminster Confession of Faith provides all the scriptural doctrine one needs and that those opposing it are not Protestant. Such a silly argument cuts both ways. Regardless, it's a stupid argument that divisions/factions present an issue because Paul clarified that there absolutely would be factions.

 

1 Corinthians 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

 

Again though, by whose authority do you declare Catholicism is authoritative? Because of your theology, it's necessarily your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scripture-alone is a conservative principle to help avoid error and false teachers. The Bible was vetted by Jesus and the Apostles, and the early church.

 

The Bible was not put together and canonised until the end of the 4th century

Nothing is the Bible's equal in authority.

 

This statement shows you do not understand the nature of authority.

 

The Bible has no authority. It is authoritative - meaning true and reliable. Authority resides in people not in books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×