Discovering the Truth...

kelly1 · 16-10-2007 10:42pm #1

Dear all,

the "once saved, always saved" thread prompted me to start this one.

I'd like to address the question of how we arrive at the truth as revealed by
Jesus Christ to the Apostles.

All protestants, as far as I know, use the bible as a yard-stick for determining
what is true and what is false. But as we all know, no two protestant denominations or churches seem to agree on the correct interpretation of scripture. OSAS is a good example. One church teaches that salvation is a one-time event and salvation can't be lost thereafter. Another teaches that salvation is never certain and that we need to continually confess our sins and repent in order to be saved. Another church teaches that our salvation depends on whether we die in a state of grace or mortal sin. Which of these is the Truth?

Many protestants say that the Holy Spirit inspires them with a true interpretation of scripture. But how can this be the case given that so many denominations disagree on the most fundamental matters of faith. St. Peter warns us about interpreting scripure:

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Surely we all agree that the real truth is paramount because our salvation depends on it. e.g. let's say someone believes they have been saved (past tense) and that they don't need to confess their sins and be forgiven. Naturally if this turns out not be be the case, their false sense of security will lead to the loss of their souls. Knowing the truth is absolutely vital!

I believe Christ didn't in fact leave us in this predicament. He founded a Church whose function is to continue His work on earth for the sanctification of souls. The Church is Christ's instrument which leads us to the truth and salvation. Christ promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them (and their successors) the truth. The Church wrote the New Testament under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the only the Church has the authority to interpret scripture.

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you [the Apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Up to the time of the Reformation, there was only one Christian Church whose teachings never changed (and still haven't changed). Then Luther came along and said it was OK to believe your own interpretation of scripture and reject that of the Church. See John 10:16 above! There are also those who claim that the Church departed form the teaching for Christ despite Christ's assurance in Matthew 16:18 that the Church would never be destroyed.

There are also those who say that the Church consists of all those who follow Christ and that it isn't a divinely appointed institution. There are four main characteristics of the true Church of Christ as referred to in the Apostles Creed. The Church is "One", "Holy", "Catholic" and "Apostolic".

The Church is One as seen in John 10:16 and Eph 4:4-5. How can all of the thousands of Christian denomination claim to be "One"?

The Church is "Holy" because Christ is the Head.

5:25. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it 26. That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life 27. That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The Church is "Catholic" (universal)

Acts 2:5. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Matthew 28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

The Church is "Apostolic". This is clearly scriptural too. Jesus had the authority from His father to give power and authority to the Apostles.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

John 17:17. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me.

The following verses demonstrate apostolic succession:

Acts 1:25. (Matthias is chosen to replace Judas and is given the office of apostleship)

Acts 6:6. These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them. (Ordination by the laying on of hands).

Acts 9:17. And Ananias went his way and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest, that thou mayest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. (Paul is ordained).

Acts 13:3 (imposition of hands again)

1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

It's important to ask youself whether your church meets these four criteria.

It's very clear that one's own interpretation of scripture alone isn't a reliable reliable means for arriving at the truth. If it were, we'd all have the same faith. Private interpretation is responsible for the departure of millions of souls from the true faith taught by the Apostles and the chaos that followed.

Thoughts?

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary · 17-10-2007 12:51am

A warning a to all. Kelly1 has raised a very good question here.

IF ANYONE BASHES ANOTHER DENOMINATION THE POST WILL BE DELETED.

Let's use this opportunity to dialogue with respect and humility.

Blessings and may the Holy Spirit guide us.

JimiTime · 17-10-2007 1:27am

kelly1 wrote: »

Thoughts?

God bless,
Noel.

Unfortunately, RC's believe that scripture is only second to their papal hierarchy, so such thoughts would surely be wasted on you no? But here are just a snippet of why Rome will never be my mediator:
*There is no scriptural basis for purgatory.
*There is no scriptural basis that Mary ascended to heaven.
*There is no scriptural basis for indulgences
*There is no Christian basis for the crusades
*There is no Basis that having 'holy' medals or trinkets protect you
*There is no scriptural basis for talking to the dead.(Such as paying to saints if you loose something etc.)
*There is no Christian basis for having a church with so many riches which has its leader clothed in fine garments and gold and precious stones.
*There is no basis for forbidding to marry.
*Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of Adultery.
*There is no basis for demanding that scripture could not be translated
*There is no basis that people should be killed for heracy
*There is no basis for a minister to be called father.
*There is no basis for believing that any building is a 'house of god'
*No basis for baby baptism

To state just a few.

I really find it irritating that you keep calling it the one true church, and the each interpretation leads one to loosing their soul etc. Do you truly believe that God is going to give us an exam on judgement day, like some headmaster?

God to protestant: You lived as Christ told you to, you were charitable, you loved your neighbour, you spread the Good news of the kingdom. Oh hang on, you weren't a catholic. Sorry, and good-bye.

Even your reasoning that RCC must be the 'true' church, because the different protestant churches have conflicting doctrine, while the RCC stayed unchanged. Well apart from the fact that it does change, if its doctrines are false, they are false. Plain and simple. If scripture shows them bogus, then they are bogus. If they add something that has no scriptural basis its bogus. It matters not how long its wrong, its still wrong. The Jews had lost their way when Jesus came. They had let traditions and the like, intrude on the truth. They'd probably use your arguement to say Jesus wasn't the messiah. Also, you are able to know scripture, not because of the RCC, but because of the work of people like Martin Luther. If the RCC had never been challenged, the serfs would still be just going to church, not understanding anything but fear, while their priests and bishops lived it up with their fine houses, fine garments and fine foods.

To me, Catholicism claims to be christian with its mouth, but it contradicts it with its actions and doctrines. The wonderful thing about scrpture, and the Bereans were a great example, is that it can be used by the layman to root out false doctrine. If it has no scriptural basis, then it has no basis in Christianity.. Just claiming that you have apostolic sucession, so you don't need to clear it with the scriptures is one of the most fundamental flaws.

God Bless:)

damo · 17-10-2007 1:33am

Just curious,

How can you state anything from the bible to be literal truth with any real conviction? Surely it would be more appropriate to state what you 'believe' is truth or that which you have 'faith' in being true?

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 12:22pm

Jimi, with respect, you've gone straight into attack mode and side-stepped my questions. I'm not going to get sidetracked into perceived errors in the Catholic Church.

My central question is this: How do you know that YOUR personal interpretation is scripture is correct? There's no point in telling me you can read and that you have intelligence/reason. So do all the other million of Christians who disagree with you. What's to say that you're right and I'm wrong?

Unfortunately scripture isn't explicit enough on many points of doctrine so we end up with many different interpretations.

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex · 17-10-2007 12:29pm

I think it would be helpful to clarify a bit .. Kelly are you saying that you believe the Holy Spirit influences the decisions of the Church so they are correct beyond the point of mere human interpretation?

JimiTime · 17-10-2007 12:56pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, with respect, you've gone straight into attack mode and side-stepped my questions.

Can't let you away with that Noel. You said that bad interpretations loose Souls, and you believe that the RCC is the one true church, so that is an attack to begin with.

I'm not going to get sidetracked into perceived errors in the Catholic Church.

Of course not. Thats why I started my post the way I did. You believe in the Authority of Rome. So I questioned if there was point to reasoning scripture with you.

My central question is this: How do you know that YOUR personal interpretation is scripture is correct?

And my point is, you are asking the wrong question! But you have decided to ignore my post so what can I do?

There's no point in telling me you can read and that you have intelligence/reason. So do all the other million of Christians who disagree with you. What's to say that you're right and I'm wrong?

its about 'living' Christ. A tree will be known by its fruits! By this yardstick, we can see the hypocrites. Its not about, I know better than you, its about living in Christ! If we both live as Christ exemplified, yet you believed faith and works save you, but I believed, Faith saved you. Do you really think God would punish one of us for not having the right interpretation? Do you think he is trivial?? If we are both living 'exemplary' Christian lives?
I just think such a view is warped TBH.

Unfortunately scripture isn't explicit enough on many points of doctrine so we end up with many different interpretations.

Lets see, what are we clear about? God is our creator. His Son, Jesus Christ was sent to earth to save humankind from sin. He died and was raised up 3 days later. His Golden rule was to 'Love God with your whole heart and mind, and to love your neighbour'. His life was an example of how to live in perfect righteousness. We should be forgiving. We should love our enemy. Now at which point, if I follow these guidelines, will I not be saved because I'm not a Roman Catholic? There is no One true church! Even Pauls letters to the various congregations showed that there were different interpretations going around. However, they were all Christians, as they had the fundamentals!
I think your reasoning, that there must be 'one' that has exclusive rights to God, or we don't know who's right, is bogus. We all know what is important, but if you want to weigh yourself down like a Pharisee, with doctrines and traditions, whilst forgetting Christs example, so be it. I just wish you'd stop declaring that those who have 'wrong' interpretations are loosing their souls.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 1:03pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it would be helpful to clarify a bit .. Kelly are you saying that you believe the Holy Spirit influences the decisions of the Church so they are correct beyond the point of mere human interpretation?

Yes. When it comes to defining dogma and doctrines on morality, the magisterium of the Church is infallible. I fully realize that many members of the Church have behaved in an unchristian manner over the centuries but Jesus never promised that the members of the Church would be sinless. After all He came to save sinners.

John 16:13. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1 Tim 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Tim 1:13. Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me [Paul]: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 17-10-2007 1:09pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes. When it comes to defining dogma and doctrines on morality, the magisterium of the Church is infallible

So after that statement, would you like to go back to my first post and comment on the charges I laid out against this being the case?

Dave! · 17-10-2007 1:43pm

But Jimi, that would be questioning the church

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 2:17pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

But Jimi, that would be questioning the church

Dave, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here. So far nobody has given me a serious answer as to how one knows that their interpretation of scripture is correct.

Tim Robbins · 17-10-2007 2:32pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Dave, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here. So far nobody has given me a serious answer as to how one knows that their interpretation of scripture is correct.

Atheist onlookers comment:
It's a subjective paradigm. The closest to objectivity is exegesis.
However, there are at least 30 other faiths outside Christianity which have their own scripture again. This would beg two questions:
1.
How do you decide which Scripture (if any) is the most likely to be true?

2.
(as you said) How do you decide which interpretation of that Scripture is most likely to be true?

Statistically, most of us go by where we are born, what those who we love do.

Dave! · 17-10-2007 3:08pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Dave, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here. So far nobody has given me a serious answer as to how one knows that their interpretation of scripture is correct.

Nor have you said why the RC Church's interpretation is correct. Presumably your own interpretation is 100% in line with the Church's -- so why don't you tell people why YOUR interpretation is more valid than another person's?

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 3:17pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

Nor have you said why the Church's interpretation is correct.

I believe I did Dave. The Church wrote the New Testament under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 14:26.

DaveMcG wrote: »

Presumably your own interpretation is 100% in line with the Church's -- so why don't you tell people why YOUR interpretation is more valid than another person's?

My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 17-10-2007 5:06pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe I did Dave. The Church wrote the New Testament under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 14:26.

My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?

God bless,
Noel.

When you're ready, I answered your questions. Comments?

philologos · 17-10-2007 5:14pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe I did Dave. The Church wrote the New Testament under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 14:26.

My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?

God bless,
Noel.

Those who have been trained in the word of Christ regardless of denomination, those in the Christian Church, should be able to give you a reasoned answer to questions of scripture.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 5:18pm

JimiTime wrote: »

When you're ready, I answered your questions. Comments?

JT, your answer was "you are asking the wrong question!"
I don't regard that as a proper answer. My question is a genuine and fair one and I think it deserves some thought instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 5:25pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Those who have been trained in the word of Christ regardless of denomination, those in the Christian Church, should be able to give you a reasoned answer to questions of scripture.

On the face of it you would think that correct interpretation of scripture requires nothing more than intelligence and reason. Yet, since the Reformation, we've had endless debates over the true meaning of scripture. So clearly intelligence and reason isn't enough. Some would say that the Holy Spirit enlightens us to the true meaning and while I know this is possible, thousands of denominations who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit still can't manage to agree.

So I think my question is still a valid one.

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex · 17-10-2007 5:51pm

kelly1 wrote: »

JT, your answer was "you are asking the wrong question!"
I don't regard that as a proper answer. My question is a genuine and fair one and I think it deserves some thought instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

I don't wish to speak for Jimi, but my understand of his post was that the Catholic Church isn't the Church of Jesus, so ultimately what it says on various Biblical matters is irrelevant to him.

You obviously disagree.

But the point would be that your interpretation that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus is as valid or invalid as Jimi's interpretation that it isn't.

So ultimately it comes down to what you or Jimi believe is true.

Agent J · 17-10-2007 6:08pm

From a non Christian.

Kelly1, You have basically said that the RC is right end of story and everyone else is going to hell. That is an attack and i am not surprised at the hostile reponse.

I would argue that what most protestants follow is their own conscience when it comes to things. Better to follow your own feelings than be told what to do.

As for RC infallability. It doesnt not exist. I say again. It does not exsit.

Papal infallailty was only brough in late in the 19th century in very dubious circumstances as voted on by the then college of cardinals. And to bes best of my recollection that has only be called in once or maybe twice.

When i was teenager studying history in the Junior Cert and it when through the reformation and the reasons etc.... I found myself agreeing with them and seeing why the protestants began. I then considered if i was actually a catholic or not. Then it was the words of a teach in my school that tore it for me.."IF you don't agree with the rules then you shouldnt be in the club". It was after then i stopped calling myself a catholic fully and used Christian for a few years. Of course that was years after i kept droppung out lines during the Nicean Creed because i didnt believe them.

Someone correct me if i am wrong but isnt there a bibilical quote about a false church rising in Jesus name?

The truth is that no one can actually "know" their version is correct. Actually i take that back. They can know its true... but only for them alone. No one can honestly tell someone that what they believe is right for everyone. To do so in my mind is nothing short of arrogant.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 6:11pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't wish to speak for Jimi, but my understand of his post was that the Catholic Church isn't the Church of Jesus, so ultimately what it says on various Biblical matters is irrelevant to him.

You obviously disagree.

But the point would be that your interpretation that the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus is as valid or invalid as Jimi's interpretation that it isn't.

So ultimately it comes down to what you or Jimi believe is true.

Assume for a moment that I never mentioned the Catholic Church. With this in mind, how does one determine which church's interpretation of scripture is correct?

Let's say you're a Christian and you're dissatisfied with a particular doctrine of your local church and you want to find one that teaches the truth. You want to be certain. You may think to yourself, there must be some way to get at the absolute truth! All these different churches are teaching different things. God couldn't have left the world in a situation where it's impossible to find the truth.

How do you solve this problem?

Don't you agree that the difference in interpretation is significant and problematic? Truth isn't arrived at by a democratic process.

God bless,
Noel.

Agent J · 17-10-2007 6:17pm

Truth is personal imho

If you were in a church and it didnt "feel" right then you should get the hell out until you found something that is.

I would argue from a christian context that you would walk a very fine line of being gulity of being prideful should you attempt to claim that what you follow is "The Truth".

It might feel right for you and work for you and thats fine .... for you.

Zombrex · 17-10-2007 6:21pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't you agree that the difference in interpretation is significant and problematic? Truth isn't arrived at by a democratic process.

Certain, but I don't think a solution exists.

The idea that the Church itself has divine guidance in interpreting Scripture is itself simply an interpretation of Scripture, interpretation many don't share.

I must say though, as a non-Christian observer I am impressed that you are at least asking the question.

More often than not I find that people on this forum believe that their particular interpretation of Scripture is some how the "blatantly obviously correct". And they struggle to see how someone wouldn't agree with this particular interpretation.

People here do seem to believe that God personally "confirms" things to them in their own head (this is often used as an answer to the question "Why do you believe any of this in the first place?") ... I suppose that is as close as anyone is going to get to a certainty, at least for themselves.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 6:29pm

Agent J wrote: »

From a non Christian.
Kelly1, You have basically said that the RC is right end of story and everyone else is going to hell.

I never said everyone else is going to Hell! Please don't put words in my mouth.

Agent J wrote: »

I would argue that what most protestants follow is their own conscience when it comes to things. Better to follow your own feelings than be told what to do.

Everyone needs to follow their conscience but it needs to be informed first. Is something automatically right just because you "feel" it's right?

Agent J wrote: »

As for RC infallability. It doesnt not exist. I say again. It does not exsit.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Agent J wrote: »

When i was teenager studying history in the Junior Cert and it when through the reformation and the reasons etc.... I found myself agreeing with them and seeing why the protestants began. I then considered if i was actually a catholic or not. Then it was the words of a teach in my school that tore it for me.."IF you don't agree with the rules then you shouldnt be in the club". It was after then i stopped calling myself a catholic fully and used Christian for a few years. Of course that was years after i kept droppung out lines during the Nicean Creed because i didnt believe them.

I can understand where you're coming from. The Church has done many shameful things over the years. However Jesus never promised that the Church would be free from sin but He did promise that it would never be destoyed. Despite the individual sins of the clergy, the Church still has the divinely given authority to administer the sacraments and teach the truth.

Agent J wrote: »

The truth is that no one can actually "know" their version is correct. Actually i take that back. They can know its true... but only for them alone. No one can honestly tell someone that what they believe is right for everyone. To do so in my mind is nothing short of arrogant.

I totally disagree with this. God's truth is absolute. This is relativism. Truth is not a matter of personal opinion.

God bless,
Noel.

Agent J · 17-10-2007 6:51pm

kelly1 wrote:

He founded a Church whose function is to continue His work on earth for the sanctification of souls. The Church is Christ's instrument which leads us to the truth and salvation.

The implication here is that if you dont follow this one church then you wont be saved. Ergo you go to hell. I am open to correction if this interpretation is wrong. If so then please tell what happens.

kelly1 wrote:

I totally disagree with this. God's truth is absolute. This is relativism. Truth is not a matter of personal opinion.

Gods Truth might be absolute but how can any one person or group of people claim to know what it is? Because if they did then surely they wouldnt be falliable humans would they?

I'm just looking at this from a logical stand point. From the Christain view

God == Perfection

Way to God is through Jesus.

People claim to know the "way" to God.

There for they know perfection.

But if they are fallaible then they could be wrong. And thats were the personal aspect comes into it imho.

kelly1 wrote:

Everyone needs to follow their conscience but it needs to be informed first. Is something automatically right just because you "feel" it's right?

Nope but its at least wrong for the right reasons.... And you only inform that conscience through experience.

I realise im about to go off on a tangent on this one.

Kelly1 wrote:

However Jesus never promised that the Church would be free from sin but He did promise that it would never be destoyed. Despite the individual sins of the clergy, the Church still has the divinely given authority to administer the sacraments and teach the truth.

This is illogical to me. The RC has done some damn shameful things but still claims moral authority. Look beyond the people to the institution but in cases it was the institution itself which was at fault....Where is the responability?

I dont expect to engage in a debate over the RC on this one. But with the obvious exception of the Mormons i dont think any other church outright claims to be the "one" church. Again open to correction. The problem i see with the RC is that people use the age old " Its older than the rest therefore it has to be right".

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 6:53pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that the Church itself has divine guidance in interpreting Scripture is itself simply an interpretation of Scripture, interpretation many don't share.

This is a flawed argument because the Church predates the New Testament. Christ taught the Apostles the truth and after Jesus left the world, the Holy Spirit inspired them when it came to writing the NT. So the question is, where does the authority on the truth lie? Is it with the Church (under the Apostles) or a book? I'm not suggesting that the bible contains errors but it's not the final authority. In fact the bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Wicknight wrote: »

More often than not I find that people on this forum believe that their particular interpretation of Scripture is some how the "blatantly obviously correct". And they struggle to see how someone wouldn't agree with this particular interpretation.

Yes, it causes endless rows.

kelly1 · 17-10-2007 7:26pm

Agent J wrote: »

The implication here is that if you dont follow this one church then you wont be saved. Ergo you go to hell. I am open to correction if this interpretation is wrong. If so then please tell what happens.

The Church teaches that all salvation comes from Christ through the Church. The Church also teaches that all baptized Christians can be saved through God's mercy. I've been in debates over this point before and it gets very complicated.

Agent J wrote: »

Gods Truth might be absolute but how can any one person or group of people claim to know what it is? Because if they did then surely they wouldnt be falliable humans would they?

The truth was revealed by Christ to the Apostles. The Apostles were individually given the gift of infallibility by Christ and this infallibility is handed on by ordination to the Pope individually and the bishops collectively. i.e. only the Pope retains individual infallibility.

Agent J wrote: »

I'm just looking at this from a logical stand point. From the Christain view
God == Perfection
Way to God is through Jesus.
People claim to know the "way" to God.
There for they know perfection.

But if they are fallaible then they could be wrong. And thats were the personal aspect comes into it imho.

Sorry, I don't really follow this.

Agent J wrote: »

Nope but its at least wrong for the right reasons.... And you only inform that conscience through experience.

I don't agree on this point. People don't learn God's will through experience. They need to be informed what's right and what's wrong.

Agent J wrote: »

This is illogical to me. The RC has done some damn shameful things but still claims moral authority. Look beyond the people to the institution but in cases it was the institution itself which was at fault....Where is the responability?

There is always individual responsibility and those priests etc who caused scandal can expect to be punished severelyh in the next life. Our human nature is fallen due to original sin and doing God's will is always a struggle for us. It's more difficult for priests because the devil targets priests in particual. If a priests sin, he often drags several other down with him and the devil knows this.

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex · 17-10-2007 7:27pm

kelly1 wrote: »

This is a flawed argument because the Church predates the New Testament. Christ taught the Apostles the truth and after Jesus left the world, the Holy Spirit inspired them when it came to writing the NT.

Apologies, I read back over that and it wasn't clear.

I meant it takes interpretation to believe that the Catholic Church is the "Church" spoken of in the Bible. Many Christians don't believe it is. As Jimi says just because they claim to be the Church of the Bible doesn't mean they are.

JimiTime · 17-10-2007 10:46pm

kelly1 wrote: »

JT, your answer was "you are asking the wrong question!"

I also gave you alot of detail as to why this is the case. But you have refused to answer anything, or discuss. I'm dissapointed, but hey, each to their own.

I don't regard that as a proper answer.

If you can give reasons to back that up, fair enough.

My question is a genuine and fair one and I think it deserves some thought instead of a knee-jerk reaction

I know its a genuine question, i think I have given it time and attention TBH. It certainly is not knee jerk, its an opinion based on 11 years of experience, prayer and study. this study also included talking to RCC priests and brothers, so its anything but knee jerk. If you don't want to deal with what I raised, fair enough, but don't accuse me of being impulsive. Yes, i do have issues with the RCC, it has foundation, and its not just ranting, to treat it as such is doing me a dis-service IMO. As I said, if you don't wish to comment on my posts fair enough, but its not because of anything 'I've' done.

Asiaprod · 18-10-2007 1:42am

A gentle reminder is in order here. In the words of BC
Let's use this opportunity to dialogue with respect and humility.

JimiTime · 18-10-2007 10:20am

Asiaprod wrote: »

A gentle reminder is in order here. In the words of BC
Let's use this opportunity to dialogue with respect and humility.

Even just dialogue would be nice:)

mdebets · 18-10-2007 1:27pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes. When it comes to defining dogma and doctrines on morality, the magisterium of the Church is infallible.

That's not quite true, even by the Catholic Church's own claims.
According to the Catholic Church, a statement is only infallible, if the Pope makes it ex cathedra, what he has done only twice, once, to establish this dogma (over 1800 years after Jesus' death) and once for the Immaculate Conception. Everything else can theoretically be changed.
So if the church is infallible (according to your claim), why is not everything infallible, after all, this infallibility comes through the inspiration from God, so if the Church is allowed to change teachings she made in the past (what she has done on several occasions) and both teachings are inspired by God, doesn't that mean God changed his mind?

kelly1 · 18-10-2007 5:39pm

mdebets wrote: »

That's not quite true, even by the Catholic Church's own claims.
According to the Catholic Church, a statement is only infallible, if the Pope makes it ex cathedra, what he has done only twice, once, to establish this dogma (over 1800 years after Jesus' death) and once for the Immaculate Conception. Everything else can theoretically be changed.
So if the church is infallible (according to your claim), why is not everything infallible, after all, this infallibility comes through the inspiration from God, so if the Church is allowed to change teachings she made in the past (what she has done on several occasions) and both teachings are inspired by God, doesn't that mean God changed his mind?

What I said was true but incomplete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 18-10-2007 7:07pm

I don't believe any church (including my own) can claim to have interpreted the Bible correctly in every single detail.

I do believe that straight forward exegesis using a historical-grammatical, or a historical-critical, approach produces clear interpretations on all matters that are essential to salvation. As for some of the little details, sure discussing that provides half the fun of being a Christian!

kelly1 · 19-10-2007 11:34am

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe any church (including my own) can claim to have interpreted the Bible correctly in every single detail.

Hello, I can't accept that God would abandon us to our own fallible individual interpretation. There are major differences between the various Churches so I don't see how God in His goodness would leave us in this situation.

1 Tim 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Clearly the Church is the authority on earth when it comes to teaching truth as received by the apostles. The Church, afterall, came before the New Testament.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 19-10-2007 12:21pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello, I can't accept that God would abandon us to our own fallible individual interpretation. There are major differences between the various Churches so I don't see how God in His goodness would leave us in this situation.

First of all, the major differences. What would you consider the major differences? Do you think that they are of detrament to salvation? If someone believes in God, and in Jesus Christ and has faith in them and 'Lives' according to Christs example, are they destined to be punished?

Second of all, the Jews were Gods chosen people, they were given the laws and the prophets, yet they became corrupted. All they needed was what God inspired, namely, the old testiment. Unfortunately, they got rooted in tradition and lost the meaning of their faith. Jesus reprimanded them on this. Actually calling their religious leaders 'offspring of vipers'.

Clearly the Church is the authority on earth when it comes to teaching truth as received by the apostles. The Church, afterall, came before the New Testament.

God bless,
Noel.

If its 'the' authority on truth, then why does it not resemble the Apostolic way? Why does it forbid its ministers marriage, and actually warn of certain people doing this? Why is divorce outlawed, when Jesus himself clearly states that adultery is grounds for divorce? Why does it teach of a place called purgatory, something that has absolutely no basis in scripture and actually contradicts Jesus' ransom? These are just a few things, but as I said, a tree will be known by its fruits. Doing like the Bereans, clearly leads to the conclusion that the RCC are not 'the' authority on truth.

PDN · 19-10-2007 1:42pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello, I can't accept that God would abandon us to our own fallible individual interpretation. There are major differences between the various Churches so I don't see how God in His goodness would leave us in this situation.

Why not? The purpose of the Bible is not to satisfy our curiosity on every little detail of theology. The purpose of the Bible is to give us the knowledge necessary to be saved and to live a Christian life.

Clearly the Church is the authority on earth when it comes to teaching truth as received by the apostles. The Church, afterall, came before the New Testament.

The Church, or your branch of the Church?

kelly1 · 19-10-2007 2:58pm

Jimi, you're a real thorn in my side but we all have our crosses to bear

JimiTime wrote: »

First of all, the major differences. What would you consider the major differences? Do you think that they are of detrament to salvation? If someone believes in God, and in Jesus Christ and has faith in them and 'Lives' according to Christs example, are they destined to be punished?

Mortal sin is a good example. Let's take the example of masturbation (because Jesus didn't condemn it explicitly). Masturbation is sin against chastity because it is a defilement of the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the body.

1 Cor 6:18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

And remember God put Onan to death for spilling his seed.

As far as I know most protestants don't accept the doctrine of mortal sin even though the bible says otherwise:

1 John 5:16. He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.

See also John 15:6.

Grave sin (which is any violation of the 10 commandments) commited with free will and full knowledge result in death of the soul because sanctifying grace is destroyed. This makes the soul totally unfit for Heaven. Now if a person doesn't believe in mortal sin, they live under the illusion that all sins are equal in the eyes of God and don't realize their souls are in danger.

Wouldn't you say the difference between these two views is very important?

JimiTime wrote: »

Second of all, the Jews were Gods chosen people, they were given the laws and the prophets, yet they became corrupted. All they needed was what God inspired, namely, the old testiment. Unfortunately, they got rooted in tradition and lost the meaning of their faith. Jesus reprimanded them on this. Actually calling their religious leaders 'offspring of vipers'.

It was God's will that there be priests to offer sacrifices to Him in atonement for sins so you can't say that they just needed the OT.

JimiTime wrote: »

If its 'the' authority on truth, then why does it not resemble the Apostolic way?

Jesus promised to lead the Church into "all truth" and preserve it to the end of time but He never promised that the members would be impeccable. And neither are you or I for that matter.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why does it forbid its ministers marriage, and actually warn of certain people doing this? Why is divorce outlawed, when Jesus himself clearly states that adultery is grounds for divorce? Why does it teach of a place called purgatory, something that has absolutely no basis in scripture and actually contradicts Jesus' ransom?

Material for another thread. We've been over some of this before and I don't want to get side-tracked please. I could answer these questions but I want to stick to the point.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime · 19-10-2007 5:17pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi, you're a real thorn in my side but we all have our crosses to bear

I like to call it being a 'wicknight':D

Mortal sin is a good example. Let's take the example of masturbation (because Jesus didn't condemn it explicitly). Masturbation is sin against chastity because it is a defilement of the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the body.

There is the principle of comitting sin in your heart which Jesus condemned. Masturbation is usually performed when thinking of or looking at sexually immoral scenarios. The only incident where I see masturbation could possibly not be sinful is if your thoughts are for your wife.

And remember God put Onan to death for spilling his seed.

this is the famous out of context quote! He put him to death because he told Onan to make a child with the woman. Onan disobeyed God by spilling his seed. So the problem was not that he spilled his seed, it was that he disobeyed Gods command about producing a child! Its baffling that that scripture is still being taken out of context.

It was God's will that there be priests to offer sacrifices to Him in atonement for sins so you can't say that they just needed the OT.

i mean that they just needed the OT for their guideance. sin oferings etc were part of the OT. However the need for this stopped with the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.

Jesus promised to lead the Church into "all truth" and preserve it to the end of time but He never promised that the members would be impeccable. And neither are you or I for that matter.

Jesus himself is the 'Truth'. He categorically states it. I know we are not impeccable, no-one is, but our Lord and Master.

Material for another thread. We've been over some of this before and I don't want to get side-tracked please. I could answer these questions but I want to stick to the point.

God bless,
Noel.

I do think its relevant to discussion, in pointing to the fact that RC is not the 'One true church', and that we all fall short. But if you want to leave it, fair enough. Thanks for replying anyway.

PDN · 19-10-2007 5:23pm

I'm at a loss as to understand how masturbation got entwined with this thread. Was a post deleted? What has it got to do with anything in the OP or in the subsequent debate?

JimiTime · 19-10-2007 5:34pm

PDN wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to understand how masturbation got entwined with this thread. Was a post deleted? What has it got to do with anything in the OP or in the subsequent debate?

Kelly1 used it as an example of Mortal sin, which is a catholic doctrine, as an example of how not realising such doctrine is a salvation issue. I shouldn't have really answered it, but the Onan thing is just like, ahhhh.

PDN · 19-10-2007 6:07pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Kelly1 used it as an example of Mortal sin, which is a catholic doctrine, as an example of how not realising such doctrine is a salvation issue. I shouldn't have really answered it, but the Onan thing is just like, ahhhh.

I must be a bit dense today as I'm still not getting this. So Noel is arguing that Catholics believe masturbation sends you to hell but that Protestants don't? Or is he saying that it is too serious a sin to be covered by the Cross and so requires a bit of extra roasting in purgatory? Maybe Noel could clarify?

kelly1 · 19-10-2007 10:46pm

PDN wrote: »

I must be a bit dense today as I'm still not getting this. So Noel is arguing that Catholics believe masturbation sends you to hell but that Protestants don't? Or is he saying that it is too serious a sin to be covered by the Cross and so requires a bit of extra roasting in purgatory? Maybe Noel could clarify?

All sin merits Hell but all sin can be forgiven except for sins against the Holy Spirit, final impenitence being an example. If it weren't for Christ's death on the cross we'd all be damned because nothing we can do can wash away the guilt of sin. Agreed?

When a person is in a state of grace, their soul is fit for the Holy Spirit to dwell therein. Mortal sin destroys sanctifying grace in the soul and casts the Holy Spirit out making the soul effectively dead. The only way to receive sanctifying grace back into the soul is to either go to confession and receive absolution in which the Holy Spirit cleanses the soul or make a perfect act of contrition.

Venial sin on the other hand doesn't kill sanctifying grace. If all sins were mortal, the Holy Spirit would never get a chance to enter our souls. Purgatory burns away (cleansing by fire in scripture) the stain of venial sin on our souls and attachment to sin. All sin incurs temporal punishment which must be paid for in this life or Purgatory.

So whether sin is mortal or venial, Christ's passion remits us of our guilt and saves us from the eternal punishment due to this sin. But divine justice still demands temporal punishment so we don't get away scot free.

Turning back to the original question of correctly interpreting scripture, it's important
to know that Purgatory exists, not for our salvation, but so we will know whether we will
be punished for our sins. If we don't believe in Purgatory we live with a false sense of security.

Likewise with the doctrine of mortal sin, it's important to that the soul can be "killed" by sin.
Believing that all sin is the same in the eyes of God could be very dangerous, a bit like believing that all religions are equal. The same goes for OSAS, also dangerous.

So the differences between the doctrines of different churches is no trivial matter. It's vital that
we know the truth.

Whew!

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary · 22-10-2007 4:21pm

Noel

What you are missing altogether is the fact that no where in the Bible is purgatory mentioned. The whole idea is man made and therefore not of God.

St Paul in his writing to Timothy says the following:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Now if you agree with St Paul you would test th eidea of purgatory and mortal vs. venial sin against scripture and find that those theologies go against scripture.

Now if yoy don't believe St Paul, don't test and maintain those theologies.

Another problem with purgatory is that you are saying that Christ's act on the cross was not quite enough for salvation. In order to maintain that salvation you must be cleansed and the RomanCatholic church is the only way, which counters Christ's statement of: John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me', As recorded by St John in 14:6. So now are you saying that John got it wrong as well?

kelly1 · 23-10-2007 10:59am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Noel
What you are missing altogether is the fact that no where in the Bible is purgatory mentioned. The whole idea is man made and therefore not of God.

You are correct. But neither will you find Holy Trinity or Incarnation/incarnate. The Church gave us those words. Don't you belive in the Holy Trinity and the Word Incarnate? Of course you do!

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Now if you agree with St Paul you would test th eidea of purgatory and mortal vs. venial sin against scripture

I already did, but thanks anyway

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Another problem with purgatory is that you are saying that Christ's act on the cross was not quite enough for salvation. In order to maintain that salvation you must be cleansed

Those in Purgatory ARE saved and being cleansed of ALL stain of sin and concupiescence (sp?) before entry in the glory of Heaven.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

and the RomanCatholic church is the only way, which counters Christ's statement of: John 14:6

Now we've reached the crux of the argument! Christ, as He promised would never leave us alone in the wilderness! He gave us a Church to teach and guide us according to Christ's will! I for one submit myself to Christ's Church on earth out of of humility and the wish to do Christ's will! It's what Christ wants from us! He wants us to humble ourselves in the way that He did/does. He is with us to the end because of the Holy Eucharist. And that is the real act of faith...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me', As recorded by St John in 14:6. So now are you saying that John got it wrong as well?

Absolutely not! I believe John 14:6 with all my heart and soul! But Christ's salvation comes via His Church in the sacraments. The Church is the vehicle for Christ's boundless grace. Christ wants us to be OBEDIENT to HIS CHURCH. shouting over...

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary · 23-10-2007 3:07pm

kelly1 wrote: »

You are correct. But neither will you find Holy Trinity or Incarnation/incarnate. The Church gave us those words. Don't you belive in the Holy Trinity and the Word Incarnate? Of course you do! .

You don't find those terms, but you find definitions. Jesus is Immanuel - God with us. St John tells us of the word becoming flesh.

We know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. The Bible defines God as such, we came up with the appropraiet term

kelly1 wrote: »

Those in Purgatory ARE saved and being cleansed of ALL stain of sin and concupiescence (sp?) before entry in the glory of Heaven..

I understand the place purgatory plays. But there sis no Biblical evidence to suuport such a place. Jesus act on teh cross was sufficient to cleanse us of our sin. There is none other needed. By saying there is purgatory is saying that Christs act was insufficient. There is a verse, I'll look for it that describes the following: absent from the body present with the Lord.

kelly1 wrote: »

Now we've reached the crux of the argument! Christ, as He promised would never leave us alone in the wilderness! He gave us a Church to teach and guide us according to Christ's will! I for one submit myself to Christ's Church on earth out of of humility and the wish to do Christ's will! It's what Christ wants from us! He wants us to humble ourselves in the way that He did/does. He is with us to the end because of the Holy Eucharist. And that is the real act of faith.....

Absolutely. I concede that salvation can be found in teh Catholic church. My mother-in-law is a fine example. Where does the RC churhc come up with the idea that it and only it can bestow salvation?

kelly1 wrote: »

Absolutely not! I believe John 14:6 with all my heart and soul! But Christ's salvation comes via His Church in the sacraments. The Church is the vehicle for Christ's boundless grace. Christ wants us to be OBEDIENT to HIS CHURCH. shouting over...

God bless,
Noel.

Salvation does not come through the church. Nowhere in scripturs does it support this. Salvation comes via the grace of God, through ones faith in Christ.

Sacraments don't come into it, not by works, lest any should boast.

So the doctrine goes against scripture and what St Paul tells us to do in testing against that scripture.

BrianCalgary · 23-10-2007 3:28pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Christ wants us to be OBEDIENT to HIS CHURCH. shouting over...

God bless,
Noel.

Since when does Christ want us to be obedient to the church? Christ tells us to be obedient to His teachings, which are spelled out in the gospels and expanded upon and explained in the writings of St Paul, St John, St Peter, etc.

BrianCalgary · 23-10-2007 3:32pm

Originally Posted by BrianCalgary
Now if you agree with St Paul you would test th eidea of purgatory and mortal vs. venial sin against scripture

kelly1 replied:
I already did, but thanks anyway

Christ says:
Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here Christ tells us that all sin is the same. Break one little one and youre toast.

He doesn't distinguish between the degree of any sin and classify them. He does not tell us that some will bring you to purgatory.

Binomate · 25-10-2007 3:35am

Truth is what ever you want it to be, so long as you have faith. Proof is blasphemous in my opinion.

mdebets · 26-10-2007 8:57am

kelly1 wrote: »

Christ wants us to be OBEDIENT to HIS CHURCH. shouting over...

This whole discussion is reminding me of John 18.9-14 or Matthew 15,6-9

kelly1 · 26-10-2007 2:28pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Since when does Christ want us to be obedient to the church? Christ tells us to be obedient to His teachings, which are spelled out in the gospels and expanded upon and explained in the writings of St Paul, St John, St Peter, etc.

Brian, I believe the following verses show that Christ (and his apostles) ask for obedience to the Church:

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Now please read again.

God bless,
Noel.