Question For Non-catholics

[socalscout]

Please answer this question. Not with another question or another topic.

There are two people in a room each with a KJV Bible and they read the same verse from Scripture but each has a different interpretation.

Which one is right?

This is what I am curoius about. I really want to know who is right. I don't care if there are 30,000 Protestant churches or just 3. I want to know which one is right. In a one mile radius of my house there is the Assembly of Christ, Christ Community, Baptist, St. Gabriels(my parish), Holy Spirit(I think that is the name) and 1st Lutheran.

Excluding St. Gabriels, who would be the authority on Scripture? If you got all the pastors together and quote the same verses in Scripture who is correct?

To a thinking person this is a red flag. Either I am a simpleton or a genuis but this would raise serious questions. Why would they not be in union if this is the path that Christ has chosen for his Church? Have any of you thought about it?

[dUSt]

I have asked this very same question to many Protestants I've dialogued with, and have yet to receive an answer that makes sense to me.

I too am curious to know how this is explained.

Some of the answers that I have received in the past are:

"Whoever is guided by the Holy Spirit is correct."

"Whoever uses scripture in a way that doesn't contradict the rest of scripture is correct."

"The Holy Spirit allows us to interpret things differently as long as our basic beliefs are the same."

"They both are correct."

You've pinpointed the exact question that rattles in my brain every time I try to rationalize Protestantism.

[Jake Huether]

I have asked this very same question to many Protestants I've dialogued with, and have yet to receive an answer that makes sense to me.

I too am curious to know how this is explained.

Some of the answers that I have received in the past are:

"Whoever is guided by the Holy Spirit is correct."

"Whoever uses scripture in a way that doesn't contradict the rest of scripture is correct."

"The Holy Spirit allows us to interpret things differently as long as our basic beliefs are the same."

"They both are correct."

You've pinpointed the exact question that rattles in my brain every time I try to rationalize Protestantism.

ditto...

Interesting topic. Let's keep it at the top.

[Sojourner]

I have over the years struggled with answering this question ... long before I ever started thinking about Catholicism. I could never come up with a good answer myself, but I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say.

[Laudate_Dominum]

One common claim that many conservative, classic protestant types make is to assert the perspecuity of Scripture with regards to truths which are "essential" for salvation. The way this goes is that any literate joe off the street can pick up a bible and understand clearly the essential truths necessary for salvation. Protestants who hold to this tend to have strong tendencies of anti-historicism and anti-intellectualism making them pretty difficult to talk to on any reasonable level. What about all the different denominations and the fragmentation of protestantism? They would say that the different groups only differ in secondary matters not 'fundamental' or essential doctrines. That's funny since from the beginning protestants have disagreed on essential doctrines. Luther considered the Anabaptists and others (Zwingli) "damned" for some of their "bible based" doctrines, he came to this convinction through the clear testimony of Scripture. Who was correct? It seems pretty essential to salvation to me. What about the doctrines of justification, regeneration, sanctification, free-will, salvation, election, Atonement, predestination, perseverence, eternal security, original sin, the Eucharist, or Baptismal regeneration? These are pretty essential doctrines that protestants have never agreed upon. Or most ironically, the perspicuity of Scripture! Why don't the "Bible believers" agree on that? Is it not an essential doctrine? That sounds like a pretty confused religion that Christ established. And don't forget there are some pretty deviant "bible-only" christians out there. The whole history of protestantism is a testament against this lame theory, although I guess since they can conveniently be anti-historical it doesn't matter too much.

Edited January 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[NewReformation]

Depends on which person agrees with me!

Seriously, a proper interpretation depends on a few things:

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

A careful reading of the entire passage of scripture

An understanding of the time period in which this scripture was written

The ability to use a Strong's Concordance properly(you'd be surprised how easy it is to mess this one up)

There is more to be added to this list at a time when I haven't just woke up, but I'll work on it later...

[socalscout]

Depends on which person agrees with me!

Seriously, a proper interpretation depends on a few things:

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

A careful reading of the entire passage of scripture

An understanding of the time period in which this scripture was written

The ability to use a Strong's Concordance properly(you'd be surprised how easy it is to mess this one up)

There is more to be added to this list at a time when I haven't just woke up, but I'll work on it later...

When you come back then just assume that both, in my example, have met your criteria.

Who is right?

[phatcatholic]

pham,

check out the sola scriptura entry in the reference section. i feel like the whole doctrine is well refuted there. the articles i have collected show how sola scriptura is:

--logically impossible

--anti-biblical

--historically impossible

--against tradition/testimony of the Early Church Fathers

--does not work in practice

--no grounds for perspicuity

--catholic church determined the canon

--dubious historical development of SS

hopefully, you will find there all the info u need.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[NewReformation]

Hmmmm...Well, let's draw on a true-to-life example that I am first-hand familiar with.

Among Independent, Fundamental Baptists, there is a tendency to hold the belief that women should never wear pantaloons. Their proof verse for this is, I believe, Deuteronomy 22:5, where scripture states(I'm paraphrasing here because my Bible is in my car, and it's too cold to run out there): A woman shall not wear clothing that pertains to a man and a man shall not wear clothing that pertains to a woman.

Now, IFB's tend to be ignorant of this, but way back then, men and women's garments were very similar except for variations in ornamentation. Pretty much the same difference between men's and women's pantaloons. And back then, men and women both wore dresses(okay, okay, they were *robes*). The cultures surrounding the Hebrews practiced fertility rituals which consisted of men and women dressing in ceremonial garments of the opposite sex(transvestitism). It is most likely that this is what that particular passage is referring to. The favorite illustration of IFB's which they think proves their point that pantaloons are men's apparel is this:

When you go to a public place and need to use the restroom, on the restroom doors you will see symbols denoting either 'Men' or 'Women.' The symbol on the men's restroom is a stick man who is obviously wearing pantaloons(that or he's naked, I can't tell, the figure is all white). The symbol on the women's restroom is a woman wearing a dress. Therefore, since even the world recognizes that pant's are men's apparel and dresses are ladies apparel, women should only wear dresses.

Now, this conclusion which is drawn by the IFB's is highly erronious(sp?) and comes from a lack of understanding of the culture of that time period, and an apparent lack of understanding of this time period. But hey, we can't blame them, they just follow what their pastor says.

[socalscout]

Hmmmm...Well, let's draw on a true-to-life example that I am first-hand familiar with.

Among Independent, Fundamental Baptists, there is a tendency to hold the belief that women should never wear pantaloons. Their proof verse for this is, I believe, Deuteronomy 22:5, where scripture states(I'm paraphrasing here because my Bible is in my car, and it's too cold to run out there): A woman shall not wear clothing that pertains to a man and a man shall not wear clothing that pertains to a woman.

Now, IFB's tend to be ignorant of this, but way back then, men and women's garments were very similar except for variations in ornamentation. Pretty much the same difference between men's and women's pantaloons. And back then, men and women both wore dresses(okay, okay, they were *robes*). The cultures surrounding the Hebrews practiced fertility rituals which consisted of men and women dressing in ceremonial garments of the opposite sex(transvestitism). It is most likely that this is what that particular passage is referring to. The favorite illustration of IFB's which they think proves their point that pantaloons are men's apparel is this:

When you go to a public place and need to use the restroom, on the restroom doors you will see symbols denoting either 'Men' or 'Women.' The symbol on the men's restroom is a stick man who is obviously wearing pantaloons(that or he's naked, I can't tell, the figure is all white). The symbol on the women's restroom is a woman wearing a dress. Therefore, since even the world recognizes that pant's are men's apparel and dresses are ladies apparel, women should only wear dresses.

Now, this conclusion which is drawn by the IFB's is highly erronious(sp?) and comes from a lack of understanding of the culture of that time period, and an apparent lack of understanding of this time period. But hey, we can't blame them, they just follow what their pastor says.

That may be a good example using history but let us refer to the New Testament.

How about Revelations? Who is right about that book?

[Aloysius]

That may be a good example using history but let us refer to the New Testament.

How about Revelations? Who is right about that book?

just to play devils advocate... what if they said "no one, for no one will know until it actually happens"

let's take Romans.... lol who's right about Romans?

[socalscout]

just to play devils advocate... what if they said "no one, for no one will know until it actually happens"

let's take Romans.... lol  who's right about Romans?

:D

Whatever works I really did not want to quote Scripture but find out the logic for having two separate opinions about the same verses.

Edited January 26, 2004 by socalscout

[Dave]

A working knowledge of the English language(since we are using the KJV here)

But Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. And the Aramaic was later translated into Greek. So what good would having a working knowledge of the English language do anyone if the Bible wasn't originally written in English or if Jesus and the apostles didn't speak it?

[Jake Huether]

Bump.

C'mon Non-Catholic friends. What say you??

[Bruce S]

I'm with YOUR position on the End Times.

It is going to happen, that is sure, the WORD said so.

But worry about when, looking for "signs" is FORBIDDEN.

Worry about your own "End Times" ... THAT is most definately predictable.