Forgive Me Father For Acting Protestant!

[jckinsman]

I had an enlightening experience on another thread. (Death Penalty) I had told a story of two doctors, and their experience with abortion. To make a long story short. I was responded to back , with a comment, I interpreted it as something other then what was meant! And because of my own experiences in life, I read into what RL was meaning to say as something other then what RL really was trying to say.
Which, after apologizing for the sarcastic remark back, I took a closer look at the situation.
The real key here is, I have my own Life experiences. They DO determine the way that I see things. So as I expressed to RL,when you are just looking at the written word. Reading it and then interpreting it all on your own without an authority,can lead you to mistakes. (Yes,sarcastic mistakes!,....sorry again RL ) I should have asked RL what that meant (RL being the authority in this situation) instead of taking it into my own hands and thinking I knew what it meant! Is this why there are so many protestant churches all over the place?

So that said, How does one use the Bible as there only Authority when it is not a self-interpreting book ????? I know protestants say the Holy Spirit guides them. Well then how does one call into account,Life experiences dictating interpretation? Having a final Authority to answer to ,that is tangible in this world, and not left open ended to what the "Holy Spirit" may or may not have revealed to you. Is very important in living a Godly life! Don't you think???? JC

Edited June 2, 2007 by jckinsman

[MIKolbe]

I know what you mean...

Although, I do notice humilty when realizing your 'private interpretation'. With some of the things i have heard Luther say/write, he did not seem like THE most humble guy around.. Perhaps it is necessary to be prideful (to some extent) if you are going to hold your interpretation of Scripture above God's....

I read one the phrase "I never said you stole the money." Simple phrase, but can be interpretted a variety of ways, such as:

[b]I[/b] never said you stole the money. (maybe SHE said it)

I never [b]said[/b] you stole the money. (Maybe i only implied it, but never SAID it)

I never said [b]you[/b] stole the money. (Maybe i said HE, not you, did it)

I never said you [b]stole[/b] the money. (Maybe i said you BORROWED it)

I never said you stole the [b]money[/b]. (Maybe i said you stole something else other than money)


If this simple 7 word sentence cannot interpret itself, how can the Bible, which is a little more complex?

[jckinsman]

I agree! I have heard that analogy before, and It was just something again that has jumped back at me through this experience. I think that we all have to have humility. In our own humility we have strength. I think sometimes it can be the endurance that I lack! I have alot of faith, so my ability to keep up the old arguments grow weary. I think that you can talk plenty of sense to people, some can hear, some will just argue. JC

[Starets]

You also have to be careful of context. I once heard a radio play where "the grounds are excellent" was deliberately used in 5 different contexts and it made sense each time.

[Katholikos]

Of what use is an infallible book without an infallible teacher?

We see the results of this in thousands of conflicting and competing denominations. The much-maligned Holy Spirit supposedly led all of the founders of these denomintions "to all truth" -- but each one teaches a different "truth." What's wrong with this picture?

And written words cannot vouch for themselves. The Bible contains 73 separate writings. Someone had to collect them and put them together in one book and declare them "inspired." That "someone" was the Church. As St. Augustine said, "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, called Fundamental, 5, 6)

Likos

[jckinsman]

Likos,
I always enjoy reading what you have written. JC

[N/A Gone]

Likos you rock.

Protestant attempt to make up for this by dialoguing with each other, but often this means either the best debator will win, or there is a false ecumenism with "allowing the differences to show the magnatude of the faith" or some bullcarp like that.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1286743' date='Jun 2 2007, 04:31 PM']Of what use is an infallible book without an infallible teacher?[/quote] I don't think Protestants would deny this fact, I just think that they would take the road that a man isn't infallible, that the Holy Spirit enlightens us to the truth. If that wasn't the case, then it would be pointless for everyone to have a bible. Everytime you read your bible, do you read it with an infallible teacher? The only infallible teacher that helps guide me, while I read the bible is the Holy Spirit, as rare is anyone else present in the room.

[quote]And written words cannot vouch for themselves. The Bible contains 73 separate writings. Someone had to collect them and put them together in one book and declare them "inspired." That "someone" was the Church.[/quote] I don't think that anyone would deny this fact, they just would deny the fact that these men were infallible and would interpret, who "the Church" was/is. The Church was not the Roman Catholic Church and everyone that heeds to their Patriarch, the Pre-schism Church was the original rites that the Apostles themselves affirmed. The Council of Constantinople was affirmed amongst Bishops that were fallible men, led by the Holy Spirit and the council itself was affirmed by the Holy Spirit, no questions asked. Everyone of the original rites [even thoughs not in communion with Rome today] had a part ini that [and in the case of the Council of Constantinople, not a single Roman Bishop was present].

This isn't just an Orthodox thought, this is what most people in Christendom today believe, and so to give credit to a particular write for the compilation of the Bible, saying that everyone else should either interpret the Bible as that rite has, or not read a bible would be grossly overexaggerating the situation, and ignoring vital pieces of history.

Reza

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Everytime you read your bible, do you read it with an infallible teacher? [/quote]Yes. The Twelve Apostles, the early evangelists, and the Church Fathers have left us their tradition and the Holy Spirit preserves it even now. The teacher may not be physically present in the room, with chalk and a blackboard, but the teacher's influence is still felt - and strongly. The Bible was not produced from a hat. You can't ignore the context in which the Scriptures emerged.

[quote]I don't think Protestants would deny this fact, I just think that they would take the road that a man isn't infallible, that the Holy Spirit enlightens us to the truth. If that wasn't the case, then it would be pointless for everyone to have a bible.[/quote]

There are thousands of Protestant Christian denominations, each with wildly differing points of doctrine and each claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Who is right and who is wrong? How and by whose authority do we decide who is right and who is wrong?

[quote]This isn't just an Orthodox thought, this is what most people in Christendom today believe, and so to give credit to a particular write for the compilation of the Bible, saying that everyone else should either interpret the Bible as that rite has, or not read a bible would be grossly overexaggerating the situation, and ignoring vital pieces of history.[/quote]

It's what the Orthodox and some Protestants believe. But a lot of other Protestants would contradict you and say the only way to interpret the Bible is to be rigidly literalistic. Are they guided by the Holy Spirit when they say that? Or are they wrong? And again, by whose authority do you make your judgement?

[Katholikos]

[quote]Likos,
I always enjoy reading what you have written. JC[/quote]

[quote]Likos you rock.[/quote]



JC, Rev,


Thanks! Your words are much appreciated!

Likos

[Budge]

The BIble is NOT impossible to understand.

It isnt one sentences here and there out of context.

Also dont even your "experts" have their own life experiences that affect their teachings and views. The whole Euro-socialist viewpoint definitely is a huge part of the Vatican's political viewpoints.

By the way the BIble is self interpeting, you are supposed to see the book as one whole, it does interpet itself. {ie other verses do interpet other verses}

[jckinsman]

Yah-Hoo! You made it Budge!
So if you interpet it one way,and your fellow protestant neighbor another way! Who is right ? and where do you go to find out who's right? Yes ,we do all have our own life experiences, that is my point.Where is your authority?

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1286627' date='Jun 2 2007, 04:14 PM']I know what you mean...

Although, I do notice humilty when realizing your 'private interpretation'. With some of the things i have heard Luther say/write, he did not seem like THE most humble guy around.. Perhaps it is necessary to be prideful (to some extent) if you are going to hold your interpretation of Scripture above God's....

I read one the phrase "I never said you stole the money." Simple phrase, but can be interpretted a variety of ways, such as:

[b]I[/b] never said you stole the money. (maybe SHE said it)

I never [b]said[/b] you stole the money. (Maybe i only implied it, but never SAID it)

I never said [b]you[/b] stole the money. (Maybe i said HE, not you, did it)

I never said you [b]stole[/b] the money. (Maybe i said you BORROWED it)

I never said you stole the [b]money[/b]. (Maybe i said you stole something else other than money)
If this simple 7 word sentence cannot interpret itself, how can the Bible, which is a little more complex?[/quote]

When I squint, All I can interpret is "I said you stole money."


[sorry, had to pull a hot stuff here]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1287131' date='Jun 3 2007, 07:14 AM']Yes. The Twelve Apostles, the early evangelists, and the Church Fathers have left us their tradition and the Holy Spirit preserves it even now.[/quote] I definately agree, but the truth is that everyone disagrees on what tradition is the true tradition, outside of the Bible. Everyone interprets it differently, and every church [Roman, Protestant, Orthodox] have a different tradition and even history that they disagree upon.

[quote]The teacher may not be physically present in the room, with chalk and a blackboard, but the teacher's influence is still felt - and strongly. The Bible was not produced from a hat. You can't ignore the context in which the Scriptures emerged.[/quote]I definately agree, we should seek out the council of Nicea, the Early Church Fathers writings, etc. and see what was written but even that people disagree upon.

[quote]There are thousands of Protestant Christian denominations, each with wildly differing points of doctrine and each claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Who is right and who is wrong? How and by whose authority do we decide who is right and who is wrong?[/quote] The same goes for those that claim to be "Catholic" also, what about the group of Catholics that believe that the thrown of St. Peter is vacant? That's a split in the Roman Catholic Church, and both the Roman Catholic Church that you belong to, and the other group claim to have the holy spirit and have the right tradition but that doesn't nessessarily deminish the Roman Catholic Church that you belong to, and it doesn't deminish the others either. Not saying that there isn't a universal truth, I believe that there is, I just believe that it's found pre-schism and that people have to dig deep to find the origins of Christianity.

We also can't neglect the fact, that even amongst those in the world that chose to "dig deep", everyone is going to come up with a different conclusion. Prior to being Orthodox, I'd studied Islam and Christianity indepth, both of their histories, etc. and found that Christianity was what I'd believed to be the truth, but a vast amount of people have come to a different conclusion. I'd be Roman Catholic if I believed that the Early Church Fathers agreed with her traditions, but I don't believe that, but I'm not infallible either and am subject to being wrong, like every other human being. This is the beauty of having faith and having the freedom to come to our own conclusions without compulsion.

[quote]It's what the Orthodox and some Protestants believe. But a lot of other Protestants would contradict you and say the only way to interpret the Bible is to be rigidly literalistic. Are they guided by the Holy Spirit when they say that? Or are they wrong? And again, by whose authority do you make your judgement?[/quote]

That's very true, there are groups of people that believe the Holy Spirit literally talks to them [penecostal and charismatic protestants particularly], and I believe that it's pointless is debating with them, and largely could be blasphemous as some of them are the worst of heretics. Those individuals, we're going to have to have faith in the power of prayer like St. Monica.

Reza

[jeffpugh]

Concerning those "Roman Catholics" who think the "Throne" of Peter is vacant, they are not Roman Catholic. they are in schism because it is not vacant. There is a true pope in succession of the previous ones. We're fine. Someone needs to explain that to them with charity.