no to individual bible interpretations

well im not really religious any more but i still want to bring this up.


i believe private individual interpretation of the bible is very dangerous, the type of interpretation that occurs in protestant and evangelical circles. this is because everyone can have different interpretaions of the bible, and this is a way of splintering christianity (which it accomplised), after the hearasys of the protestant reformation everyone interpreted the bible which led to only about 500 years later to literaly hundreds of christian denominations and cults.

Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the same sacraments, living under the same discipline; Protestants/evangelicals claims roundly 100 millions of adherants, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that very central authority, namely the pope. Today these 'christians' are so divided you have on one hand churches allowing gay marriage and on the other fanatics who support israel and are trying to raise money for the constuction of a 3rd temple in a vain attemt to fullfil distorted interprtations of prophecies themselves.

remember jesus told christians not to to be divided.

 

Individual interpretation of God's word is dangerous. That is why I continually stress the importance of the Holy Spirit. In Acts when 120 were filled with his Spirit, they were all on one accord. If everyone who believed in Jesus Christ was filled with his spirit, we too would all be on one accord. We would not have a seperation. We would all be one body of Christ, just as Christ intended for us to be. In 325 A.D., the age of self proclamation began. People began to seperate themselves from the apostles (which we know as, Apostolic teaching), and to bring their own ideas of what the Lord said into the picture. However, Jesus Christ left his message with his apostles, telling them to go out into the world and spread the gospel. If someone's religions begins off with one man having a, "great revelation", then it is not of God. What is of God remains in his word and does not change. Anything that does no coincide with this is not from Him.

For example, in modern Pentecostalism, the founders are Charles F. Parham and William J. Seymour. However, Apostolic Pentecostalism is the direct teachings that Christ gave his apostles, that are preached and practiced in Apostolic Pentecostal churches today. Derived from the day of Pentecost in Acts, and using the Bible and the sole word of Jesus Christ, which was written by many of his apostles and disciples, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

There are some denominations that call themselves Apostolic, but do not adhere to the apostles own teachings. Or they simply pick and choose the ones they wish to follow.

Salvation is the greatest example of religious indifference. But, I have already written a post about that and will not reiterate.

Another example of religious seperation is the fact that some denominations are home to preachers who believe in the death penalty. Apparently, they seem to have forgotten about the sixth commandment.

Once we are all connected to Christ, we will be connected with each other.

I do not like to say that I am a, "so and so". I don't have a religion. I have a faith. I am simply a follower of Christ.

 

^ but if you believe in the holy spirit, you cant say its works and revalations stopped at what was written in the new testament (the new testament was put all together about 400 years after christ). what i was taught and at the time seemed reasonable, was that the holy spirit continued and continues to deliver revalations to the faithful, which is the reason for papal decrees.

heres the reasoning i follow:
*'jesus said he who listens to you listens to me(talking to the apostles), and he who denies you denies me' this i see as proof the jesus wanted a single universal preaching and interpreter of the gospel.
*'jesus also told peter you are the rock on which my church will be built', and 'jesus also told peter to tend his flock when he is gone', those comments clearly shows jesus intended peter for a role as leader of the church on earth. 'jesus also says how he and the holy spirit will be with christians till the end of time', now using that comment and the previous i think it shows viable evidence for papal succesion (that after peter died, another head of the church on earth was appointed because the promise jesus made to peter was to be given to those who came after him, the popes.)
*'jesus also told peter what ever you keep on earth will be kept in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven', that shows jesus gave peter authority to make church laws and lead the church.
*the book of acts shows us what the early church was like, that it was a physical thing on earth, adhearing to peter (pope) and the other apostles (much like the college of cardinals), not a loosely defined spiritual conection between believers.

 

That is what I am saying. His desire was for the word to be interpreted through his Spirit. Yet, not all denominations possess his spirit. That is why there are denominations to begin with. By denying the teachings of Peter and the rest of his apostles, these denominations are denying Christ.

Yes, however, popes do not adhere to all of Peter's teachings, such as that of baptism and the infilling of the Spirit. Peter taught about baptism in Jesus name as tongues as physical evidence. The pope does not follow this teaching. He has separated from Jesus's truth.

Actually, in the early church there were many women with whom possessed authority. However, yes, a male was always the head of the church.

The Holy Spirit is not a loosely defined spiritual connection between believers. In fact, it is very crucial for us to possess his spirit so that we may be on the same page. We cannot be one body of Christ if we do not all have Christ. If we do not practice all of his teachings, but merely adhere to symbolism and ceremonies that the apostles themselves did not practice, then we become defective. Much like a game of football. Players must use a play book and take direction from their coach. If they fail to use the book and simplyrely on their own ideas, there will be complete and utter chaos on the field. The church is the same way.

 

popes have either went on to explain the teachings of peter and jesus, or have been influenced by the holy spirit. the spirit didnt stop its teachings to the church after the new testament. the pope is suppose to be christs rep. on earth through the authority given to peter, theres been an unbroken succesion from peter to john paul the second, even in the face of adversity such as the reformations and heritics who attempted to infiiltrate the church.

they did have more authority, but jesus didnt choose one to be one of the 12 apostles, and since pope and bishops are decendant from the 12 its church law women cant hold such offices. and women have plenty of lay religious positions they can attain, also one of the most revered figures in the church (outside of the trinitarian god) is the virgin mary.

i understand what your saying, but i thought the spirit was to come when the body was united not the other way around. the ceromonies of the church are meant to express christ to the populace through easy to understand symbols, remember not much of the populace could read 2000 years ago.

To further explain why some of the practices of the modern catholic church werent performed by the apostles, is that the church is a living and growing entity, its not dead so why would it reject the holy spirit speaking to it after the new testament was comprised. church tradition is basically what happened after the new testament.

 

The Spirit is what brings unity among the body. Unless we are all baptized by the Spirit, we won't be in agreement. Despite what others say, that is the one factor that has separated believers around the world. The Catholics lay claim to one way, the Protestants another, the Lutherans yet another. Because of this separation, we are not one body in Christ's eyes. The church body is not mean to be each body of every church, but for all churches to be part of one body. Jesus is the head of the church and his desire is for us to be the arms, legs, and torso. By straying from Apostolic teaching, they have become like the feet of someone who did not take care of their diabetes. Gangrine and diseased.

That it what I was conveying with the water and spiritual baptism. The way the apostles did it in the Bible has been changed. That is not growth but separation. Some churches do not speak of baptism at all. Some baptize before you can even comprehend the idea of Christ. Some churches do not baptize in the name of Jesus, as Peter said to. By not following the examples we have been given in the Bible, the churches of today have gone down another path that does not coincide with Jesus's path. The bible gives a clear interpretation of the Holy Spirit's work in our life, but looking at the churches of today, it is evident that they do not possess it. My family (Catholic) is frightened by the very thought of speaking in tongues. They claim to be Apostolic and every example of the apostles and the Holy Spirit has the evidence of speaking in tongues. If Peter is the one who said that when you are baptized in Jesus name, the Holy Spirit is a promise to you, and when he layed hands on others in the name of Jesus and they began to pray and received the Spirit, speaking in tongues, then why would my family fear it? If the Catholic church was of Apostolic nature, this would be taught today in their churches. However, it has been changed. God's teachings do not change. Only people change. Trying to alter the Bible is a sin... trying to alter the teachings is a sin as well. By doing so, their connection to the body of Christ is no longer there.

The Catholic church led people to believe that there is a place called purgatory. The early church leaders convinced people to pay money in order for a official to, "pray your way out of purgatory." Charlemenge admitted that this were merely a ploy to raise more money. The idea of paying ones way out of Purgatory is reminicent of Greek Mythology. To pay your way into the Gates of Hades, the dead had to be buried with coins upon their eye lids.

There are just too many things that show that the Catholic church does not have the Holy Spirit. My entire family (both sides) have attended the church for many, many years. None of them are neccessarily, "bad", people. However, none of them possess the Spirit. People do not think that I am trying to say that Catholic people are evil.

I am not saying that people of Catholic faith do not truly desire Jesus. I am merely stating that when the Catholic church was formed, the apostles original teachings were changed. If everyone possessed the Spirit, we would all be just as Peter's church. With all these differences, it has now become more like, Bob, Larry, and Joe's churches.

 

Surely the Catholic understanding is just as much somebody's interpretation as anything else.

And parts of it seem somewhat dubious - the assumption of BVM for example.

 

found a nice verse in support of the original premise of the thread.

2nd Peter 1:20
20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.''

 

i think individual interpretation is essential. with the guiding spirit, of course. if you have faith in the spirit, then then the infinite layers of meaning to be found in the bible, as well as the pollution of men's hands, become evident.

 

Good quote... but I can promise you that some preachers (of any denomination) will actually try and turn that around to fit what they feel is right.

 

For the record:

There is no such thing, circle, group or 'subculture' known as 'Protestant and Evangelical Circles'

Luther (who was a ROMAN CATHOLIC) and his Roman Catholic followers agree that individual interpretations were dangerous.
They intended to put a stop to this growing habit among Catholics (of which they were too) and sought to REform the doctrines and teachings.

REform.

ANOTHER type of Roman Catholics took advantage of the opportunity to split and start what we might describe as "Charismatic/Zealous and particularly 'Puritan'" off-shoots.

Luther himself got into many a rebuking with these guys... even denouncing their 'holy spirit' as a pig and threatening to slap it on the snout.

So.. dont come on here trying to tell me or other Lutherans (who were PROTESTING PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE) that we are part of the problem.

For what its worth.. there is a 'Circle' of 'Classic' Christians and that Circle is Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and even Presbyterians.

That is best described as a 'Circle' of Christianity in the sense they are all into the same idea and ways.

Evangelicals (baptists, Alliance, these types) might be called another 'Circle'.

Holy Rollers, Pentecostals, Vineyarders, Kansas City Apostles.. these are THEIR OWN CIRLCE UNTO THEMSELVES.

THEY ARE NO MORE PART OF THE LUTHERANS CIRCLE THAN THEY ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS CIRCLE OR ORTHODOX.

Yeesh.. wake up people!

 

Erm. Martin Luther (and John Calvin) PROTESTed against the way the church was being run. They believed, as every person seems to, that their interpretation and the way they wanted to do things was the right way, but because they wanted change and they were PROTESTing against the original church they, and anyone else who didn't remain Roman Catholic, is considered a Protestant.

Protestants are often considered a sect unto themselves, but if you're naming things correctly anyone not roman catholic is protestant, regardless of whether they're lutheran or calvinist or asian or french or english or anything like that.

I don't know much about evangelical christians, but I think there are a number of different groups who consider themselves evangelical.

There is both a Protestant and an Evangelical group, it's a valid statement. Noone ever said that the two groups were one and the same. Personally I might consider them broadly the same if evangelicals were all protestant. But I don't know. Christian sects scare me.

 

That is absolute nonsense Disarm.
Sorry but that is wayyyy off.

The Chuch experienced a massive split in which Catholics divided into Romans and Orthodox.

Amongst the Roman Catholics - another split happened when Luther (A Roman Catholic) Protested what he (and many other Roman Catholics) saw as leadership MOVING AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL TEACHINGS.

That is why it was called the REformation.. RE - FORM - Ation Movement.

I can not stress this important fact of life enough - Luther was 'protesting' the NEW INTERPRETATIONS MEN WERE MAKING ON THEIR OWN.

Trust me.. this is very well understood.

As it is - the use of the word 'Protestant' is completely USELESS and does nothing but confuse what is the current state of affairs.

Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are all moving closer and closer together again.
Im not 'pulling this out of the air' ok.. I just had a discussion with a Catholic Priest to be about this exact topic.
Priest Guy: "The Reformation was a tough time... but IT WAS GOOD BECAUSE IT DID REFORM THE (Roman Catholic) CHURCH and now we are getting back to where we should be.

Once again.. the 'Protest' in the now useless word 'Protestant' is from Luther PROTESTING what he saw as NOT ORIGINAL CHURCH DOCTRINES.

NOT.. I repeat, NOT 'protesting' the original church doctrines.

The OPPOSITE OF PROTESTING ORGINAL CATHOLIC CHURCH DOCTRINES

Funny thing.. Lutherans understand this, Roman Catholics understand this... yet this seems 'baffling' to outsiders.

Its ok if you dont know - but dont make completely wacko statements like "Anyone who is not a Catholic is a 'Protestant'.
Seriously.. thats not even real.

 

another layer of meaning:
"pro" - to be for something
"test" - witness to (as in testify, testament)

&
evangelical is what the lutheran church calls itself in germany
(& in the USA, the largest group of lutherans is ELCA -evangelical lutheran church of america
"evangelize" is "spreading the good news"...)

~
oekemone
ecumenical movement...
the lutherans (well, not missouri or wisconsin synods ) are in full communion with anglicans, UCC, reform, & i think presbyterian (?) & are in dialog with other christian families including roman catholic, eastern orthodox, & more...
~
& there were a few others before luther who dared to raise their voices against the non-scriptural practices & excesses sanctioned by the roman church (& some were executed for so doing)...
~
(& the lutherans do have some good hymns, eh?)

 

To say everyone who is not a Roman Catholic is 'the other group' is no more helpful than a Lutheran saying

"" Well .. there is the properly reformed original Church called Lutherans.. and 'the rest of them' are Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and Baptists are still unwilling to accept the reformed original church"

Its nothing more than being exlusive.

 

If you think that only the catholic church is the church God is working through you will be wrong. The fact is this church has been so screwed up for so many years that I can hardly look at this institution as a church anymore. I personally was abused in this church and my father pulled me out of that horrible place when I was 11 years old. I never learned about the love of Christ nor did I ever see an example of His love the whole time I was in the catholic church. I learned of His love and saw examples of His love when my father took me to a Baptist church. It was like a breath of fresh air. I believe the Bible speaks of the Catholic church in 1 Timothy 4:1,2,3. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. The Bible clearly teaches in First Timothy chapter 3 verses 1 and 2. That a man desiring the office of a bishop, must be the husband of one wife.
Yet the Catholic church in their wisdom said no way . It's sad but when it comes to their church traditions or the Bible, often the church goes with their traditions rather than what the Bible clearly teaches. That's why Jesus said the traditions of men have made the word of God null and void. This is just one small example of how this church ignores scripture. The scandel of the priest could of been avoided it the church had listened to the scriptures, but now every day for years we will have to listen to the endless sexual abuse stories and all because of their adhearence to their traditions and not scriptural teachings. When it comes to prophecy I will look to how God's spirit directs me. I will not look to the higher authorities of the Catholic Church. They have demonstrated to me their lack of spiritual insight.

 

church tradititon is more than traditions according to man, they are held to the level of scripture because they represent truths not revealed in the bible. surely if your a christian you believe in the trinity, yet that was never spelled out in the bible. also the scripture (christian new testament) wasnt put together right after jesus died, it was compiled 400 years later at the council of nicea, the council was headed by the pope and a body of bishops, so if your willing to trust scripture put together by the church why cant you trust other revealed truths by the church.

first, the abstaining of meats on certain days are meant as another outward sign of being christian, also its a sacrafice people make to honor christ, jesus said therell be a time to fast once he ascended into heaven.

now for the matter of a bishop being celibate, many have misunderstood what paul was saying in first timothy, they think he was saying a bishop must be a husband of 1 wife, when in reality he wrote that so the divorced or poligamists cannot hold the office. Paul also wrote:
But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please god. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor., vii, 7-8 and 32-35.)
and the earliest enactment on the subject of celibacy is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the higher orders of the clergy, bishops and priests, so it cant be said a celibate clergy is an invention of the church when it was practised since the the early christian communities. also up until the council of nicea it was a bishops choice whether or not he was married, at the council it there was a case layed out against married clergy which was accepted, if you believe the bible to be accuratate you must believe those at nicea who put the first official copy together where guided by the spirit, so why did the spirit walk out the door when the issue of celibacy was brought up.

 

The truths on Marriage is revealed in the scriptures, and the church rejected that truth. Anytime you have a new revelation from God, and it counters scripture, you reject the so called new revelation and adhere to His Word. Not the other way around. God does not counterdict Himself. The Trinity has been in scripture from the beginning. First John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Anytime you have a church body that refutes the Bible, I nolonger trust them because they nolonger believe or tell the truth. When Paul said a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, that should of been enought. And it should of remained that way. Well the councial of nicea was wrong, and this is why we have this unending disgrace in the Catholic church today. The Catholic church and their stupid traditions have dragged the name of Christ through the mud as no other Christian religion has ever done before. And yet you say we should look to these men for the truth. Give me a break. The Catholic Churched is disgraced. The churches main concern today is not how to spread the gospel, it's how to cover themselves from a tidalwave of law suits.

 

Here's a good resource for debunking the bogus claims of Rome:

http://aomin.org/Roman.html