Why did the RC Church add book at trent if the Canon is "closed."

[trying2understand]

DHK,

Catholics are free to interpret Scripture as long as such interpretation is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

This is no different than your church. You are not free to interpret Scripture in a way that is in conflict with your church's infallible faith statement.

If you do not believe your church's faith statement to be infallible, please tell me what part is possibly in error.

In practice, you have no more soul liberty than I.

If the Holy Spirit led you to an interpretation that is in conflict with your church's faith statement, would you be free to proclaim it in your church? Or would you be told to stop?

(FYI, we already had this discussion previously. I remember your answers quite well.)

 

[DHK]

Frozencell:

quote:...the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe...

Just one question....so how was the Catholic Church trying to keep the Bible out of the hands of the layperson again? You seem to have proved my point for me.

I answered this quote last night, but then it disappeared just before I posted it. Maybe I hit the delete button accidentally or something like that; I don't know what happened.
Anyway, Your quote, from the posted quote above is misleading if not downright dishonest. You are leading the readers to believe the opposite of what is said. Read the context of what is said:

Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation which dated back to the 4th century. It was thus a closed book even to most clergymen. Tyndale was determined to make God’s Word accessible to all men.

The only version tolerated was Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The Bible in the vernacular was "available" and yet it wasn't. "It was a closed book even to most clergymen." That hardly proves your point. And that is precisely why Tyndale undertook his own translation: that he might make a translation that would be available to ALL the people of England.
His exact words to a bishop of that time were:
"If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest."
By the end of his life his words came true. The common plow boy had access to the Bible, which the Catholic Church had kept from the common people for so long. They had the ability now to exceed the bishops in knowledge of the Scripture, and in many cases did. William Carey, not many hence, would take the Bible to the nation of India and translate it into over 20 different languages winning thousands to the Lord Jesus Christ, forever leaving an indelible mark in history as the founder of modern missions. Why? He had the Bible in his own language. Who was William Carey? A cobbler, and that is all. A simple cobbler would know far more of the Bible than any Bishop in England and do far more than the entire Catholic Church of his time.

Also, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'interpretation'. The Holy Spirit opens your mind to more clear understanding, not another interpretation.

I am a Catholic because I believe what the Catholic Church states as Truth from Christ Himself, not because the Catholic Church told me I had to become Catholic. Does that make any sense?

I agree that the Holy Spirit opens our minds to a clearer understanding of Scripture. He did mine, when I got saved many years ago. When I invited Jesus Christ in my heart as my Lord and Saviour, the Holy Spirit came and dwelt within. He illumined my heart as to the truth of Scripture. He showed me the truth of John 3:5 that the passage is speaking of being born from above spiritually, and not by baptism at all. The Holy Spirit illumined my mind and gave me clear understanding that baptism of infants was unscriptural, that the assumption of Mary is an unbiblical man-made doctrine. He gave me understanding not only to the correct interpretation of Scripture, but also understanding in what was error in relation to the Scripture.

If you are a Catholic because what you believe that Catholics teach as Truth then I wonder what kind of truth you believe. Tried against the authority of the Word of God Catholic Doctrine fails over and over again. Why do you think they have other authorities, other than the Word of God? Because their idea of the "truth" cannot stand beside what is the "Truth" as revealed through the Word of God. For example you cannot defend the Assumption through the Word of God. You must go through some other authority. That is why the Catholics hate so much the doctrine of sola scriptura—having the Scriptures as their final authority. Too many of their doctrines are outside of the Bible, cannot be supported by the Bible and are outright heresy. The Truth is in the Bible, not in the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK,

Catholics are free to interpret Scripture as long as such interpretation is not in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

"free to interpret Scripture as long as..." Then they are not free are they? The prisoners are free to go as long as the doors are unlocked. Too bad the doors are never unlocked. The prisoners are never free. Catholics are free to believe their interpretation of the Bible as long as they believe what the priest tells them, as long as there is no conflict as you say. The keys are thrown away. They are still prisoners. There is no freedom.

This is no different than your church. You are not free to interpret Scripture in a way that is in conflict with your church's infallible faith statement.

There is a vast difference. Like the Bereans we are taught to study the Scriptures not the catechism, no our own, and come to our own conclusions by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. We have a Shepherd not a dictator (pope or magesterium). He gives guidance, but ultimately the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us. Answer me this. You have been on this board long enough to get some understanding of what an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is (IFB). We do not belong to any denomination. Every church is totally independent and autonomous. We do not belong to any association or convention. We are completely independent. Having said that, how can so many IFB churches, having never met with each other, not knowing what the constitution of each church may be, not even knowing what the statement of faith of each church may be, how can we so remarkably agree in almost all points? Perhaps it is because we believe this one point as the most important--the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and follow it, and preach it.

If you do not believe your church's faith statement to be infallible, please tell me what part is possibly in error.

The answer, as alluded to above, is so simple. We believe the Bible, and all our doctrine is from the Bible. That is unlike the Catholic Church that has more than one authority--Oral Tradition, etc., which, as Jesus said, makes the Word of God of none effect.

In practice, you have no more soul liberty than I.

In practice you are the prisoner inside the jail while the pope holds the keys. I not only have the keys but I am made free and have unlocked the book of knowledge and "have freely been given all things."
Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

If the Holy Spirit led you to an interpretation that is in conflict with your church's faith statement, would you be free to proclaim it in your church? Or would you be told to stop?

You lay forth a conjecture that will not happen.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Holy Spirit promises to lead me into Truth. He will not fail me. That hypothetical situation will never happen.
Like Joshua of old said: "As for me and my house; we shall serve the Lord."
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, a simple yes or no would be great.

Are you free to interpret Scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, such that your interpretation would be in conflict with your church's faith statement?

The last time we had this discussion you said "no".

Is your church's faith statement infallible?

Last time you said "yes".

Let's start there.

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, as to your claim of agreement between nondenom churches...

what would happen in your church if someone got up and started praying in tongues?

Just as an example. There are more, but you get the idea.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, a simple yes or no would be great.

Are you free to interpret Scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, such that your interpretation would be in conflict with your church's faith statement?

I refuse to answer what is really a ridiculous question with a simple yes or no. The reason is: If I "was free to interpret Scrptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit such that the interpretation would be in conflict with the church's statement of faith, then:

1. I wouldn't be a Baptist.
2. I wouldn't be guided by the Holy Spirit.
3. I would be the one who would be in conflict with the Scriptures.

Is your church's faith statement infallible?
Last time you said "yes".

That is correct.

Let's start there.

Well enough.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, as to your claim of agreement between nondenom churches...

what would happen in your church if someone got up and started praying in tongues?

Just as an example. There are more, but you get the idea.

First, A Charismatic would never join an IFB church that teaches so strongly against speaking in tongues. A Charismatic would join a Charismatic church.

The closest I can get to answering that question, is that I know of a Pastor's child who rebelled against the authority of their parents, moved out and joined a Charismatic Church. She now believes that tongues is for today. It does happen occasionally. They are the ones that normally make the decision to move on. If they have a yearning to believe that eay they won't be able to take the preaching here much longer.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, which came first?

Your infallible interpretation of Scripture?

Or your church's infallible faith statement?

How do you know that either is infallible?

 

[frozencell]

Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation which dated back to the 4th century. It was thus a closed book even to most clergymen. Tyndale was determined to make God’s Word accessible to all men.

You seem to be forgetting one thing - there were other countries outside of England with people in them who didn't speak English.

He showed me the truth of John 3:5 that the passage is speaking of being born from above spiritually, and not by baptism at all.

You seem to be belittling baptism. If it's not important then why was Jesus baptized?

that baptism of infants was unscriptural, that the assumption of Mary is an unbiblical man-made doctrine.

Using your sola scriptura, you can't disprovethese things, either.

There is a vast difference. Like the Bereans we are taught to study the Scriptures not the catechism, no our own, and come to our own conclusions by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. We have a Shepherd not a dictator (pope or magesterium). He gives guidance, but ultimately the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us. Answer me this. You have been on this board long enough to get some understanding of what an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is (IFB). We do not belong to any denomination. Every church is totally independent and autonomous. We do not belong to any association or convention. We are completely independent. Having said that, how can so many IFB churches, having never met with each other, not knowing what the constitution of each church may be, not even knowing what the statement of faith of each church may be, how can we so remarkably agree in almost all points? Perhaps it is because we believe this one point as the most important--the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and follow it, and preach it.

This probably has a lot to do with someone from one IFB church leaving and starting a new one. And why would the Lord lead so many people (Protestants) to think so many different things (i.e. speaking in tongues) were right/wrong in so many different denominations???

The answer, as alluded to above, is so simple. We believe the Bible, and all our doctrine is from the Bible.

Then how do you explain all of the other Protestant denominations that don't agree with you?

That is unlike the Catholic Church that has more than one authority--Oral Tradition, etc., which, as Jesus said, makes the Word of God of none effect.

What do you think Jesus' words, and the rest of the Bible was for that matter, before someone wrote it down? Oral Tradition. There was not a stenographer at each individual thing in the Bible, writing it as it happened. A lot of things happened when someone was alone, so it HAD to be Oral Tradition for a period of time before some wrote it down.

In practice you are the prisoner inside the jail while the pope holds the keys. I not only have the keys but I am made free and have unlocked the book of knowledge and "have freely been given all things."

It seems that it is convenient to be Protestant and able to just easily switch denominations to one that agrees with your personal belief. Trust me, I know. I was a Protestant my entire life. Also, you seem to think that believing and trusting in a man of God is slavery. Do not peeple trust others in things that they did not see for themselves and would not have believed? It's called "testimony". If God as told the Pope something that he passes on to the Church, then, yes, I will believe it much in the same way you believe your pastor's sermon on Sunday.

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

This can just as easily apply to the Catholic Church. This is not a "Protestant" verse.

Like Joshua of old said: "As for me and my house; we shall serve the Lord."

I believe all the Popes said this very same thing.

 

[D28guy]

BornAgainCatholic said...

"The Protestant Canon is a tradition of men not of God."

Mike

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, which came first?

Your infallible interpretation of Scripture?

Or your church's infallible faith statement?

How do you know that either is infallible?

Bump

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

Originally posted by trying2understand:
[qb] DHK, which came first?

The Bible came first.

Your infallible interpretation of Scripture?

I don't interpret the Scripture; the Scripture interprets itself. There is only one interpretation of Scripture, though there may be more than one application.

Or your church's infallible faith statement?

That would depend. Obviously if I join a church, the church and its existing statement of faith was there before me. If I start a church, I must set down in writing from the Bible an outline of the basic beliefs that this church will hold to.

How do you know that either is infallible?

The Bible is infallible.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
I don't interpret the Scripture; the Scripture interprets itself. There is only one interpretation of Scripture, though there may be more than one application.

Here we go again, huh, DHK.

How do you know that your particular understanding of the interpretation of Scripture is the one correct interpretation?

You say that there is only one interpretation of Scripture.

Are there not incorrect interpretations?

How do you know that yours is correct?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I don't interpret the Scripture; the Scripture interprets itself. There is only one interpretation of Scripture, though there may be more than one application.

Here we go again, huh, DHK.

How do you know that your particular understanding of the interpretation of Scripture is the one correct interpretation?</font>[/QUOTE]I would challenge you to do a search on "Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches" Go to various church websites, the websites that are put up by the churches themselves and find out what they believe. Most have a statement of faith that usually can be printed on one or two pages, unlike the catechism of the Catholic Church which is a hefty tome. Keeping in mind that all these churches are started by different individuals and are totally independent of each other, note how remarkably similar in nature each statement of faith is. Why do you think that would be?

You say that there is only one interpretation of Scripture.
Are there not incorrect interpretations?

You mean like the Catholic Church's? yes there are.

How do you know that yours is correct?

1. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
2. The Bible is to be taken literally in all places except where context dictates otherwise (ex. a parable)
3. We do not allegorize the Bible or read into the Bible our own preconceived ideas. Where the Bible is silent we must remain silent.
4. When it comes to doctrine we have no other authority, such as Oral Tradition, the Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. All of doctrine is from the Bible alone.
5. The Bible commands us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," in other words use sound hermeneutics. The Bible does not contradict itself. Scripture harmonizes not contradicts. If you have a contradition then you know that your interpretation is wrong.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
I would challenge you to do a search on "Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches" Go to various church websites, the websites that are put up by the churches themselves and find out what they believe. Most have a statement of faith that usually can be printed on one or two pages, unlike the catechism of the Catholic Church which is a hefty tome. Keeping in mind that all these churches are started by different individuals and are totally independent of each other, note how remarkably similar in nature each statement of faith is. Why do you think that would be?

So then you believe that the majority opinion is the correct interpretation?

Would you still hold that position if it were proven that your church's infallible faith statement were in the minority of Christianity?

Or would you change your beliefs?

The Bible is to be taken literally in all places except where context dictates otherwise (ex. a parable)

Requires judgement on your part. You could be in error when deciding what is literal and what is not. (ie. re: baptism and communion being symbolic)

We do not allegorize the Bible or read into the Bible our own preconceived ideas. Where the Bible is silent we must remain silent.

Judgement on your part again.

When it comes to doctrine we have no other authority, such as Oral Tradition, the Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. All of doctrine is from the Bible alone.

Except your own authority to choose the relevant verses and whether they are literal or not and what they mean. In the end you are your own authority by default.

The Bible commands us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," in other words use sound hermeneutics. The Bible does not contradict itself. Scripture harmonizes not contradicts. If you have a contradition then you know that your interpretation is wrong.

Again, requires judgement on your part.

Challenge:

Jesus said that He would be in the earth for three days and three nights. Using Scripture, tell me what days that would have been, considering the events in relation to the Sabbath and the Passover.

What three days and what three nights?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
So then you believe that the majority opinion is the correct interpretation?

There is no majority opinion here. There are those of like faith and order believing the same thing, because they happen to take the Bible literally and have the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. That is not majority opinion. It is not opinion at all. It is simply believing what the Bible says and coming to the same conclusions.
No man it their right mind would be able sit down and read the Bible, having no other books available to him, and come to such conclusions as: the assumption of Mary, purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrifice of the Mass, etc. All are man-made doctrines, entirel apart from the Bible.

Would you still hold that position if it were proven that your church's infallible faith statement were in the minority of Christianity?

IFB churches are the minority. The majority is usually wrong. The majority of churches in Canada are Catholic. They are wrong. The majority in Russia are atheists. Are they right? The majority in Pakistan are Muslim. Are they right? The majority are usually wrong.

Or would you change your beliefs?

I would only change my beliefs if I am proven wrong on the authority of the Word of God, and the Word of God alone.

The Bible is to be taken literally in all places except where context dictates otherwise (ex. a parable)

Requires judgement on your part. You could be in error when deciding what is literal and what is not. (ie. re: baptism and communion being symbolic)

It requires rightly dividing the Word of Truth. When Revelation 20 uses the phrase "1000 years" no less than 5 times in just a few short verses don't you think it just could mean what it is saying--that a thousand years is a thousand years, and there is no need to allegorize it, like some Catholics on this board do?
The first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorized by many to be irrelevant, stories for children. They are historical, God's history of how this world began, and are foundational to our understanding of not just Genesis but to the entire Old Testament and even the Bible itself. The attack on this section of the Bible is phenomenal. No where in scripture is there any hint that we are to take it any other way than literally. It is not a judgement call. It is the way that we understand Scripture.

We do not allegorize the Bible or read into the Bible our own preconceived ideas. Where the Bible is silent we must remain silent.

Judgement on your part again.

No, you like this excuse of judgement so you can read into Scripture those doctrines that are not there. That is where you come up with infant baptism, even though there is not one case of one infant ever being baptized in Scripture. You have to put your own preconceived ideas into the Scriptures to believe in that. It is not in there. It is not a judgement call. It is believing what the Scripture says. If the Bible is silent, be silent. Don't read into it that which is not there.

When it comes to doctrine we have no other authority, such as Oral Tradition, the Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. All of doctrine is from the Bible alone.

Except your own authority to choose the relevant verses and whether they are literal or not and what they mean. In the end you are your own authority by default.

Is this a false accusation? What authority? I have no other authority than the Bible itself. It is my final authority. We are not talking of Mathematics. I use a trigonmetric book for math, a Chemistry book for Chemistry. That is not what we are talking about here. We are speaking of authorities pertaining to God's revelation.

The Bible commands us to "rightly divide the Word of truth," in other words use sound hermeneutics. The Bible does not contradict itself. Scripture harmonizes not contradicts. If you have a contradition then you know that your interpretation is wrong.

Again, requires judgement on your part.

Why do you call sound hermeneutics a judgement call. if you followed the principles of exegesis you would not be in hot water so much of the time. Instead you adhere to a man-made catechism instead of the Scriptures.

Challenge:

Jesus said that He would be in the earth for three days and three nights. Using Scripture, tell me what days that would have been, considering the events in relation to the Sabbath and the Passover.

What three days and what three nights?

I am not going to take your challenge except to say, that I personally believe that He "probably" died on Thursday, not Friday. This matter has been debated throughout the centuries and has never been full resolved. Some say that Christ died on Wednesday; some on Thursday; some on Friday. Almost all recognize that He rose from the dead on the first day of the week which is Sunday. To try and resolve that question in a few moments here is not profitable, nor does it matter. If you had taken my challenge and looked at various statements of faith, you would find that what day Christ day, is not one of the tenets of our faith that we have to agree on. There is soul liberty here for us to disagree. You, in the Catholic Church may not have that soul liberty, but we do.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
It requires rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

This is the crux of it isn't it, DHK?

How do you know that you have rightly done so?

You want to put out the notion that DHK had no part in DHK coming to only correct interpretation of the Bible.

Face it, DHK, no man can read anything without interpretting it.

You select the verses.

You decide what is literal and what is not.

You decide what particular meaning to attach to a particular word.

If some church were saying the same things about their interpretation that you are saying about yours, no doubt you would be calling them a cult.

 

[DHK]

T2U,
I don't really know what you're problem is. You can more easily "interpret" a more difficult book such as one of Shakespeare's works (say Romeo and Juliet), than you can the Bible.

I don't have any mysterious interpretation for Shakespeare, and neither do I for the Bible. I "interpret" both as they are to be taken in their historical contexts. It is not such a difficult task as you are making it out to be. In fact the Bible is far easier to understand than Shakespeare is. Yet because I give the Bible a natural interpretation to the Bible as I do to Shakespeare's works, you imply that I would be a member of a cult. However if you would completely allegorize Romeo and Juliet and say that it was a story of aliens invading earth and falling in love with our planet, I would say that your doctrine is crazy. I feel about the same way concerning doctrines such as the assumption of Mary.
DHK

 

[neal4christ]

T2U,

While I do not necessarily agree with DHK, don't you use the same method to decide that Catholic teaching is correct? Wasn't it a judgment call by you to decide to be Catholic? This is why I would appreciate your input as to why you are Catholic, so I could understand the process you went through to arrive at your conclusions.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
I don't really know what you're problem is. You can more easily "interpret" a more difficult book such as one of Shakespeare's works (say Romeo and Juliet), than you can the Bible.

DHK, given the multitude of interpretations that are at variance with your personal infallible interpretation, all supposedly backed up by comparing Scripture to Scripture, in historical context, yada yada....

How do you know for certain that yours is correct?