What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #1

Post by Justin108 »

JehovahsWitness wrote: those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.
What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

Let's use Genesis 1 as an example. What is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and what method did you employ to conclude your interpretation?

Specifically...

1. Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphorical? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

2. If it is metaphorical, what is it a metaphor for? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

3. What is your explanation for the Genesis 1 claim that God created plants before he created the sun? (and again, what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #41

Post by Justin108 »

RightReason wrote: Yes, of course. There can’t be two truths. Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, who we were instructed to listen to.
Do you have any scriptural support that Christ established the Catholic Church specifically?

Let's suppose for argument sake that the Catholic Church is the "true" Church. Does that mean they cannot make mistakes in interpretation? Did the Catholic Church not once teach about the existence of Limbo? And did they not change their mind about it since?

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #42

Post by Benoni »

Justin108 wrote:
RightReason wrote: Yes, of course. There can’t be two truths. Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, who we were instructed to listen to.
Do you have any scriptural support that Christ established the Catholic Church specifically?

Let's suppose for argument sake that the Catholic Church is the "true" Church. Does that mean they cannot make mistakes in interpretation? Did the Catholic Church not once teach about the existence of Limbo? And did they not change their mind about it since?
Church…. ecclesia� Greek called out


God calls men not systems. The broad way that leads destruction is religion; men do not follow Christ they follow their Pastor/Priest or Pope, their denomination their system ; not God’s anointing. Church is a Greek Word “ecclesia� which simply means the called out. There is a true Church and a false Church; Baby lon is the false church; while the true Church is not a building, a system, denomination but Christ with in us, the hope of Glory.
Matt 7:13-15

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. KJV




Many years ago God called me out of religion and I have never turned back; there are many men I feel God has given an anointing to and I have I follow their ministry. Religion is shallow and limits God to what ever understanding. God has called thousands of people out of Baby lon and has given them this very message.

Heb. 13:13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach

Revelation 18:3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Isaiah 4

1And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man,
saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let
us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.



Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

God uses Baby lon as shown by the verse above; but there is so much more.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #43

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Justin108]
Do you have any scriptural support that Christ established the Catholic Church specifically?
Sure. Christ established His Church, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church�. Peter was the first Pope and there has been an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession ever since. Jesus said, “Whoever hears you, hears me, . . . “ “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�. Jesus said He will remain with His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Catholic Church meets the four marks of Christ’s Church (which are all mentioned in Scripture) and only the Catholic Church can trace its origin back to the Apostle Peter. All other Christian religions were founded at some other period in history. In fact, many not even until the 1900’s. If we believe Christ’s words that He would remain with His Church and that His Church shall be guided in all truth, then it would be impossible to believe His Church would be hidden or not visible for a period of time – only say to be discovered by someone like George Fox, or Charles Taze Russel, or John Wesley, or John Calvin, or Billy Graham, etc.
Let's suppose for argument sake that the Catholic Church is the "true" Church. Does that mean they cannot make mistakes in interpretation?
It means she cannot make mistakes when speaking ex cathedra. The Church is made up of fallible human beings and therefore those within the Church certainly can make mistakes and screw up – yes, even priests, but Christ promised she would not err in her teachings on matters of faith and morals.
Did the Catholic Church not once teach about the existence of Limbo? And did they not change their mind about it since?
Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church and it actually has not been renounced either. The Church has fully admitted that many theologians tempted to provide a reasonable answer to the question about what happens to babies that die and were never baptized. Some theologians came up with the term limbo to describe the place they said these babies might end up until Christ returns. This answer demonstrates the necessity of Christ’s command that we all be baptized, while realizing it is not the baby’s fault if he/she was not. Clearly, heaven is for those Baptized into Christ’s Church. Babies who die before this was able to occur might have to wait in a holding pattern. It actually makes sense and it is still permissible for Catholics to believe this possibility. Of course, the Church admits this is simply something we do not know and have not been told. It could be that God takes this children straight to heaven giving them a Baptism of intent. Who knows? The limbo term is something that simply was suggested as a theory and took off and came to be widely known and accepted. The Church qualified however that it is not official Church teaching.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #44

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 42 by Benoni]
Church…. ecclesia� Greek called out


God calls men not systems.
There is a true Church and a false Church; Baby lon is the false church; while the true Church is not a building, a system, denomination but Christ with in us, the hope of Glory.
Matt 7:13-15
This is a common error in interpretation. It is unscriptural and illogical to conclude the Church has not a visible earthly entity.



Yet, Paul did speak of "one faith," and the first great Church gathering, around the year 50 in Jerusalem, was without doubt the manifestation of a visible Church. There the apostles, the quite visible leaders of the Church, made one of the earliest universal decisions, exempting Christians from Judaic law.


Ignatius of Antioch speaks of a visible Church when he outlines its nature in 107, marking it, for the first time of which we have record, as the "Catholic Church": "Where the bishop is found, there let the people be, even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."


To acknowledge that Christ did establish a visible Church necessarily would demand that that Church be identified, singled out from other claimants, and its authority accepted. Few Protestants relish such a task. They don't want to examine the tree and its branches. Their argument for an invisible Church becomes an argument made conclusion-end first.


Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).


Christ's Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It's almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn't quite know what he was doing.


A point which Boettner and likeminded controversialists appear to overlook is that only a visible, authoritative Church could have set in place the pillars that would support Christian belief and practice through the ages. To those who cry "Prove it!" here are a few examples:


1. Codification of the Bible. The Bible did not codify itself, did not specify which books, among many, were to be seen as inspired. A visible, authoritative body, comprised of bishops, decided the content of the canon.


2. The worldwide councils. Christianity's doctrinal parameters have been charted by the ecumenical councils, now numbering 21, each conducted under the authority of the visible, universal Church. Not once in those 21 sessions did an "invisible" group of bishops meet and deliberate. 3. The Lord's day. The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.


4. Christmas and Easter. The Bible nowhere mentions the word "Christmas" or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn't arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for the two key feasts.


5. The calendar. It is Christ's visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.


Are we under Christ's Church visible or invisible? Is it a Church of authority or an amorphous "worldwide community of believers"? Is it divinely appointed in time and place or lacking enough substance even to make itself known? Any useful understanding of the locus of Christian authority must flow from questions such as these.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -invisible

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Still more documented Church error.

Post #45

Post by polonius »

Right Reason posted:
Wow, your hell bent on perpetuating false stereotype after false stereotype. The Church did not hold as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible is not a scientific treatise and the Church has never declared it as such.
RESPONSE: Of course it did. You should read more widely so you don't post such obvious historical errors.

From the Papal condemnation of Galileo in 1633 we have:

“This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture


Note especially the claim "declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture"

Perhaps I'll deal with some more of your erroneous claims later. Tell me, where did Matthew the Evangelist (who was not the Apostle Matthew) come up with the idea that Jesus was founding a church?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #46

Post by ttruscott »

Justin108 wrote:For example,
- Jack reads the Bible for the first time
- He reads Genesis 1 and notice that, according to Genesis 1, plant life existed before the creation of the sun
- According to Jack's knowledge of science, this would be impossible

What reason would Jack have to not dismiss the Genesis account as factually inaccurate?
Sure, and all this shows is that without the instruction from the Holy Spirit as to what HE meant when He had the Bible written, the Bible itself cannot bring the secular mind to an understanding of the truth.

I can testify that I wrote "I saw a bun dance upon the table." but without my witness, you do not know if I mean "a bun dance" or "abundance."
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Still more documented Church error.

Post #47

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to polonius.advice]


The Galileo Affair is one of the most misunderstood events in history. And is not as black and white (the Church vs. science) as most like to make it out to be. It was actually more of a political and personal nature.

As can be seen from the historical reports from Wikipedia, the notion that Galileo’s findings contradicted Scripture evolved as mere opinion of some during this time period. Also, although many within the Church had no problem with Galileo’s findings and even encouraged him in pursuing them further, none of his findings had been proven or corroborated yet. Galileo was insisting the Church to accept that which even Galileo’s own scientific community had not done yet. Also, Galileo insisted his findings contradicted Scripture. The Church asked him to stop talking about theological matters (as he had no authority to do so), but he refused. This forced some within the Church to feel the need to suppress him from speaking further until the Church could look further into what they might have felt was a discrepancy with his findings and Scripture. Even though they soon recognized there was no discrepancy to reconcile. So, like I said the Church screwed up in handling the whole thing, but Galileo screwed up too. And the whole thing caused a big mess.

Here are some words from Wikipedia giving a more accurate view of history . . .

Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas; however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations.


Galileo became involved in a dispute over priority in the discovery of sunspots with Christoph Scheiner, a Jesuit. This became a bitter lifelong feud. Neither of them, however, was the first to recognise sunspots—the Chinese had already been familiar with them for centuries.[10]

At this time, Galileo also engaged in a dispute over the reasons that objects float or sink in water, siding with Archimedes against Aristotle. The debate was unfriendly, and Galileo's blunt and sometimes sarcastic style, though not extraordinary in academic debates of the time, made him enemies. During this controversy one of Galileo's friends, the painter Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, informed him that a group of malicious opponents, which Cigoli subsequently referred to derisively as "the Pigeon league,"[11] was plotting to cause him trouble over the motion of the earth, or anything else that would serve the purpose.[12] According to Cigoli, one of the plotters asked a priest to denounce Galileo's views from the pulpit, but the latter refused. Nevertheless, three years later another priest, Tommaso Caccini, did in fact do precisely that.

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[13] though Copernican theories were used to reform the calendar in 1582.[14]

Geostaticism agreed with a literal interpretation of Scripture in several places, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 (but see varied interpretations of Job 26:7). Heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth was a planet, which along with all the others revolved around the Sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.[citation needed]

One of the first suggestions of heresy that Galileo had to deal with came in 1613 from a professor of philosophy, poet and specialist in Greek literature, Cosimo Boscaglia.[15][16] In conversation with Galileo's patron Cosimo II de' Medici and Cosimo's mother Christina of Lorraine, Boscaglia said that the telescopic discoveries were valid, but that the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture.

Galileo was defended on the spot by his former student Benedetto Castelli, now a professor of mathematics and Benedictine abbot. The exchange having been reported to Galileo by Castelli, Galileo decided to write a letter to Castelli,[18] expounding his views on what he considered the most appropriate way of treating scriptural passages which made assertions about natural phenomena.[19] Later, in 1615, he expanded this into his much longer Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.[20]

Tommaso Caccini, a Dominican friar, appears to have made the first dangerous attack on Galileo.

In late 1614 or early 1615, one of Caccini's fellow Dominicans, Niccolò Lorini, acquired a copy of Galileo's letter to Castelli. Lorini and other Dominicans at the Convent of San Marco considered the letter of doubtful orthodoxy, in part because it may have violated the decrees of the Council of Trent:

...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...
— Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[25]


The Council of Trent (1545–63) sitting in the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. The Roman Inquisition suspected Galileo of violating the decrees of the Council. Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trento.
Lorini and his colleagues decided to bring Galileo's letter to the attention of the Inquisition. In February 1615 Lorini accordingly sent a copy to the Secretary of the Inquisition, Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrati, with a covering letter critical of Galileo's supporters:[26]

All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church...
— Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Langford, 1992[25]
Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Again, it is extremely important to recognize the Church did not set out to stand in the way of Galileo, but Galileo himself made the conclusion his findings contradicted Scripture and was telling everyone that – which was not true. So, gut reaction of the Church was to defend current scientific thought.
The Church was buying time until she could adequately explain to the faithful Church teaching. She did not want to scare anyone that Galileo had discovered something that contradicted Scripture – like he was insisting he had.

User avatar
Benoni
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 8:31 am
Location: Wilson NY (Niagara County)

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #48

Post by Benoni »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Benoni]
Church…. ecclesia� Greek called out


God calls men not systems.
There is a true Church and a false Church; Baby lon is the false church; while the true Church is not a building, a system, denomination but Christ with in us, the hope of Glory.
Matt 7:13-15
This is a common error in interpretation. It is unscriptural and illogical to conclude the Church has not a visible earthly entity.



Yet, Paul did speak of "one faith," and the first great Church gathering, around the year 50 in Jerusalem, was without doubt the manifestation of a visible Church. There the apostles, the quite visible leaders of the Church, made one of the earliest universal decisions, exempting Christians from Judaic law.


Ignatius of Antioch speaks of a visible Church when he outlines its nature in 107, marking it, for the first time of which we have record, as the "Catholic Church": "Where the bishop is found, there let the people be, even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."


To acknowledge that Christ did establish a visible Church necessarily would demand that that Church be identified, singled out from other claimants, and its authority accepted. Few Protestants relish such a task. They don't want to examine the tree and its branches. Their argument for an invisible Church becomes an argument made conclusion-end first.


Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).


Christ's Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It's almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn't quite know what he was doing.


A point which Boettner and likeminded controversialists appear to overlook is that only a visible, authoritative Church could have set in place the pillars that would support Christian belief and practice through the ages. To those who cry "Prove it!" here are a few examples:


1. Codification of the Bible. The Bible did not codify itself, did not specify which books, among many, were to be seen as inspired. A visible, authoritative body, comprised of bishops, decided the content of the canon.


2. The worldwide councils. Christianity's doctrinal parameters have been charted by the ecumenical councils, now numbering 21, each conducted under the authority of the visible, universal Church. Not once in those 21 sessions did an "invisible" group of bishops meet and deliberate. 3. The Lord's day. The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.


4. Christmas and Easter. The Bible nowhere mentions the word "Christmas" or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn't arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for the two key feasts.


5. The calendar. It is Christ's visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.


Are we under Christ's Church visible or invisible? Is it a Church of authority or an amorphous "worldwide community of believers"? Is it divinely appointed in time and place or lacking enough substance even to make itself known? Any useful understanding of the locus of Christian authority must flow from questions such as these.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -invisible
There is two churches in the Bible the true church with in us. And Baby-lon the outward physical church... Little "c"

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Still more documented Church error.

Post #49

Post by polonius »

RightReason wrote:
Right Reason claimed:
The Galileo Affair is one of the most misunderstood events in history. And is not as black and white (the Church vs. science) as most like to make it out to be. It was actually more of a political and personal nature.
RESPONSE: Nonsense! The Church misinterpreted scripture, pure and simple as its word plainly show. In particular the Church relied on the Book of Joshua in which the sun stood still in the sky, or so the story said so.

It also took Psalm 104 literally that the earth could not be moved.
"You fixed the earth on its foundation, so it can never be shaken."

The Church couldn't admit that Scripture contained errors.

'..in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture

Even today some fundamentalists and literalists write long tracts trying to convince readers that the obvious Church error rally wasn't an error.

But of course, it was.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

Post #50

Post by Justin108 »

RightReason wrote:
Do you have any scriptural support that Christ established the Catholic Church specifically?
Sure. Christ established His Church, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church�. Peter was the first Pope and there has been an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession ever since. Jesus said, “Whoever hears you, hears me, . . . “ “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�. Jesus said He will remain with His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Catholic Church meets the four marks of Christ’s Church (which are all mentioned in Scripture) and only the Catholic Church can trace its origin back to the Apostle Peter. All other Christian religions were founded at some other period in history. In fact, many not even until the 1900’s. If we believe Christ’s words that He would remain with His Church and that His Church shall be guided in all truth, then it would be impossible to believe His Church would be hidden or not visible for a period of time – only say to be discovered by someone like George Fox, or Charles Taze Russel, or John Wesley, or John Calvin, or Billy Graham, etc.
I'll need verse numbers, not just "Jesus said"
RightReason wrote: It means she cannot make mistakes when speaking ex cathedra. The Church is made up of fallible human beings and therefore those within the Church certainly can make mistakes and screw up – yes, even priests, but Christ promised she would not err in her teachings on matters of faith and morals.
Does the Church not also teach that using contraceptives is immoral?

Post Reply