Let us say that Protestants interpret Scripture. They do this by considering Scripture itself, and coming up with ideas about what it means. (And let me say here, I know some super-incredible Protestants who love the Lord, and I in no way want to bash anyone, because how could I do that, knowing some of these terrific Protestant Christians? So please, if I write anything badly, please don’t take it in a bad way, because I don’t know much about how Protestants operate, so I might make a mistake.)
Here (http://www.baptisthistory.org/pamphlets/baptism.htm) in an article about baptism and the Baptists, it says, “Leaders like John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton among the General Baptists in England **searched the New Testament and arrived at conclusions** about the true nature of the church,” so they seem to have considered what it says in the Bible and come to a determination of the meaning, which is what I am assuming Protestants mean when they talk about interpreting the Bible.
So now, let’s consider a Greek word which can be translated as either “repent” or “do penance.” I once looked this up in a Catholic Bible and in several Protestant bibles, and in the Catholic bible, every instance was translated “do penance,” and in the Protestant bibles, it was always translated “repent.”
The definition of “penance” is “voluntary self-punishment inflicts as an outward expression of repentance for having done wrong.” (This is from the first Google search response, which shows up on the list of links). The definition of “repent” from the same source is to “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin.” Merriam-Webster has “to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life.”
So you see that how the Catholics translate this Greek word and how the Protestants translate it differs and that this has had a great effect on the teachings of the two groups.
_____________________________________
Now let’s look at the history of the early Church and Scripture, as an **explanation** of what the Catholic Church teaches:
When considering the history of the early Church, we see that “Scripture” as we know it did not exist. When Christ referred to Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament. At the beginning of the early Church, there were no “Christian” writings at all.
Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostles.
As Christian leaders began to write (or be transcripted), certain individual documents were accepted as very important or inspired (the Gospels and the letters of St Paul), but there are records of texts later excluded from the canon of Scripture being accepted, and of course we know that the eventual Canon includes works which were neither a Gospel nor a letter of St Paul.
How were these various works evaluated? By their adherence to the teachings Christ had left with the Apostles and which had been handed down by the Apostles.
History shows us that the development of doctrine and of the teachings of Christianity in the early years did not proceed in the way these things happen now among Protestants. The early Christians did not search through a book to figure out what the Christian teachings were or should be, to discover, for example, the nature, effect, and proper procedure for baptism, because the writings to do that with did not yet exist.
What came first were the teachings. First the Apostles taught, then gradually some information was written down. There was a foundation of teaching which existed and which was transmitted to those who wanted to convert which existed before any “NT” writings at all.
Thus, the understanding of the word now translated as either “do penance” or “repent” (for example) in the early Church was based, **not** on the Bible, but on the teachings of Christ themselves. The early Christians understood the meaning of this word because an Apostle or the disciple of an Apostle explained it to them if they understood it in the wrong sense., and later, because the early Christians continued to pass on the teachings of Christ, we understood that what Christ wanted was more than repentance; He wanted penance from us as well.
Thus we can see that the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture in the way that Protestants do. Instead, we have an understanding of Scripture based on the teachings which Christ gave to the Apostles, and which have been handed down to us, protected by the Holy Spirit. We understand what is meant by the ambiguous Greek word for do penance/repent, because of our teachings.
And so…. long, long ago you and others asked for a list of Scripture readings which had been “interpreted” by the Church. I hope that this little tome of mine explains why our list is so short.
.
I guess that catholics are so bombarded with man made stuff that it is natural for them to assume that others are the same, but its not that way.
Protestants don’t interpret the Bible; we just read it and let the Holy Spirit tell us what we are seeing.
The more of the Bible you read, and the more often you read it, the easier it gets.
Paul told us that Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That is a revelation of God’s plan for our education by one of the greatest students of all time.
Now lets look at your words. Repent and do penance are not even close to the same thing.
To repent is to truly hate and regret one’s sin, while doing penance is just doing rote mechanics demanded by another. doing penance is acting, pure and simple. It doesn’t require true repentance, any more than writing sentences on the blackboard.
Doing penance gets in the way of true repentance, and for no good purpose, since we cannot pay for our own sins. Doing penance is seeking righteousness through dead works.
When we actually confess and repent of our sins to the extent that we learn not to repeat that sin, it pleases God, and he writes that into our hearts so that we are assisted by the Holy Spirit to go forward without that sin.
Your assertion that the early worship was not based on the Bible could not be more false if you had deliberately set out to deceive us.
The Acts of the apostles, and the epistles of Paul make it plain that the early worship was solidly grounded in Torah. They kept the feasts diligently, and honored the Sabbath as though their lives depended on it. Just use an online concordance and search the names of the feasts, and the words Sabbath, Sabbaths, Commandments, ordinances, and you will see that that was the core of all worship.
The silly notion that the early believers worshiped on sunday was born out of misunderstanding one of the most beloved traditions followed by the early believers: Havdalah. That was the coming together on what we now call Saturday evening at sundown for potluck style dinners, and Bible study. “Saturday evening” as we know it was “The first day of the week” to the early christians. They went by God’s days, not Roman days.
You may recall that one of them fell out of an upper story window when he fell asleep during one of Paul’s long Havdalah sessions and had to be resurrected.
.
Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostles.
Sigh.....
Most of the NT was written by the apostles themselves. And the letters were circulated to the churches as Paul instructed.
Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture before he died.
bb has the best grasp on the early writings of the church.
My goodness. The RCC has had 2,000 YEARS to write interpretations of the Bible.
They sure had enough time to write out that list of anathemas for anyone who disagreed with them.
No it can't be...
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.
You can't get penance out of that...
When considering the history of the early Church, we see that “Scripture” as we know it did not exist. When Christ referred to Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament. At the beginning of the early Church, there were no “Christian” writings at all.
Completely untrue...Plenty of the Old Testament writings were Christian writings...
Jesus constantly referred to O.T. scripture that revealed himself in the N.T....Jesus referenced many prophecies in the O.T.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
The Eunuch of Acts got saved by hearing Old Testament scripture only...
Everything that new Christians learned in those early times was the information transmitted from Christ through the Apostles, and then to their disciples. There were no writings to interpret—the information was what Christ had taught the Apostle
And then it was transferred to writing...Exactly as this verse projects...
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Whether they heard it being taught and then later when it was committed to paper, to read...
Thus, the understanding of the word now translated as either “do penance” or “repent” (for example) in the early Church was based, **not** on the Bible, but on the teachings of Christ themselves. The early Christians understood the meaning of this word because an Apostle or the disciple of an Apostle explained it to them if they understood it in the wrong sense.
Pure, unbiblical conjecture, based on NOTHING...
Thus we can see that the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture in the way that Protestants do. Instead, we have an understanding of Scripture based on the teachings which Christ gave to the Apostles, and which have been handed down to us, protected by the Holy Spirit.
Oh what nonsense...The apostles did not hand anything down to the Catholic religion other than what is recorded in scripture...
We understand what is meant by the ambiguous Greek word for do penance/repent, because of our teachings.
The word is not ambiguous and your statement is telling...You invent a doctrine and then you invent a new definition of a word to support your doctrine...
Having admitted down-thread that the Scriptures in the hands of the Early Church were the Hebrew Scriptures, Don't you think that it would be wise to understand the Hebrew concept?
The concept is teshuva, and follows fairly closely to the definition of repentance as noted by Protestants... However, I will give you a fig leaf - There is a form of penance in modern Judaism at least, in that one must confess to the one(s) harmed by your actions, and do all you can to repair any harm you have caused. It is important to understand that forgiveness is not offered by a priest, but rather from those whom you have offended.
However, that isn't much of a fig leaf, because the normative Protestant sense of repentance generally assumes these things...
But in the ancient sense, the concept means to turn - to turn once again to face YHWH and away from one's sins... To go back to the path of Torah. If forgiveness cannot be found in those you have offended, your appeal ultimately rests in YHWH, who promises to forgive you like you have forgiven others...
So with that in mind, maybe there is some middle ground to be found in following Torah.