Can anyone here who believes in the Protestant Christian doctrine which allows for "Personal Interpretation of the Bible" explain this?

[Jolly_Joe]

Hello Snow,

You are right, these people are “evil nut-jobs” and even worse, they are homicidal maniacs.

The persons that I have listed here, were not merely, members of a particular non-Catholic Christian denomination, they are the actual founders and leaders of “Bible based” non-Catholic Christian denominations.

They were “religious leaders”, were they not?

The Branch Dravidians’ still exit today.

The point that I am attempting to illustrate here is, the inherent danger associated with the errant belief, which allows for personal interpretation of the Bible

There is not a “non-Catholic Christian - Checks and Balance System” in place, where specific individuals are required to pass a background check or a psychological exam before they “interpret” the Bible, or before they start, there own “Christian”, “Bible based” denomination.

Anyone, with a Bible and charismatic personality can start a “Christian” Church based on this flawed belief.

You do not see a problem with this.

Sure, we know now, that these people were crazy but they did not die alone. They took many of their, innocent followers with them, followers, who were confident in their leader’s ability to, "personality interpret the Bible”.

Personal interpretation of the Bible, unchecked, is a flawed belief and an inherently dangerous belief that has resulted in some pretty horrific and tragic events…

Would it make any sense to allow, anyone who wants to, to pick up a Penal Code and “personally interpret the Law”? Of course not but for some reason this logic is not apply to the flawed doctrine, of personal interpretation of the Bible.

Do you disagree with these comments?

Yours thoughts?

The main point should be they weren’t bible based. They might have said they were but then one shouldn’t be fooled when someone says they are bible based when they are not should he? Maybe you are not familiar with either their teachings or the bible in order to tell that?

As for a checks and balances system, sure non Catholic groups can’t stop them. How’s that any different than the Catholic system? How does the Catholic system stop anyone from going out and starting their own group? It doesn’t. This whole thing is just a red herring.

The danger is not “personal interpretation” it supposed revelation and a leader thought to be God’s mouthpiece. But we can’t stop them from happening. I don’t know any way to get the Health and Wealth “prophets” off the tv except expose them and try to make sure people don’t send them money. We have a local “prophet” trying to build up a following, we let people know what’s wrong and too not be decieved. He uses his bible, but it’s a proof text to support him. One week he claims one revelation about the area and he proof texts it, the next week he claims an opposite one and he proof texts that too. Just because he uses the bible to proof text what he’s decided that day doesn’t make him bible based.

I would hope that you would come to understand the difference.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

:coffeeread:

Crazy Diamond;4538085:

we still see the Vatican as unable to make lasting statements, because you just never know how the doctrine will “develop.”

Evidently you don’t know what you are talking about.

Feel free to take it as evidence in that direction. There are certainly a great many subjects I don’t know much about.

Perhaps Protestants see Vatican teaching as lacking a solid anchor for some completely different reason. Feel free to inform me. :tiphat: (I’ve already heard “insanity,” “willfulness”, “stubbornness”, “denial”, and the like. Please cite some reason other than the general “bad character” category.)

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

You might enjoy John Henry Newman’s key work, *Essay and the Development of Christian Doctrine. *He wasn’t Catholic when he wrote it, by the way.

I’ll read it. I’ve not been much impressed by the quotes I’ve heard from him, but that could be just my general prejudice against the sanity of Anglicans. It’s been recommended often enough, I’ll have to pick it up. Promise: I’ll read it by the end of 2010.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

You raise some valid questions for non-Catholic Christians -

1. What does the Church believe?
2. Why do they believe it?
3. What is their Proof?
4. What is the background of this Church?
5. What is this Church’s “Roots” back to Jesus?

Those are excellent questions to ask of any tradition. It’s only fair to understand their answers to some degree before criticizing.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Hello again Crazy Diamond,

I’m still trying to figure out the meaning of your name.

It was given me by a Jewish friend in college. He thought I was a valuable person to know who got weird reactions from people. (Sometimes on purpose, I admit it.) My friend is a big Roger Waters fan, and the name comes from the song Shine On You Crazy Diamond. It was written to mourn the loss of sanity of the founder of Pink Floyd, Syd Barrett.

Personally, I know almost nothing about Roger Waters or Pink Floyd. One of many areas of ignorance.

I think that you would make a great Catholic!

My wife certainly thinks so. She has visions of me being a deacon. :getholy: You know, “it would be so nice” visions, not “Yea the Lord spake unto me” visions.

Why don’t you swim over to our side…what’s stopping you?

Oh dear, that would take quite a long post. Maybe I should write it anyway and post it as a series of threads for people to comment on. I’d have to start though with why I’m not Coptic. I’d have to finish with why I don’t particularly fit Protestant categories well either. It would probably end up being about a twenty or thirty thread series. It might work well; I’m not offended by people who try to convert me to their way of thinking, as long as it’s dignified.

BTW, we are both up way too late……don’t ya think?

I certainly was. I figured you had night shift. I just lack discipline in certain areas.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Personal interpretation of the Bible, unchecked, is a flawed belief and an inherently dangerous belief that has resulted in some pretty horrific and tragic events…

Would it make any sense to allow, anyone who wants to, to pick up a Penal Code and “personally interpret the Law”? Of course not but for some reason this logic is not apply to the flawed doctrine, of personal interpretation of the Bible.

It’s an useful analogy, from both sides. From the Protestant side, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, nor is incompetent counsel. Citizens are expected to follow the laws that apply to them. This doesn’t make any sense at all if citizens can’t comprehend those laws. (And, in some cases like murder, citizens mentally incapable of comprehending the law can’t be punished for breaking them in the same ways we punish adults.) The very idea of law implies that it is both accessible and comprehensible.

In other words, you’d better personally interpret it, and do so correctly. Failure could put you away for a long time.

From the Protestant perspective, Scripture has the same characteristics. It is accessible, it is comprehensible. When somebody argues for a wrong conclusion and cites Scripture, we feel we can trace the error back to the same list of errors that can be pointed out in any debate: taking things out of context, pushing a verse farther than it can reasonably be pushed, ignoring passages, etc.

Jewish culture in Jesus’ day assumed a strong personal knowledge of Scripture. The Jews knew they had been told (Deut 6):

6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

They knew it, and they did it, and they had strong personal knowledge and strong opinions about what different passages meant. If a rabbi made an outrageous statement, he’d better be able to back it up because everyone knew what he was talking about.

From the Protestant perspective, we don’t see any reason to believe that Moses’ prescription for the Jews to know Scripture well applies any less to us today. Experts can be helpful, no doubt about it. But relying on them entirely, especially when they start going well beyond the clear meaning of the passage, can be dangerous. We feel every Christian should know Scripture well enough to call people on it when they push Scripture beyond its clear meaning.

As an example:

Hundreds of years after Jesus, Maimonaides argued with Jewish women about the proper cleansing ritual for menstruation. The women took Moses’ prescription at face value (it meant less time “unclean”) while the rabbis wanted to add a chunk of time just to be sure. Maimonaides finally settled the argument by threatening to allow Jewish men to divorce any wife who disagreed, no questions asked. He threatened to not require the men to give a bill of divorce or the standard payment of the day to allow them to live for a while until they could find other support. In other words, he won the argument by threatening to selectively ignore other scriptures to punish anyone disagreeing. Wotta guy.

We Protestants generally see Catholic and Orthodox bishops the same way. They really, really, really believe it would be best if everyone believed and acted certain ways. Which is fine. Personal opinions are important and worth promoting. But when they get challenged and can’t back it up from Scripture, they get frustrated and threaten excommunication.

All of the men you cited in the OP held themselves to be the final interpreters of whatever revelation their followers held authoritative. No one could challenge them, no matter how nutty their interpretations. We Protestants don’t see the base problem with those cults as their insistence on a personal interpretation of Scripture, but the lack of challengeability of their interpretation. For their followers, their interpretation was unchallengeable, their interpretation was infallible. Therein lay the danger.

That’s kind of how we see it.

 

[ChristianKnight]

Can anyone here, who believes-in, the Protestant, non-Catholic Christian doctrine, which allows for - “Personal Interpretation of the Bible”… explain this?

David Koresh and the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, Branch Davidians

http://www.beyond.com.au/images/catalogue/mugshots - david koresh.jpg

Marshall Applewhite and the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, Heaven’s Gate

http://interactivesermon.typepad.com/interactive_sermon/images/2007/12/14/image_2.jpg

Jim Jonesand the non-Catholic “Christian” denomination, the Peoples Temple

http://www.deathreference.com/images/medd_01_img0078.jpg

****Weren’t these tragic situations, created by bad…horrible… ****personal interpretations of the Bible?

My concern here is with the flawed doctrine of “personal interpretation”.

I know that the extreme cases above, do not represent the beliefs of most Protestant denominations; however, they do illustrate a point and that is that “personal interpretation” is a flawed doctrine, that can lead to disastrous results

Your Thoughts?

Jimmy that makes about as much sense as saying Catholocism leads to mass genocide (Hitler was raised Catholic)

 

[Jimmy_B]

The main point should be they weren’t bible based. They might have said they were but then one shouldn’t be fooled when someone says they are bible based when they are not should he? Maybe you are not familiar with either their teachings or the bible in order to tell that?

As for a checks and balances system, sure non Catholic groups can’t stop them. How’s that any different than the Catholic system? How does the Catholic system stop anyone from going out and starting their own group? It doesn’t. This whole thing is just a red herring.

The danger is not “personal interpretation” it supposed revelation and a leader thought to be God’s mouthpiece. But we can’t stop them from happening. I don’t know any way to get the Health and Wealth “prophets” off the tv except expose them and try to make sure people don’t send them money. We have a local “prophet” trying to build up a following, we let people know what’s wrong and too not be decieved. He uses his bible, but it’s a proof text to support him. One week he claims one revelation about the area and he proof texts it, the next week he claims an opposite one and he proof texts that too. Just because he uses the bible to proof text what he’s decided that day doesn’t make him bible based.

I would hope that you would come to understand the difference.

Hello Jolly Joe,

Any “differences”, are those found “in the eye of the beholder” …Or, in the opinion of the person making it. In other words, “personal interpretation”… means just that, it allows individuals to “personally” interpret the Bible and come to their own conclusions.

Catholics are not free to act in a way contrary to Catholic teachings. If a Catholic “leaves the Church” to start his own belief system, based on his own “personal interpretations”, then he’s not Catholic anymore, is he? He has “excommunicated” himself…. by his own actions.

Thank you for your post.

Have a blessed Christmas!

 

[Chancellare]

:coffeeread:

Feel free to take it as evidence in that direction. There are certainly a great many subjects I don’t know much about.

Perhaps Protestants see Vatican teaching as lacking a solid anchor for some completely different reason. Feel free to inform me. :tiphat: (I’ve already heard “insanity,” “willfulness”, “stubbornness”, “denial”, and the like. Please cite some reason other than the general “bad character” category.)

You can start by reading Newman’s "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. It’s a treatise written by a former Anglican with almost mathematical precision.

Development of doctrine is a phrase coined by John Henry Newman and other theologians influenced by him to bring into fore the process by which Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements. It was published in 1845 in a form of an essay. Newman used the idea of development of doctrine to defend Catholic teaching from attacks by some Anglicans and other Protestants, who saw certain elements in Catholic teaching as corruptions or innovations. He argued that, on the contrary, various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants (such as devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Purgatory) had a developmental history analogous to doctrines that were accepted by Protestants (such as the Trinity or the divinity and humanity of Christ) and are in fact traceable to ECF teachings. This process of doctrinal developments were, in his view, the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first.

For those who search the truth, reason is the prefered way to reach it. Cardinal Newman was one example of such. He was credited as one Protestant who argued and wrote his way into Catholicism by embracing faith and reason.

It is hard to say the same for those who chose otherwise.

 

[SIA]

Hello SIA,

You are absolutely right, I know Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews etc… like you describe but you are talking about members and I was referring to the actual doctrinal and rule-set difference, which exist with, so many different Christian denominations.

I don’t usually post anything here were I specifically address the individual beliefs, of the members of any particular denomination, everybody is different, so that would be impossible.

I post my concerns with the leader, or founder of different denominations and with their "infallible’ doctrine, or that denominations “infallible” doctrine and set of beliefs.

The Roman Catholic Church is united under one leader, the Pope and one Magisterium. Moreover, if you go to a Catholic Mass this Sunday, where you live…the readings, prayers and songs are going to be the same in every Roman Catholic Church, worldwide…That’s one united belief, one body in Christ.

I know that some of the older Christian denominations, have a consistent liturgy but it is only consistent within there own denomination and often times limited by region and the further one gets from Catholicism and from the early Protestant denominations the more inconsistencies in Christian beliefs one finds.

Does this make any sense?

Thanks,

Peace

But you are incorrect Jimmy. Just you merely saying that thaey are untied doesn’t make it so. The Roman church saying that all of its faithful are united doesn’t make it so. If a Catholic willfully does not and will not believe in the Real Presence and still goes to mass, he or she is still counted and considered Catholic. I have known many Catholics over the years that are anything but united in their beliefs. Same goes for all churches. Your’s is not excluded.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Any “differences”, are those found “in the eye of the beholder” …Or, in the opinion of the person making it. In other words, “personal interpretation”… means just that, it allows individuals to “personally” interpret the Bible and come to their own conclusions.

Ah! Well, in that case, no such “doctrine of personal interpretation” exists. All Protestant denominations that I know of teach that an interpretation of Scripture must hold true to the basic rules of interpreting any written communication. That’s why the difference between a “Bible-derived” doctrine (I dislike the term “Bible-based.” It doesn’t mean anything to modern people and therefore lacks any ability to aid communication these days) and one blown with smoke and mirrors out a rear exit is not merely “in the eye of the beholder.” An interpretation either matches the rules or it doesn’t. Now, it’s certainly true that we have no official way to silence someone who just keeps insisting on a passionately held belief despite all evidence to the contrary.

You actually have a similar problem within the Vatican-led church. Anyone can read an official Vatican statement on a subject, or a series of statements that kind of surround an issue. Yet in order to apply it to a certain situation, you have to interpret it to that situation. Check out the Liturgy forum and you’ll see quite a lot of personal interpretation - simply because there are no official, direct answers to that exact question. (I find this thread particularly fascinating. They must have dissected Cardinal Arinze’s every facial tic trying to figure out exactly what he meant and how official it all was. The citations flew fast and furious. Great fun for those of us who love that kind of debate. I didn’t participate, though I engage in the angrily condemned practice nearly every mass.) We Protestants lack a mechanism to make such specific official statements - your church lacks the manpower.

Every tradition requires some level of personal application to the authoritative statements that apply. That application requires personal interpretation. That personal interpretation - in the case of EVERY tradition - has to fit the logical rules of interpreting any communication. Arguing that Catholic parishioners don’t need to engage in personal interpretation is like arguing they don’t need logic. It’s inherent in communication. You really can’t get rid of it.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Jimmy that makes about as much sense as saying Catholocism leads to mass genocide (Hitler was raised Catholic)

Aieee! :bigyikes: Goddard’s Law strikes after only 87 posts!

 

[ChristianKnight]

Aieee! :bigyikes: Goddard’s Law strikes after only 87 posts!

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Newman used the idea of development of doctrine to defend Catholic teaching from attacks by some Anglicans and other Protestants, who saw certain elements in Catholic teaching as corruptions or innovations. He argued that, on the contrary, various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants (such as devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Purgatory) had a developmental history analogous to doctrines that were accepted by Protestants (such as the Trinity or the divinity and humanity of Christ) and are in fact traceable to ECF teachings.

Yes, that would be interesting. As I say, I’ve not been impressed up to this point by Cardinal Newman quotes, but I’ve also only seen outrageous quips. It’s only fair to let his arguments speak for themselves. It will be interesting to see what limits he placed on developmental doctrine. I’ve read that the Nestorians, for example, were once the most numerous and far-flung branch of Christianity, with missions as far away as China. Yet in the end they were condemned as heretics. It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with them, and the Orthodox.

This process of doctrinal developments were, in his view, the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first.

For those who search the truth, reason is the prefered way to reach it. Cardinal Newman was one example of such. He was credited as one Protestant who argued and wrote his way into Catholicism by embracing faith and reason.

Reason is indeed the preferred method. The pagan Greeks had the best worked-out system of logic and rhetoric. It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with accepting Greek logic but rejecting pagan Greek culture. And since I’ve heard plenty of Baptists passionately argue that Scripture utterly condemns any drinking of alcohol :bigyikes: and long for a return to the good ol’ days, I’ve come to see that one can selectively find arguments for any “development” one really, really, really wants to see become universal. It’ll be interesting to see how Newman shows the difference between logically inevitable developments and those merely highly desired by particular parties or cultures.

I look forward to it. Can’t read it this year, sadly, but I’ll get to it next year.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Goddard’s Law is that if an argument goes on long enough, someone will mention Hitler or the Nazi party.

Others state it as something more along the lines of “the first one who makes a Hitler comparison in an argument loses.” That version is often called “reductio ad hitleram.”

 

[ChristianKnight]

Goddard’s Law is that if an argument goes on long enough, someone will mention Hitler or the Nazi party.

Others state it as something more along the lines of “the first one who makes a Hitler comparison in an argument loses.” That version is often called “reductio ad hitleram.”

Sounds rather retarded, cause bringing Hitler up for no reason would be retarded. But he compared Protestants to very bad people, which is retarded, cause just cause your a protestant doesn’t mean your gonna be a murderer. Neither does being a priest mean your gonna rape little boys, neither does being a catholic make you anything like hitler.

 

[Rolltide]

Sounds rather retarded, cause bringing Hitler up for no reason would be retarded. But he compared Protestants to very bad people, which is retarded, cause just cause your a protestant doesn’t mean your gonna be a murderer. Neither does being a priest mean your gonna rape little boys, neither does being a catholic make you anything like hitler.

Goddard’s Law is a bit of an inside joke on this board… nothing more…

 

[Chancellare]

Yes, that would be interesting. As I say, I’ve not been impressed up to this point by Cardinal Newman quotes, but I’ve also only seen outrageous quips. It’s only fair to let his arguments speak for themselves.

Strawman arguments.
Thank you for recognizing your own misunderstanding. But Newman’s works cannot speak to those who don’t read…

It will be interesting to see what limits he placed on developmental doctrine. I’ve read that the Nestorians, for example, were once the most numerous and far-flung branch of Christianity, with missions as far away as China. Yet in the end they were condemned as heretics. It’ll be interesting to see how he deals with them, and the Orthodox.

The Nestorian heresy is a good example of how an erroneous doctrine cannot be accepted just like that. Had there been previous doctrines(Scriptural or Holy Tradition) supporting the separation of Christ’s divinity from His human person, that would have set off a serious study on the matter right then and there. But since there was none, the discussion cannot take place and it has to be rejected as heresy. Thanks for picking a didactic illustrative example of how development of doctrines works.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Strawman arguments.

Yes, that’s been my impression of Newman’s arguments based on his quips.

Thank you for recognizing your own misunderstanding.

I don’t know yet if I have misunderstood, but it’s highly probable I’ve misunderstood to one degree or another. That’s always the danger of
a) trying to figure out what the argument was based on the concluding remarks and
b) trying to figure out how the argument would extend without access to the original argument.

But Newman’s works cannot speak to those who don’t read.

Nor can Scripture. Accessibility to the illiterate has always been one of the weaknesses of the Sola Scriptura principle.

The Nestorian heresy is a good example of how an erroneous doctrine cannot be accepted just like that. Had there been previous doctrines(Scriptural or Holy Tradition) supporting the separation of Christ’s divinity from His human person, that would have set off a serious study on the matter right then and there. But since there was none, the discussion cannot take place and it has to be rejected as heresy. Thanks for picking a didactic illustrative example of how development of doctrines works.

You’re welcome. I disagree slightly as to the reason for rejection - I think if there had been no evidence against such separation, the discussion could have taken place.

I’ve never studied the Nestorians in particular. I usually use them as a counterexample to the argument that the currently largest branch of Christianity must be the right one, followed by the counterexample that the Orthodox were the most numerous once the Nestorians had been pruned back.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, that’s been my impression of Newman’s arguments based on his quips.

Newman’s style does not lend itself to “quips.” He is a painstaking, deliberate, step-by-step thinker, steeped in Scripture and the Fathers.