How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Bonarges]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

 

[ufamtobie]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

Bonarges,

So true!

Ufamtobie

 

[adelore]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

Now this is very good. I await answers from others as I have in the past, (for the years I was away from the Catholic Church) heard these points of view more times than I can remember. Each one told me the other was wrong. How could that be I asked. Things like this is what brought me Back home after almost 20 years of being away from the Catholic Church.

 

[choy]

to answer #2, the pastor of a particular congregation decides who is right and who is wrong. then the person who was wrong leaves the congregation and forms his own church where his interpretation is right

thats why we literally have thousands of different protestant denominations today

 

[JonNC]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

On this issue of Baptism, Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture. This is true of the Eucharist, as well.
It would not be “a Lutheran” who walks up to scripture, as that would imply individual interpretation, which Lutherans do not practice. When one reads the Lutheran Confessions, one will find often a positive reference to the ECF’s and the early councils.

A question in return:

A Catholic walks up to sacred Tradition and says the pope is absolutely infallible, and has universal jurisdiction. He then points to scripture and Tradition, the early ecumenical councils to support his contention.

A Orthodox walks up to Sacred Scripture and says the councils teach that the pope has only jurisdiction in the west, a is not infallible when speaking ex cathedra. He then points to scripture and Tradition, the early ecumenical councils to support his contention.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But Jon, no Catholic says the Pope is ‘absolutely infallible’.

We do say infallible in teaching on matters of faith and morals but that is not absolutely infallible.

In regard to the other point, obviously this is where either the Catholics are right (and the Orthodox are wrong) or the Orthodox are right (and the Catholics are wrong).

Got a question for you --after the big schism in 1054, did the Orthodox ever come on board and ‘rejoin’ the Western (Latin/Catholic Church) even if only briefly?

If they did, especially if they did so more than once, then it would incline one to believe in the Catholic position.

Now I’ve been reading Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church by H. W. Crocker III. Haven’t finished it yet but I’m getting up to the Reformation. And I was intrigued to see that according to Mr. Crocker, there were at least two (that I remember, possibly more) times in the period between 1054 and the Reformation where the Orthodox DID (temporarily) rejoin and the schism was healed.

(pg 135 "Liberating the Byzantines: . . .In 1054, Rome viewed the schism with the East as temporary–as it still does today–in line with so many other Eastern fits of pique and madness and indeed, over the centuries the schism has occasionally, if only momentarily, been healed… .)

 

[JonNC]

=Tantum ergo;6737008]But Jon, no Catholic says the Pope is ‘absolutely infallible’.
We do say infallible in teaching on matters of faith and morals but that is not absolutely infallible.

You’re right!! And I know better!! I said it better in the other line, - when speaking ex cathedra. i was trying to make a point, and worded things very poorly.

In regard to the other point, obviously this is where either the Catholics are right (and the Orthodox are wrong) or the Orthodox are right (and the Catholics are wrong).

And this is my only point. It is because of human sin that our Church is in division and schism. There is division between Rome and Orthodoxy, Anglicans and Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians. Few Protestants will tell you this is ok. at least they shouldn’t.

The OP rightly points out that we don’t all agree on the one truth, and it is a sin we should all confess.

Got a question for you --after the big schism in 1054, did the Orthodox ever come on board and ‘rejoin’ the Western (Latin/Catholic Church) even if only briefly?

If they did, especially if they did so more than once, then it would incline one to believe in the Catholic position.

Perhaps so, perhaps no. I have said before that if Rome and Orthodoxy returned to full unity, that I would view this as an undeniable and, for me, irresistible movement of the Spirit within the Church.
As it stands now, schism goes both ways, and the OP’s question applies equally to the division between Rome and Orthodoxy as it does to the division between Lutherans and Baptists.

Now I’ve been reading Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church by H. W. Crocker III. Haven’t finished it yet but I’m getting up to the Reformation. And I was intrigued to see that according to Mr. Crocker, there were at least two (that I remember, possibly more) times in the period between 1054 and the Reformation where the Orthodox DID (temporarily) rejoin and the schism was healed.

(pg 135 "Liberating the Byzantines: . . .In 1054, Rome viewed the schism with the East as temporary–as it still does today–in line with so many other Eastern fits of pique and madness and indeed, over the centuries the schism has occasionally, if only momentarily, been healed… .)

And a confessional Lutheran should, must, in my opinion, view the division between Rome and Wittenburg as temporary. Or we are no longer a reformational Church, but then merely Protestant.
I’ll let the Orthodox contend with the implication that the “fits of pique and madness” are only theirs, and not equally Rome’s.

Jon

 

[Tocra]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

Bonarges,

Jesus said “I know my sheep and my sheep know me”. It is apparent from this statement that only those who know Christ will know Him for who He truly is. Of course, everyone says they know Him and we also know that many will eventually hear this “Go away you evil do-er, I know you not”

You mentioned the Holy Spirit. And you’re right. It is the spirit that gives understanding for only the spirit of God knows the mind of God. Yet again, we faced a dilemma, many also claim to have the spirit!

But the Bible teaches us this - 1 John 4:1 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

There is only ONE God and ONE Spirit and ONE Jesus. They are ONE.

There’s this saying - “Whoever wants to be my disciple, let him pick up his cross daily and follow me”. I think its very true. Instead of constantly accusing the other sides of being in error (except the obvious evil ones that deny the deity of Christ which makes them the Anti-Christ), we should be busy building ourselves up in the faith and relying on God.

Rome was not built in a day. Neither is a spiritual man built with one confession. Knowing God starts with fearing Him, Seeking Him, Knowing what He wants of you, doing it and doing it and doing it…and finally getting it. There is only 1 truth - Jesus Christ.
**
“I AM THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE, NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME”**

 

[justamoose89]

Instead of constantly accusing the other sides of being in error (except the obvious evil ones that deny the deity of Christ which makes them the Anti-Christ), we should be busy building ourselves up in the faith and relying on God.

I agree with that. But I have to say, Paul tells us that when one of our brothers are in error, we are to correct them in love. We should not be playing a game of “I’m right and you’re wrong, HA ha!”. But we should all, as Christian brothers and sisters, be constantly seeking Truth with all our hearts, and we should desires to lead others into that Truth as well. I think the OP was intended for “food for thought” for those who haven’t considered it, with an intent on bringing them into greater Truth.

If someone has an element of Truth that I don’t, I would fully expect (and desperately desire!) them to share with me so that I may know Jesus better than ever!

 

[Tocra]

I agree with that. But I have to say, Paul tells us that when one of our brothers are in error, we are to correct them in love. We should not be playing a game of “I’m right and you’re wrong, HA ha!”. But we should all, as Christian brothers and sisters, be constantly seeking Truth with all our hearts, and we should desires to lead others into that Truth as well. I think the OP was intended for “food for thought” for those who haven’t considered it, with an intent on bringing them into greater Truth.

If someone has an element of Truth that I don’t, I would fully expect (and desperately desire!) them to share with me so that I may know Jesus better than ever!

Justamoose, the only truth is Jesus, and He has already spoken in the Bible. Anything else outside is subject to scrutiny & suspect.

I personally believe in the immeasurable wisdom of God. “The wisdom of man is foolishness to God”. With that in mind, we should not attempt to implement ‘elements of truth’ outside of the Holy Bible. And I believe whatever God has NOT put in the Bible, He has meant it so.

If the Bible is unclear, there would be a reason just like there is a reason why Jesus also spoke in Parables. Some are not meant to perceive. If God wills that you understand, He will do so if you Ask & Seek.

Just like anything done outside of faith is Sin. Anything done outside of the Bible is not Scripture.

.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I personally believe in the immeasurable wisdom of God. “The wisdom of man is foolishness to God”. With that in mind, we should not attempt to implement ‘elements of truth’ outside of the Holy Bible. And I believe whatever God has NOT put in the Bible, He has meant it so.

That’s a problem as what makes up the canon of the Bible is not found in the Bible. Do you think God did not mean for us to know what the Scriptures actually are?

God bless

 

[Nine_Two]

But Jon, no Catholic says the Pope is ‘absolutely infallible’.

We do say infallible in teaching on matters of faith and morals but that is not absolutely infallible.

In regard to the other point, obviously this is where either the Catholics are right (and the Orthodox are wrong) or the Orthodox are right (and the Catholics are wrong).

Got a question for you --after the big schism in 1054, did the Orthodox ever come on board and ‘rejoin’ the Western (Latin/Catholic Church) even if only briefly?

If they did, especially if they did so more than once, then it would incline one to believe in the Catholic position.

Now I’ve been reading Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church by H. W. Crocker III. Haven’t finished it yet but I’m getting up to the Reformation. And I was intrigued to see that according to Mr. Crocker, there were at least two (that I remember, possibly more) times in the period between 1054 and the Reformation where the Orthodox DID (temporarily) rejoin and the schism was healed.

(pg 135 "Liberating the Byzantines: . . .In 1054, Rome viewed the schism with the East as temporary–as it still does today–in line with so many other Eastern fits of pique and madness and indeed, over the centuries the schism has occasionally, if only momentarily, been healed… .)

Perhaps you should find unbiased books to read. There were two occasions where reunion was quite close to happening, however it was as much a case as the Latins being accepted into the Orthodox fold as it was the Orthodox being accepted as Catholics. The Orthodox and Catholics disagree on who is in schism, and should reunion happen it will be a moot point, as such those who dwell on it as that book you’re reading, as as you seem keen to do, are only acting as a hindrance to that longtime goal of the two Churches. I for one will not accept union with those who insist on belittling my traditions any more than I imagine you would accept union with Orthodox who belittled Latin tradition - and there is much that could be belittled.

One who belittles those they court as allies has little business talking about the madness of anyone.

 

[Tocra]

That’s a problem as what makes up the canon of the Bible is not found in the Bible. Do you think God did not mean for us to know what the Scriptures actually are?

God bless

If one doubt that the death of a sparrow is seen by God, or doubt that the book he has written with his own hands is allowed by God, or doubt that evil will get its due thinking God is unaware, then that person has completely no regard for the power of the Almighty.

God is fully aware of everything that happens under the sun. Or do you think He needs to check with you on your judgement day on what you did on the 12th of June 2010?

What makes up the Canon of the bible? Really, should we really even worry or doubt? That God is ALL IN ALL.

Not one dot shall pass away.

If God will not even let one of your hair drop to the ground without His approval, how much less do you think He will allow anyone to meddle with what He has willed for His book - The Bible ? Do not be deceived.

Just as the Jews were made to walk round Jericho 7 times to bring down the wall, and not to the credit of the Jews yet only to perform a task to have God act on their behalf. Likewise, the Bible was not canonised by man but through a series of tumultous events that ultimately led to His compilation.

.

 

[Wesley7]

Got a question for you --after the big schism in 1054, did the Orthodox ever come on board and ‘rejoin’ the Western (Latin/Catholic Church) even if only briefly?

Something relevant - did you know there is the Western Rite in the Antiochian Orthodox Church that makes it very catholic.

 

[Wesley7]

How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

Because Sacred Scripture is read in a liturgical context guided by holy Tradition.

 

[Tocra]

Because Sacred Scripture is read in a liturgical context guided by holy Tradition.

I don’t know which sacred scripture you are referring to. But I find it sad that you have nothing else but to rely on man-made traditions.

For Christians, the Bible says this : John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

A Christian, a follower of the Shepherd does not need to rely on something as vague as tradition. He/She gets direct guidance from the Holy Spirit.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. - (Not the physical Jew, but the spiritual jew - Romans 2: 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.)

 

[Wesley7]

I don’t know which sacred scripture you are referring to. But I find it sad that you have nothing else but to rely on man-made traditions.

For Christians, the Bible says this : John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

A Christian, a follower of the Shepherd does not need to rely on something as vague as tradition. He/She gets direct guidance from the Holy Spirit.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. - (Not the physical Jew, but the spiritual jew)

The sacred scriptures I’m referring to is the entire New Testament.

Reading sacred scripture as a Protestant allows you to interpret the scriptures any way the individual sees fit. Most likely, this leads to incorrect and faulty interpretation because it is not read in a liturgical context. We read the Gospel of Jesus Christ (New Testament) scripture as part of the Divine liturgy. Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church . . .

Another thing to add, the Bible we had to day comes from the church. That why it is much better reading scriptures within the tradition of the church which of course is guided by the Holy Spirit.

My whole family on my mother’s side are Protestants.Thats the one the main differences that distinguishes Orthodoxy from Protestantism. You say that ‘Tradition’ is man made but that isn’t true because the Holy Spirit works in the orthodox church.

So, reading the gospel of Jesus Christ (the sacred scriptures) in the orthodox church proves to be a much more reliable way knowing the interpretation is correct.

 

[Teneas]

Just as the Jews were made to walk round Jericho 7 times to bring down the wall, and not to the credit of the Jews yet only to perform a task to have God act on their behalf. Likewise, the Bible was not canonised by man but through a series of tumultous events that ultimately led to His compilation.

.

Then the bible was changed some 1200 years later by a man. The point of the thread is not how great God is, think we all agree on that he is, but how do you know what interpretation to go by.

 

[Tocra]

The sacred scriptures I’m referring to is the entire New Testament.

Reading sacred scripture as a Protestant allows you to interpret the scriptures any way the individual sees fit. Most likely, this leads to incorrect and faulty interpretation because it is not read in a liturgical context. We read the Gospel of Jesus Christ (New Testament) scripture as part of the Divine liturgy. Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church . . .

Another thing to add, the Bible we had to day comes from the church. That why it is much better reading scriptures within the tradition of the church which of course is guided by the Holy Spirit.

My whole family on my mother’s side are Protestants.Thats the one the main differences that distinguishes Orthodoxy from Protestantism. You say that ‘Tradition’ is man made but that isn’t true because the Holy Spirit works in the orthodox church.

So, reading the gospel of Jesus Christ (the sacred scriptures) in the orthodox church proves to be a much more reliable way knowing the interpretation is correct.

How do you know these are works of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Tocra]

Then the bible was changed some 1200 years later by a man. The point of the thread is not how great God is, think we all agree on that he is, but how do you know what interpretation to go by.

Changed by a man, and God did nothing??? Think again.