Private Interpretation of Scripture

[stevekehl]

The above is all true of course. The trouble, though, is that very principle of private interpretation does allow for individuals to develop their own intepretations independently of any congregation. Strong willed individuals who do this can convince others of their teachings and they follow him resulting in a new denomination.

Yes, scripture must interpet scripture, and the context of the verses must be considered. Now, to extend this principle a little bit, a Catholic will say that scripture itself must be interpreted in context, and that context is Tradition. Just like a bible verse must be interpeted within the context of the surrounding verses, and similar subjects elsewhere in scripture, the bible itself must be interpreted within the context in which it was formed. If you rip a verse out of context, you will misunderstand it, and likewise, if you rip the bible out of its context, you will misunderstand it. The Bible does not stand alone.

This is what Catholics think Protestants have done, they have ripped the bible out of its context, taken it alone, and hence misunderstand it. “'Scripture interprets scripture.” A broader way to say it would be “God’s word inteprets God’s word.” In this case God’s word includes Tradition as well. So, Tradition interptets scripture, from a Catholic point of view. This Tradition is believed to have come from the apostles and early Christians themselves.

When you interpret scripture, you aren’t doing it just for yourself, but for everybody else too, since the message of scripture is for all. That’s a huge responsibility, and dangerous as well, because Peter says that the ignorant twist scriptures to their own destruction.

As you have said, people can and do use Scripture to manipulate others to their own ends. This is how cults develop, Jim Jones’ People’s Temple started out as a Church of Christ. If they want to register with the government as a Protestant denomination no one can stop them. This is an example of not letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

I’m not sure what you mean by Tradition. In my denomination (Church of Christ/Christian Churches), Scripture does stand alone. We have a guideline when it comes to interpreting Scripture: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where it is silent, we are silent; in all things, love.” So let’s say someone comes to me as an elder and says Christians should follow a Kosher diet, this is commanded in Deuteronomy and God’s word stands forever. I would point out that Jesus said what goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean (Mark 7:14-16) and Peter’s vision of the unclean animals and God’s command that he kill and eat (Acts 10:9-15). Since eating a kosher diet has no bearing on salvation we may disagree and each follow our dietary preference. Now if this person said Christians can be saved by eating a kosher diet and need not repent and be baptized, then there would be a problem (We believe the process of salvation is hearing, believeing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized). In this case, Scripture absolutely contradicts this interpretation and is crucial to salvation.
The passage in Mark mentined above also contains Jesus’ warning against following earthly traditions that contradict Scripture. Anyone who teaches or instructs believers will be held to a higher standard when we stand before God. I for one take Scriptural interpretation very seriously and never hesitate to accompany it with meditation and prayer.
Hope you had a lessed Palm Sunday.

 

[jcrichton]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

Hi Timonator!

The problem with Protestants is just that, they protest!

…just look at the 66 books fable; they (at least those that I’ve come across) stedfastly believe that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible; they ignore completely (but mostly selectively) the history of the Church (2000 yrs or so) in order to rely on their own denominational, sometimes fractured, historywhich, depending upon the branch, is not even more than one fourth of the Catholic’s existence so unless they do some mighty contortions they cannot claim succession of the Apostles.

They’ve created the fable of the “extinguished Church” where the “true” Church was forced into hidding and the Roman Church usurped it–the huge problem with this theory is that that would mean that the Catholic Church is Mightier than the Allmighty since, in essence, it kept the Holy Spirit bound for nearly 1500 yrs… this, of course, springs the second fallacy: Martin Luther, being even mightier than God and the Catholic Church put together, is the only one that manages to restore the “true” church by reaching into time and claiming the Authority Christ delegated to St. Peter and the other Apostles.

So no matter how humble you are as soon as you challange any of their dogmas (which they claim they do not have, yet 40+ thousands of denomenations have either written or oral codes/laws/statutes that determines their flavor of theology (religious belief)/worship (i.e.: sola Scriptura which is based on Luther’s own interpretation and extrapolation of Scriptures and/or what he perceived as the “guidance” of the Holy Spirit in his enlightenment about the “truth.”); they reason more from tradion (man’s effort “to be or not to be”) than from genuine “sola Scriptura” as they follow a man that reinvented Christ’s Church in his own image (“faith alone” existing only in his mind not in Scritpures as attested by St. James, which contradicts him–so Luther relegated this Sacred Writings to “the gosple of straw”).

…as for the Protestants’ claim to “sola Scriptura,” that is foiled by their rejection of Scritpures as they selectively apply or reject Jesus’ own words: “…be One…” ‘well that does not realy mean One Church and One Baptism;’ “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” ‘well this speaks on anything but the Catholic Church…’ “if you do not eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you cannot be my Disciples…” ‘well, that means, you know, the Bible or anything other than what the Catholic Church claims…’ “…not all who call me Lord, Lord…?” ‘nagh, it only seems like Jesus wants His Disciples to serve others–all you do need for salvation is to be born again… here’s the prayer…’

…the best you can do, beside praying, is to learn more about your own Faith and familiarize yourself with Sacred Scriptures so that you may share more about the Catholic Church–at worse you would cause your friend to pause and think about the origin of Protestanism.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[praxising]

I’m not sure what you mean by Tradition. In my denomination (Church of Christ/Christian Churches), Scripture does stand alone. .

After Pentecost, there were Apostles and Disciples of Christ who spread the Gospel. But there was no Bible. There was an OT, of course, but no Gospels. After a while there were letters from Paul that were circulated, but that was a bit hit and miss and there were people taking the Gospel they received from the Apostles and Disciples, and they were delivering that Gospel to others. Still, no Bible. That’s Tradition.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2TH 3:6

The word tradition here is the Greek paradoses, here is the definition information from the Blue Letter Bible site:

1. giving up, giving over
   a) the act of giving up
   b) the surrender of cities

1. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching

b)** of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence**

In the part I bolded, you’ll notice the reference to precepts, esp. rituals, delivered orally by Moses and transmitted orally, expanding the written Law. And so, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was also delivered orally, though within a culture more settled and able to read and write, and so, much that was delivered orally was written down. So, the followers of Christ had no Scripture at first, just Tradition. Then they had many Traditional teachings written down, but only a limited number were included in the Canon, which became the Bible and even that, in 1885, had many writings removed from it by an American publisher and we then had two Bibles: the original KJV in America which had all the traditional books and the 66 book version of the KJV.

Interestingly, in neither of those collections of ancient writings does it say that anyone should depend solely on those writings for enlightenment. In the Church, we retain both the Canon of Scripture plus the complete writings, the Tradition, the other ancient writings that document the oral teachings the pre-date the Bible.

 

[mackbrislawn]

As you have said, people can and do use Scripture to manipulate others to their own ends. This is how cults develop, Jim Jones’ People’s Temple started out as a Church of Christ. If they want to register with the government as a Protestant denomination no one can stop them. This is an example of not letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

I’m not sure what you mean by Tradition. In my denomination (Church of Christ/Christian Churches), Scripture does stand alone. We have a guideline when it comes to interpreting Scripture: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where it is silent, we are silent; in all things, love.” So let’s say someone comes to me as an elder and says Christians should follow a Kosher diet, this is commanded in Deuteronomy and God’s word stands forever. I would point out that Jesus said what goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean (Mark 7:14-16) and Peter’s vision of the unclean animals and God’s command that he kill and eat (Acts 10:9-15). Since eating a kosher diet has no bearing on salvation we may disagree and each follow our dietary preference. Now if this person said Christians can be saved by eating a kosher diet and need not repent and be baptized, then there would be a problem (We believe the process of salvation is hearing, believeing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized). In this case, Scripture absolutely contradicts this interpretation and is crucial to salvation.
The passage in Mark mentined above also contains Jesus’ warning against following earthly traditions that contradict Scripture. Anyone who teaches or instructs believers will be held to a higher standard when we stand before God. I for one take Scriptural interpretation very seriously and never hesitate to accompany it with meditation and prayer.
Hope you had a lessed Palm Sunday.

And you too.

Tradition, for me would include the cultural setting and presuppositions of the time the scriptures were written, as well as the prior oral teachings given to the congregations to which they were addressed. These factors form the context of scripture and influence the way scripture is to be understood. In this viewpoint, the bible does not stand alone, but must be interpreted within its context.

As a simple example, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus died on a cross, because the scriptural word, stauros, does not mean cross, but merely upright stake. Hence, going by the bible alone Christians cannot affirm Jesus died on a cross, and so must drop that belief. However, tradition, meaning history and early Christian writings, does testify to the cross shape of the instrument. In this case the historical memory, external to scripture, helps us to understand scripture.

Another case is the deity of Christ. Again, Arians, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses deny his deity, based upon scripture. And I agree, based upon scripture alone, the case for His divinity is not strong. An Evangelical I know said, “Christ’s deity is taught in scripture, but is not defended in scripture.” However, the early Christians, knowing the Tradition, taught orally by the apostles and disciples, already knew Jesus was God, and didn’t have to study scripture to discover that. And when they did read scripture they knew how to understand and properly use the passages that teach His divinity.

Jack Lewis, in a lecture I attended at our local Church of Christ, stated the NT letters were occasional documents, written for a particular occasion or purpose. So, to me that means they are not meant to be complete in themselves, but must be understood in the context of the occasion, that is, Tradition.

The problem arises as the generations go on and it becomes possible to doubt Tradition, and when actual man-made traditions also enter and mix with apostolic Tradition. Denominations form. How to sort it all out? It’s tough. One solution is to forget all traditions and “go back to the bible.” Some people think this is the safest solution, even though there is the danger of throwing the baby out as well.

Of course, this solution also involves the assumption that everything was put into scripture to begin with, that we have all the scriptures, and that we in the modern time can still understand them in our new context, and in translation.

 

[Nicea325]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

First of all, Christ Church was not founded to be invisible. Second, ask your friend with what certitude does he have his intepretation of scripture is correct? Who is his authority stating he is correct? Scripture? Ask him where the Bible states the Bible is binded to 66 books? Where does the Bible mention a list of canonized books?

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not sure what you mean by Tradition. In my denomination (Church of Christ/Christian Churches), Scripture does stand alone.

Where does Scripture teach it stands alone in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Timonator348]

Another thought I had today about this whole stopcock is that everyone brings something to the @table with them when it comes to reading and interpreting Scripture. Based on our life experience, our parents, and trusted sources from which we have learned things we presume to be true and apply this overall outlook to reading the Bible. Obviously this will lead to a great variety of Biblical interpretation so what’s needed is to look at Scripture as what is the message God wants to convey? Our personal feelings are irrelevant to the truth of God and are often what are confused with “the Spirit moving us.” I think the best example of this is the Eucharist as in Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus actual words are “This is my body…this is my blood.” And in John 6 “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” and, “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If you read this on face value it’s meaning is obviously clear but if you read it in the light of already knowing/believing in your mind it is only symbolic then how can you NOT misinterpret passages like these in attempt to back up your theology?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Another thought I had today about this whole stopcock is that everyone brings something to the @table with them when it comes to reading and interpreting Scripture. Based on our life experience, our parents, and trusted sources from which we have learned things we presume to be true and apply this overall outlook to reading the Bible. Obviously this will lead to a great variety of Biblical interpretation so what’s needed is to look at Scripture as what is the message God wants to convey? Our personal feelings are irrelevant to the truth of God and are often what are confused with “the Spirit moving us.” I think the best example of this is the Eucharist as in Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus actual words are “This is my body…this is my blood.” And in John 6 “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” and, “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If you read this on face value it’s meaning is obviously clear but if you read it in the light of already knowing/believing in your mind it is only symbolic then how can you NOT misinterpret passages like these in attempt to back up your theology?

This is quite true. And this makes me think of the Church of Christ–from the Catholic perspective they are an honest and interesting group.

As explained to me by a Church of Christ evangelist, they had their beginnings during a Great Awakening in the early 19th century. Their founders were disturbed by the multiplicity of denominations that existed. They knew this was not the way it should be, and they decided the reason for all the different denominations was all the man made creeds and confessions, the Westminster confession, the Augsburg confession, the council of Dordt, and so on. So, forget about Calvin’s writings, Luther’s teachings, Wesley’s preaching…just go back to bible and let the bible speak.

And so they did. And in doing so, they discovered a soteriology, a doctrine of salvation, works, and baptism that sounds to us very Catholic. Just by reading the bible with an open mind and taking what is said at face value without preconceived notions, they rediscovered the Catholic teachings on the matters the initial reformers had denied.

In that sense they are not Protestants, because they do not have a typical Protestant theology. Their doctrine of church, though, is very congregationalist, each congregation being independent.

But they are an example of honestly reading the bible at face value.

 

[ctkrcia]

This is quite true. And this makes me think of the Church of Christ–from the Catholic perspective they are an honest and interesting group.

As explained to me by a Church of Christ evangelist, they had their beginnings during a Great Awakening in the early 19th century. Their founders were disturbed by the multiplicity of denominations that existed. They knew this was not the way it should be, and they decided the reason for all the different denominations was all the man made creeds and confessions, the Westminster confession, the Augsburg confession, the council of Dordt, and so on. So, forget about Calvin’s writings, Luther’s teachings, Wesley’s preaching…just go back to bible and let the bible speak.

And so they did. And in doing so, they discovered a soteriology, a doctrine of salvation, works, and baptism that sounds to us very Catholic. Just by reading the bible with an open mind and taking what is said at face value without preconceived notions, they rediscovered the Catholic teachings on the matters the initial reformers had denied.

In that sense they are not Protestants, because they do not have a typical Protestant theology. Their doctrine of church, though, is very congregationalist, each congregation being independent.

But they are an example of honestly reading the bible at face value.

Great points, Mark. However, the problem with their position is stated in your comment - each congregation is independent. I have personally challenged a CoC minister with this. If each congregation is independent, governed by a board of elders elected at each local congregation, how is it that each independent congregations all align in theology? He grinned and said while there is no overall governing body for all CoC’s, there is a very strong network between all churches.

My point is that while they boast autonomy, there is a very strong set of beliefs that is common across all congregations. One example is the lack of musical instruments. However, that too is being compromised in some of their congregations. This is met with much consternation by their brethren who don’t agree. The result will most certainly be a break off and the formation of a new CoC denomination.

While they are very, VERY honest about reading the Bible at face value, that most certainly leads to misinterpretations. This happens most especially where there are two or more valid interpretations of a scripture passage. Without the benefit of the historical interpretation and application in the Christian life (sacred Tradition), the wrong conclusion can easily be drawn.

The bottom line is that within their faith structure, there is no central final authority to set doctrine and let people know when they have strayed too far. Without a central authority, each congregation is left to flounder on their own. Even with a central authority, if it cannot show its roots in scripture or the early church, if it cannot show it has NOT changed its position on essentials of the faith, if it cannot show it has always been recognized as authoritative, then it is false. The only one who passes all these test is the Catholic church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Great points, Mark. However, the problem with their position is stated in your comment - each congregation is independent. I have personally challenged a CoC minister with this. If each congregation is independent, governed by a board of elders elected at each local congregation, how is it that each independent congregations all align in theology? He grinned and said while there is no overall governing body for all CoC’s, there is a very strong network between all churches.

My point is that while they boast autonomy, there is a very strong set of beliefs that is common across all congregations. One example is the lack of musical instruments. However, that too is being compromised in some of their congregations. This is met with much consternation by their brethren who don’t agree. The result will most certainly be a break off and the formation of a new CoC denomination.

While they are very, VERY honest about reading the Bible at face value, that most certainly leads to misinterpretations. This happens most especially where there are two or more valid interpretations of a scripture passage. Without the benefit of the historical interpretation and application in the Christian life (sacred Tradition), the wrong conclusion can easily be drawn.

The bottom line is that within their faith structure, there is no central final authority to set doctrine and let people know when they have strayed too far. Without a central authority, each congregation is left to flounder on their own. Even with a central authority, if it cannot show its roots in scripture or the early church, if it cannot show it has NOT changed its position on essentials of the faith, if it cannot show it has always been recognized as authoritative, then it is false. The only one who passes all these test is the Catholic church.

That is something I’ve wondered about regarding congregationalists–if each congregation is independent and in principle can form its own theology, how can they recognize one another as a Church of Christ? (Maybe they all root for the TCU football team.)

What they are is a reform of the Reformation, which reveals the prejudicial reading of scripture of the original reformers, and how the reformers personal lives and opinions influenced their ideas of scripture. How the traditions started by the reformers are really just examples of “man-made” traditions after all. Too bad actual apostolic tradition got forgot by everybody along the way.

 

[Timonator348]

The heart of what I’m trying to get at is if we are baptized and remain in a state of grace as strengthened by God and we are made a new creation and we then have the mind of Christ can we not properly understand Scripture on our own? Are there only certain parts like Paul’s letters which remain hard to understand? If Christ opens the Scriptures to us as in Luke 24:27 are we then able to interpret Scripture without error as a Christian? I think this is a matter of the 'ol “both/and” Catholic perspective as I think we can both understand much of God and our salvation through private reading of the Bible and we need guidance from the Church to come to full understanding. Help me out on this if someone can add anything different.

 

[jcrichton]

Another case is the deity of Christ. Again, Arians, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses deny his deity, based upon scripture. And I agree, based upon scripture alone, the case for His divinity is not strong.

I think that your problem, and that of those who chose to deny Christ’s Divinity is not that you cannot read it in the Sacred Scriptures, but that you choose to interpret God’s Word to mean what you say/think:

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

John 14:8-10
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Mark 2:7
“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:31-33
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

John 8:23-25
23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.

John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 1:1, 14
The Word Became Flesh ] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

…then there is the revelation to Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

…as the Disciples finally gets it:

John 16:30
Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

…as the doubter, Thomas, finally has that eureka moment:

John 20:27-29
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

…I can offer you more passages if you like!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Another thought I had today about this whole stopcock is that everyone brings something to the @table with them when it comes to reading and interpreting Scripture. Based on our life experience, our parents, and trusted sources from which we have learned things we presume to be true and apply this overall outlook to reading the Bible. Obviously this will lead to a great variety of Biblical interpretation so what’s needed is to look at Scripture as what is the message God wants to convey? Our personal feelings are irrelevant to the truth of God and are often what are confused with “the Spirit moving us.” I think the best example of this is the Eucharist as in Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus actual words are “This is my body…this is my blood.” And in John 6 “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” and, “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If you read this on face value it’s meaning is obviously clear but if you read it in the light of already knowing/believing in your mind it is only symbolic then how can you NOT misinterpret passages like these in attempt to back up your theology?

I concur; when man comes to Scritprues with preconceptions the text will only point to the personal bias; what I find truly interesting is that the sola Scripturists cannot find their theory in Scriptures and chose to reject Christ’s Word when He states that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Him to Guide and Teach and reveal the fullness of Truth–but this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals:

John 16:12-14
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

…and:

Acts 11-8
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

…and:

Philippians 1:27
Life Worthy of the Gospel ] Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel

…and:

1 Corinthians 12:13
13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Maran atha!

Angel**

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think that your problem, and that of those who chose to deny Christ’s Divinity is not that you cannot read it in the Sacred Scriptures, but that you choose to interpret God’s Word to mean what you say/think:

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

John 14:8-10
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Mark 2:7
“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:31-33
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

John 8:23-25
23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied.

John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 1:1, 14
The Word Became Flesh ] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

…then there is the revelation to Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

…as the Disciples finally gets it:

John 16:30
Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

…as the doubter, Thomas, finally has that eureka moment:

John 20:27-29
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

…I can offer you more passages if you like!

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes, for those of us who have the benefit of the original teaching from the apostles, Christ’s divinity seems obvious in scripture. We can see how it is taught, albeit mostly indirectly.

My point is that for those who come to scripture cold, from the outside, or those who for some reason jettison the original traditional teachings of the apostles (and we know who those are), it may not be so apparent. They may not know how to look at the proper passages, and may emphasize other passages instead, improperly. Their own prior prejudices may get in the way of understanding. The great scientist Isaac Newton was very religious and studied scripture, but for some reason he was blind to it, and was a heretic in regards to the Trinity.

No one comes to scripture without some sort of glasses on, which affect how they understand what they read. The glasses of course that we want to have on are apostolic glasses. And how do we get apostolic glasses? Only one way, by inheritance. By being born into them, by being born into the Church. They are inherited from the Church, and with these glasses, within the Church, scripture is to be understood.

 

[stevekehl]

You need to get more Protestants on this thread, I can’t keep up. So here is an attempt to answer some of the main points made.
praxising wrote there was no Scripture in the early church except the Old Testament. This is true and the Apostles used the Old Testament and their new testimony about Jesus together. Phillip explained how the prophecy in Isaiah was fulfilled in Christ to the Ethiopian eunich (Acts 8:26), in Hebrews Paul compares Christ to Melchizedek the priest of God Most High to whom Abraham gave a tenth of his possessions (this is a long discourse and dificult to summarize in a sentence), and Peter in his letter to God’s elect quotes Leviticus when he directs new believers to “Be holy, because I am holy” (I Peter 1:16). In this way, the apostles used their knowledge of the Old Testanment, their personal knowledge of the life and message of Jesus; which would become the Gospels, and their personal writings, which would become the New Testament, to teach and explain the Good News. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
mackbrislawn, I hope I got that right, makes an excellent observation about Scripture telling that Jesus was executed on a post. Although most people associate the crucifixion with Jesus nailed to a cross which was raised up and dropped into a hole. Actually, the Romans used a permanent post and a scaffold to hoist the cross member, victim attached, into the air and hang it from the post, the feet then nailed to the post. If you remember the mini-series Jesus of Nazareth the scaffold is shown. There are historical record of the Romans hanging cross members from trees and the walls of Jerusalem during major rebellions in Judea. Christians wear crosses because when the victim died the crossmember was hauled down, if the cross member is in place the person on it is Alive! Or in Jesus case alive agian, Hallelujah! So upon further examination the use of post is accurate, which I believe all Scripture is. The Epistles are not occaisional documents. The context can be seen within them, Corinthians addresses sexual immorality, and divisions within that congregation, but still applies today. From reading the Epistles we can see the issues of the day and understand the conditions within the congregations the letters were written to. You are right in saying we can understand apply these Apostolic directions today. Last, we don’t all cheer for TCU. Go Buckeyes!

Nicea325 Give me some time to answer your question about Scriptural authority. In return, could you tell me where does the Bible say to consult traditions when interpreting Scripture.

ctkrcia This is a true observation about music in the Church of Christ/Christian Church, some congregations sing with musical instruments and some don’t. Personally, my congregation plays music or sings with CDs, but we don’t think non-instrumental Christians are going to hell because they disagree with us. Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent, in all things,love. The Church of Christ does have an established doctrine, while we don’t recite creeds or group prayers, our doctrine is summed up by the Apostles Creed, believing the phrase Holy Catholic Church as One Holy Universal Church.
You are all making great observations and asking great questions. I look forward to your responses to this post, This was kind of rushed and covering a lot of material, I hope it was a good read. Everyone have a great Easter.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, for those of us who have the benefit of the original teaching from the apostles, Christ’s divinity seems obvious in scripture. We can see how it is taught, albeit mostly indirectly.

My point is that for those who come to scripture cold, from the outside, or those who for some reason jettison the original traditional teachings of the apostles (and we know who those are), it may not be so apparent. They may not know how to look at the proper passages, and may emphasize other passages instead, improperly. Their own prior prejudices may get in the way of understanding. The great scientist Isaac Newton was very religious and studied scripture, but for some reason he was blind to it, and was a heretic in regards to the Trinity.

No one comes to scripture without some sort of glasses on, which affect how they understand what they read. The glasses of course that we want to have on are apostolic glasses. And how do we get apostolic glasses? Only one way, by inheritance. By being born into them, by being born into the Church. They are inherited from the Church, and with these glasses, within the Church, scripture is to be understood.

I understand what you are saying… but I think that it is deeper than that (resolution to reject the Church’s Authority) because almost all of the passages I cited (excluding Thomas’ statement for which reason, common sense and some historical background is necessary) are very precise in demonstrating Christ’s Divinity; if were to speak on the Holy Trinity or the Holy Spirit proceding from the Father and the Son, I can see how not having the benefit of Sacred Tradition would hinder the understanding of some…

Now, if I were to state the angels were Created on the first day of Creation (…‘God said let there be light…’), my statement would be very suspect and in need of indepth study; but if I simply cite St. Paul’s account of his conversion and enphasize his words when he states that he did not receive the Gospel from any man but that it was handed to him by none other than Jesus Christ Himself… anyone can claim that this is a light inference to Christ’s Divinity… to which I would provide the multiple passages where Jesus’s Divinity is not only taught but celebrated! Personally, I can see no escape for those who do not believe–outside of their own determination to reject God’s Revelation as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You need to get more Protestants…
In this way, the apostles used their knowledge of the Old Testanment, their personal knowledge of the life and message of Jesus; which would become the Gospels, and their personal writings, which would become the New Testament, to teach and explain the Good News.

…I think that you are missing the point: no New Testament meant that there were no theological reasoning of “if it’s not in Scriptures…” Jesus used the old Oral Tradition to preach the Gospel–as did the Apostles and their Disciples; the Sacred Writing of the New Testament did not emerge until the Church required it; as it was needed, the Holy Spirit Inspired new Writings to promote the Gospel, to define Doctrinal Teachings and to battle the heretical teachings that began to surface.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture… Christians wear crosses because when the victim died the crossmember was hauled down, if the cross member is in place the person on it is Alive! Or in Jesus case alive agian, Hallelujah! So upon further examination the use of post is accurate, which I believe all Scripture is.

The problem with Scripture to interprete Scripture is that the end result can still be baised by the slant of the interpreter (i.e.: Jehovah Witnesses make a big deal about Jesus’ ‘the Father is greater than I" while simultaneously rejecting Jesus’ “I and the Father are One.”); the Mormons base their whole existence on Jesus’ “there are other sheeps that are not from this fold” statement about the Gentiles… and there are a number of new wavers that sell everything from wealth, health, and spiritual advancement based on their skill with Scripture interpreting Scripture…

…on the stake/pole/post issue… St. Paul must have not been there that day… he simply goes on boasting about this non-existing empty cross… what a character! This Paul guy was not interested in historical acurracy; he just wanted to boast about Christ’s death (on the cross/post) for our Liberation…

Nicea325 Give me some time to answer your question about Scriptural authority. In return, could you tell me where does the Bible say to consult traditions when interpreting Scripture.
.

…what I find truly puzzling about Scripturalists is their denial of Scriptures their ageda is not supported:

Philippians 4:9
Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

2 Timothy 3:14
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

…it took heretical onslaught to reveal, through the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration, that the letters and writings of the Apostles were Sacred:

2 Peter 3:15-17
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

…as you can see from the above passage, it is St. Peter’s Teaching that the letters of the Apostles are Sacred Scriptures–a fact that all of the Old Testament did not reveal; equally revealing is St. Peter’s revelation that all Sacred Writing is Inspired by the Holy Spirit:

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

This revelation only sets to print/text the Authority from which the Apostles were Teaching in the early Church!

…if you slow down enough (personal/denominational bias) you could almost taste the coffee (a little levity) as Tradition sips into the founding of the Chruch (Apostles, Christians, Presbyters, Deacon… wait for it… Iklesia…); Tradition differs from tradition since the latter is man’s manipulation of things while the first is Inspired by the Holy Spirit to bring about the Salvific Plan.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ctkrcia]

You need to get more Protestants on this thread, I can’t keep up.

That would be great! Can you invite some of your friends to join? We would love to enter into charitable dialog with non-Catholics.

ctkrcia This is a true observation about music in the Church of Christ/Christian Church, some congregations sing with musical instruments and some don’t. Personally, my congregation plays music or sings with CDs, but we don’t think non-instrumental Christians are going to hell because they disagree with us. Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent, in all things,love. The Church of Christ does have an established doctrine, while we don’t recite creeds or group prayers, our doctrine is summed up by the Apostles Creed, believing the phrase Holy Catholic Church as One Holy Universal Church.

Thanks for the response. So let’s dwell on the instrumental/non-instrumental topic for a while in the spirit of the mantra, “Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent, in all things, love.” Your congregation reads the Bible and it speaks that instruments are OK. Other CoC congregations read the Bible and it speaks to them that instruments are not OK. Which is correct? Are different Bibles being read? How is it that two people can read the Scriptures and come to two different conclusions, if they are both 100% certain they are reading under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit? This is where personal interpretation of the Bible gets murky. Without a central controlling authority, everyone is free to make their own interpretation of the Bible alone, form their own theology, and start a new church. When that happens, does it mean that all Christians who came before them and their new “enlightenment” had it wrong, or at least partially wrong?

May I ask you some questions? Where in scripture does it say that everything has to be in scripture? Where in scripture does it allow for the starting of a new church based on personal interpretation? Where in scripture does it say that the Bible is all we have from God? Where did we get the Bible? It did not exist in its current form when Jesus walked on earth. Therefore, it had to come from somewhere or someone between that time and today. If we are to base our eternal salvation on the teachings in the Bible, wouldn’t it behoove us to know it’s origin? Otherwise, how can one be certain that everything it contained is indeed divinely inspired?

Everyone have a great Easter.

You too, my brother!

 

[mackbrislawn]

I understand what you are saying… but I think that it is deeper than that (resolution to reject the Church’s Authority) because almost all of the passages I cited (excluding Thomas’ statement for which reason, common sense and some historical background is necessary) are very precise in demonstrating Christ’s Divinity; if were to speak on the Holy Trinity or the Holy Spirit proceding from the Father and the Son, I can see how not having the benefit of Sacred Tradition would hinder the understanding of some…

Now, if I were to state the angels were Created on the first day of Creation (…‘God said let there be light…’), my statement would be very suspect and in need of indepth study; but if I simply cite St. Paul’s account of his conversion and enphasize his words when he states that he did not receive the Gospel from any man but that it was handed to him by none other than Jesus Christ Himself… anyone can claim that this is a light inference to Christ’s Divinity… to which I would provide the multiple passages where Jesus’s Divinity is not only taught but celebrated! Personally, I can see no escape for those who do not believe–outside of their own determination to reject God’s Revelation as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes, it’s more than not having the apostolic Tradition, it’s the prior prejudices one takes to scripture, which cannot be avoided. Like I said, the distorting glasses one wears. If one already believes something to be true, they will have to interpret scripture according to that. They will emphasize passages that support their prior beliefs and explain away those passages that don’t.

 

[Timonator348]

I’ve decided my opinion on this matter can be expressed more eloquently by Church fathers than myself:

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).

“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.” Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!!!