Private Interpretation of Scripture

[praxising]

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 difficult 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…

Well, I’m not sure what “using Scripture to interpret Scripture” means, since when for instance, the OT was explained to the eunuch, there was no other Scripture for the first to be interpreting.

Paul is transmitting direct revelation from Christ. I doubt the only way he did that was to write it in letters and I even can suppose he did most of his evangelizing in person, so he only wrote when he could not appear in person. If he hadn’t been imprisoned, we wouldn’t have most of the NT and those letters, not being part of any accepted Canon at the time, didn’t make up any part of a “bible.” And, as he was not keeping some diary of every encounter with Jesus, but writing letters to specific communities with specific purpose, I’m pretty sure there was a lot that he didn’t write down and some letters that got lost. Which doesn’t mean that what was conveyed should be lost. Tradition. Predates Scripture.

Also, there’s plenty in the NT that the Apostles didn’t justify by OT reference, as they couldn’t. And there is also plenty that is just the recollection of someone of events written down long after, so, in fact, there was no Bible. Not for over a hundred years after the Resurrection did the writings even exist much less be culled out as belonging beside the OT writings.

Yet, somehow, Christianity spread pretty quickly throughout the world with no Bibles.

Skipping ahead to times closer to our own, with a few exceptions of the laboriously hand-copied collections of Scripture that few read for Cathedral altars, Christians for the most part, never saw, couldn’t read if they did, or sometimes ever hear of, a “Bible.” Millions of Christians for century after century managed to follow Christ by what amounts to word of mouth and Divine Intervention. Peasants used strings to beads to memorize and recall the life of Christ.

Bibles, complete collections of the books of the Canon between covers available to a literate populace, is a Western phenomenon about 200 years old. Or less. Sola scriptura is a new-fangled idea.

 

[praxising]

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:

I’m sorry, I am confused. Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?

 

[elvisman]

I’m sorry, I am confused. Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?

**The very same place it says that 30,000 pastors can have 30,000 different interpretations and they are ALL correct.

Honestly - why people don’t understand the simple rule of Hermeneutics 101 is beyond me. When Jesus spoke to the crowds - he was speaking to all of us in general. When he instructed his Apostles and those very close disciples - he was speaking to the leaders of the Church.

For example - in John 20:21-23, Jesus didn’t breath on the crowds, giving them the Holy spirit and telling them they they had the power to forgive sins in his name or holde them bound. He did that ONLY for those in the Upper room - the leaders of the Church.

When Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL truth (John 16:13-15) - he only said it to the Apostles - the leaders of the Church.

When Jesus spoke of the Supreme Authority the Church had (Matt. 18:15-18) - he was only speaking to the Apostels - the leaders of the Church.

Finally - Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to ONE man - not to everybody.

If you claim to be a 60-year-old Catholic and you don’t know this yet - may I suggest some adult catechesis?

 

[Link0126]

The fundamentalist missionary sitting in my living room last night, through the teachings of Penscola Baptist Institutes anti catholic leader Peter Ruckman.

Oh man, I bet that guy had no idea what he was in for…

 

[praxising]

Here’s the original post quote that generated my question:

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:l

So, let’s see, I asked this:
**
I’m sorry, I am confused. Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?**

And you posted in a way that was supposed to somehow make me feel…stupid? Foolish? Not as smart you, I guess. At any rate, in a way which would discourage people lurking from ever asking a simple question on this forum or explore our Church. And in your answer, which you went to some pains to format in a special way, I s’pose to show how special your answer is, that basically says: * it doesn’t say that.*

Nope. It doesn’t. But I do see how you gathered up a bunch of out-of-context bits of Scripture to support what is a basically untenable position. So, you started with a non sequitur:

**The very same **place it says that 30,000 pastors can have 30,000 *different *interpretations and they are ALL correct.

Of course, no one even as stupid as I apparently am would believe there are 30k unique interpretations of every passage in Scripture. What there are, are a lot of small churches, most of which are in agreement about most stuff. Many are in agreement about everything. So, I am not sure what you thought was being served by such a statement. Not God, Truth or Church, IMO. Then you made an assertion, a new premise, when the first still hadn’t been addressed:

When Jesus spoke to the crowds - he was speaking to all of us in general. When he instructed his Apostles and those very close disciples - he was speaking to the leaders of the Church.

Who says? You? A bunch of people who post here? See, now, you are interpreting Scripture as an individual. So, let’s try to explore this in light of hermeneutics. First, you’d have to show that in each of your referenced citations there was no one around but Apostles. That, in itself, is not possible. 2nd, you’d have to show that the Apostles, at the time He was speaking to them, were the “leaders of the church.” We have to go find a way to definitively identify Apostles as the Leaders of the Church, when it clearly says in Scripture that James the brother of Jesus was the Leader of the Church and he doesn’t seem to have been named an Apostle. In fact, at the time of the statement Jesus made, what “church” there was consisted of Jesus and people who followed Him called disciples, which included many more than the Apostles and none of them were leading Him. You also have to find a way to illustrate Jesus’ intent is the same as your hypothesis. You’d also have to take that passage in John, and show that everything Jesus said in it was for the Apostles and no one else, because that is basic to hermeneutics.

The only distinction I know of that Jesus made between His disciples and everyone else was that in public He spoke in parables and amongst His disciples He did not. Jesus was followed by many men and women who were all His disciples.

So, then we’d be 187 posts into the argument and the question is lost: Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?

The answer is: it doesn’t. Jesus never says this. Paul says quite the opposite and seems to be receiving direct communication from Christ.

So, let’s dispense with all of this and go back to the original statement I questioned:

“… .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.”

The poster claims that people are “rejecting Christ’s Word” and clearly says “when He states” - no hermeneutics necessary, Jesus is supposed to have stated something. What? “…this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals…”

I declare that Jesus never made such a statement. That’s the issue, not a bunch of strawmen you set up meant to obfuscate the issue. I’d like to hear from the poster on this. She made the assertion, perhaps she knows some passage I am just not familiar with.

 

[ctkrcia]

The poster claims that people are “rejecting Christ’s Word” and clearly says “when He states” - no hermeneutics necessary, Jesus is supposed to have stated something. What? “…this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals…”

I declare that Jesus never made such a statement. That’s the issue, not a bunch of strawmen you set up meant to obfuscate the issue. I’d like to hear from the poster on this. She made the assertion, perhaps she knows some passage I am just not familiar with.

I’m not the poster, but please allow me to respond. Your declaration that Jesus never made such a statement is true as far as the Scriptures reveal. Of course, the Scriptures do not reveal 100% of what Jesus said or did (see John 21:25).

However, let me ask the opposite question? Where in Scripture does is insist that every tenant of faith must be expressly stated in Scripture? I’ve looked and looked and cannot find that verse.

I did, however, find a few that might help explain the Catholic church’s position on this. It is important to note that the church is not a building or a hierarchy. The church is the people of God. So in one sense, saying that gift of the holy spirit is to the church and not the people is an impossibility. Kind of asking if God is all powerful can He create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it? This is an impossible situation and therefore cannot be postulated.

Back to scripture. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus speaks of how to deal with a brother who sins. First, approach the brother yourself. If he refuses to listen, go back with one or two others. If he still does not listen to them, take it to the church. Sounds like the church is the final authority. So the church, as a collective body, has the final say.

Let’s look at another place. 1 Tim 3:15 says, “…the church of the living God. The pillar and foundation of truth.” (some translations say the pillar and bulwark of truth). If the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then the church must have received it from someone. Jesus says, “I am the truth.” Jesus gave his apostles special authority that was not given to all believers. This includes the authority to forgive sins, ordain bishops/priests, etc. So again it is shown “the church” has a special place or anointment that is not given to individuals.

So what were the early Christians to do before they had Scripture? Let’s see. 2 Tim2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, Acts 2:42, 2 Jn 1:12, 2 Pet 1:20-21 all speak of following the tradition taught by the apostles. So the apostles, in aggregate, had authority to speak as the church. The first church council in Acts 15 also supports this.

Hope this helps.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Exactly!

I witness this when cetain visitors show up proclaiming deliveration from the world… if you accept thier twist you are on the way… if you challenge them, they will bring in the “big guns.” Yet, in their confusion they trample over Sacred Scriptures without a second thought.

…some of those glasses are quite opaque!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Well, I’m not sure what “using Scripture to interpret Scripture” means, since when for instance, the OT was explained to the eunuch, there was no other Scripture for the first to be interpreting.

Paul is transmitting direct revelation from Christ. I doubt the only way he did that was to write it in letters and I even can suppose he did most of his evangelizing in person, so he only wrote when he could not appear in person. If he hadn’t been imprisoned, we wouldn’t have most of the NT and those letters, not being part of any accepted Canon at the time, didn’t make up any part of a “bible.” And, as he was not keeping some diary of every encounter with Jesus, but writing letters to specific communities with specific purpose, I’m pretty sure there was a lot that he didn’t write down and some letters that got lost. Which doesn’t mean that what was conveyed should be lost. Tradition. Predates Scripture.

Also, there’s plenty in the NT that the Apostles didn’t justify by OT reference, as they couldn’t. And there is also plenty that is just the recollection of someone of events written down long after, so, in fact, there was no Bible. Not for over a hundred years after the Resurrection did the writings even exist much less be culled out as belonging beside the OT writings.

Yet, somehow, Christianity spread pretty quickly throughout the world with no Bibles.

Skipping ahead to times closer to our own, with a few exceptions of the laboriously hand-copied collections of Scripture that few read for Cathedral altars, Christians for the most part, never saw, couldn’t read if they did, or sometimes ever hear of, a “Bible.” Millions of Christians for century after century managed to follow Christ by what amounts to word of mouth and Divine Intervention. Peasants used strings to beads to memorize and recall the life of Christ.

Bibles, complete collections of the books of the Canon between covers available to a literate populace, is a Western phenomenon about 200 years old. Or less. Sola scriptura is a new-fangled idea.

…it is difficult to understand why those who profess to follow Scriptures refuse to accept Christ’s own Words:

25 I have said these things to you while still with you;
26 but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you. (St. John 14:25-26)

12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now.
13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come. 14 He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine. 15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine. St. John 16:12-15)

…rough translation: ‘…people… People!.. it is not sola Scriptura!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m sorry, I am confused. Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?

…maybe I used the wong term… not Iklesia but community?:

but you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit which will come on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judaea and Samaria, and indeed to earth’s remotest end.’ (Acts 1:8)

13 and when they reached the city they went to the upper room where they were staying; there were Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Jude son of James. 14 With one heart all these joined constantly in prayer, together with some women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:13-14)

15 One day Peter stood up to speak to the brothers – there were about a hundred and twenty people in the congregation,… 17 after being one of our number and sharing our ministry… 24 they prayed, ‘Lord, you can read everyone’s heart; show us therefore which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this ministry and apostolate, which Judas abandoned to go to his proper place.’ (Acts 1:15 thru 25)

1 When Pentecost day came round, they had all met together, 2 when suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a violent wind which filled the entire house in which they were sitting; 3 and there appeared to them tongues as of fire; these separated and came to rest on the head of each of them. 4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express themselves. (Acts 2:1-4)

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven and addressed them in a loud voice… (Acst 2:14a)

1 About the gifts of the Spirit, brothers, I want you to be quite certain… 4 There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; 5 there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. 6 There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all. 7 The particular manifestation of the Spirit granted to each one is to be used for the general good… 12 For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts – all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body – so it is with Christ. 13 We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink… 20 As it is, the parts are many but the body is one… 27 Now Christ’s body is yourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole.
28 And those whom God has appointed in the Church are, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after them, miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helpful acts, guidance, various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:1 thru 28)

Then what should it be like, brothers? When you come together each of you brings a psalm or some instruction or a revelation, or speaks in a tongue or gives an interpretation. Let all these things be done in a way that will build up the community. (1 Corinthians 14:26)

The reason we are ginven the Holy Spirit is not for self-gratification or for personal profit:

15 If you love me you will keep my commandments. 16 I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, 17 the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you. (St John 14:15-17)

…even the unbelievers, when they receive the Grace of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:16-18), are unwilling contributors to the Body:

49 One of them, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said, ‘You do not seem to have grasped the situation at all; 50 you fail to see that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish.’ 51 He did not speak in his own person, but as high priest of that year he was prophesying that Jesus was to die for the nation-52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather together into one the scattered children of God. (St. John 11:49-52)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[praxising]

I’m not the poster, but please allow me to respond. Your declaration that Jesus never made such a statement is true as far as the Scriptures reveal. Of course, the Scriptures do not reveal 100% of what Jesus said or did (see John 21:25).

However, let me ask the opposite question? Where in Scripture does is insist that every tenant of faith must be expressly stated in Scripture?

I never said it did or should or that I expected it to. The poster I was asking the question of made a clear statement that Jesus said something. Now, obviously all His words are not recorded, but that means she doesn’t know more than we do and, as far as I know through what we have, Jesus never said this. That’s all I was trying to make clear. Or, find out He said something I just didn’t remember, which is certainly not out of the question.

Back to scripture. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus speaks of how to deal with a brother who sins.

Doesn’t make sense in context. What Jesus is saying is: “this is what you do.” Not, “this is what you should do.” Jesus then tells them what they should do: forgive. Read from 12-35: Jesus says that His Father doesn’t want even one sheep to be lost. Then He outlines how sheep get lost, how they get expelled from the group, treated like a Gentile. Then He tells then to forgive basically endlessly. If you forgive every time someone sins against you, then they never are in danger of being lost, because you never get to the next step, and the next… but let’s take your interpretation:

There’s nothing in the chapter or the previous one to denote Jesus was speaking only to certain members of His group, and, the presence of the child indicates that there was a diverse group there. It says “disciples” - men, women and children.

So the church, as a collective body, has the final say.

I have no idea what this could mean in any practical sense.

So what were the early Christians to do before they had Scripture? Let’s see. 2 Tim2:2,

2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

So Paul tells something to Timothy he is to tell people and those people will also tell people. That’s what they did without Scripture. But it’s not an exclusive club as much as an oral chain letter.

all speak of following the tradition taught by the apostles.

You know, Paul says Timothy heard through many witnesses. So I’m not sure what happened but there’s no reason to think there was some hierarchical structure to who spread the Gospel, but more a sharing amongst people what they heard.

Hope this helps.

Likewise.

 

[Timonator348]

I’m not sure what Bible translation you’re using that says "through many witnesses as most translations of 2 Timothy 2:2 I’ve seen say:

“and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands and accounts to much more than “a verbal chain letter”.

I find at least two major flaws in Protestant thinking when it comes to this topic when you follow them to their logical conclusion:

1. “As a true believer I can correctly interpret the Bible because the Spirit is within me. I don’t need any church to tell me what the Bible means because it is self interpreting using the context of the rest of the Bible.” In examining this I find that first it is up to the one issuing this statement to define “true believer” which I’ve found most will say someone who has an “internal conversion” and who “bears fruit” or “who you can see the Spirit working in them.” The crux of the matter is if a Protestant considers themselves a true believer and that the Spirit will guide them to always interpret the Bible correctly then no one can disagree with their interpretation. If there is disagreement on the interpretation of the Bible then it is logical to assume either the holy Spirit is not guiding them as they presume or anyone who disagrees is then a non-believer or not a Christian.
2. “Everything I need for my salvation is in the Bible and any physical church is just a gathering for fellowship and the Lord’s supper that doesn’t get in the way of my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” This again leads to logical fallicy as it is easily pointed out the Trinity, which every Christian believes, is not expressly laid out in the Bible. Obviously this is something very important for our salvation that can pointed to from the Bible but instead comes straight to us from apostolic tradition. The whole idea of even going to a church in the “me, my Bible and Jesus” model is also logically unsound as Protestants understand, from the Bible itself, that a church and some sacramental system is necessary but it is borne of rejection and modification of the Catholic Church. As to having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ it appears illogical to have a personal relationship with our Lord by rejecting the real presence of his body and blood. To have a true relationship with Jesus it stands to reason we would want to embrace both his spiritual and physical dimension. Body and Spirit complete our personal relationship with Christ as Scripture and Tradition complete God’s revelation to us.

To my Protestant friends I’ve debated this very topic with I find there’s two things that they have yet to offer any answer on: To do EVERYTHING the Bible says yo have to do to be saved or have eternal life you have to be Catholic and why did Jesus only give Peter the keys to his kingdom?

God bless and may peace be with you!

 

[praxising]

I’m not sure what Bible translation you’re using that says "through many witnesses

usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy2.htm

This took place by valid ordination through the laying on of hands

Really? Where does it say that?

and accounts to much more than “a verbal chain letter”.

Well, you can make up any scenarios you like and so can I about what passed of which we have no written record.

I refer you, then, to the Samaritan woman as a fine example of how the Gospel is spread: Jesus tells the woman, the woman tells the people, the people are inspired to seek Jesus, Jesus tells them more.

Or we can look at Pentecost where there was much sermonizing but no account of passing through the crowds laying hands on people. Or Jesus responding when it was pointed out that someone was preaching in His name and not part of the group that those not against us are for us, and so, many ways for the oral transmission of the Gospel.

Trying to fit a messy aftermath of the Resurrection and the wildfire spread of the Gospel into some sort of neat package congruent with modern Church practices is less than compelling, IMO.

why did Jesus only give Peter the keys to his kingdom?

God bless and may peace be with you!

Speaking for Protestants, the only reason to think He did, exclusively, is through the claim of authority of interpretation by the very people who are claiming power thorough that interpretation. There are other quite reasonable, possibly more reasonable, interpretations. But if you say: “Only those in power can interpret because only they were given power to interpret and I know this because they say so” then you have a pretty neat bit of circular logic.

HOWEVER - I think the thread really is about the fact that the Spirit might easily, and I would say surely does, speak to an individual about a private matter through Scripture. That would be removed from the Universal interpretation of the Sacred Writer’s intent we would accept generally.

God does not speak to us exclusively through some other person. The Spirit can use any means of getting the message across and surely Scripture is one of those means.

 

[elvisman]

praxising:
So, let’s see, I asked this:
I’m sorry, I am confused. Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?
And you posted in a way that was supposed to somehow make me feel…stupid? Foolish? Not as smart you, I guess. At any rate, in a way which would discourage people lurking from ever asking a simple question on this forum or explore our Church. And in your answer, which you went to some pains to format in a special way, I s’pose to show how special your answer is, that basically says: it doesn’t say that.

Nope. It doesn’t. But I do see how you gathered up a bunch of out-of-context bits of Scripture to support what is a basically untenable position. So, you started with a non sequitur.
Of course, no one even as stupid as I apparently am would believe there are 30k unique interpretations of every passage in Scripture. What there are, are a lot of small churches, most of which are in agreement about most stuff. Many are in agreement about everything. So, I am not sure what you thought was being served by such a statement. Not God, Truth or Church, IMO. Then you made an assertion, a new premise, when the first still hadn’t been addressed
**Not caling you stupid at all - just misinformed.

**Protestants are in disagreement about MANY things – including the so-called “essentials”.
You call THIS being in “agreement”?
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
**Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not. **
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

---

Based on Sola Scriptura - who is right and who is wrong?

 

[elvisman]

Who says? You? A bunch of people who post here? See, now, you are interpreting Scripture as an individual. So, let’s try to explore this in light of hermeneutics. First, you’d have to show that in each of your referenced citations there was no one around but Apostles. That, in itself, is not possible.

Wanna bet?
**Matt. 18:15-18 **– Here Jesus is telling his DISCIPLES (because they asked him a question about forgiveness) that if a brother who sins against you refuses to listen to fellow brothers – you take him to the FINAL AUTHORITY – the CHURCH. He says, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
This authority is reserved for the CHURCH.

**John 16:13-15 – **Jesus and his Apostles were the ONLY ones present here. It was the Last Supper and NOBODY else was there.

John 20:21-23 - Verse 24 tells us: Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. This implies that it was only the TWELVE and possibly a few other close disciples that were in the Upper Room. No other Gospel tells us that the crowds were in the Upper Room with the Apostles. They wouldn’t**** have fit in there anyway . . .**

This is a basic hermeneutical rule that is employed by Catholic AND Protestant – the honest ones at least . . .

2nd, you’d have to show that the Apostles, at the time He was speaking to them, were the “leaders of the church.” We have to go find a way to definitively identify Apostles as the Leaders of the Church, when it clearly says in Scripture that James the brother of Jesus was the Leader of the Church and he doesn’t seem to have been named an Apostle. In fact, at the time of the statement Jesus made, what “church” there was consisted of Jesus and people who followed Him called disciples, which included many more than the Apostles and none of them were leading Him. You also have to find a way to illustrate Jesus’ intent is the same as your hypothesis. You’d also have to take that passage in John, and show that everything Jesus said in it was for the Apostles and no one else, because that is basic to hermeneutics.

The only distinction I know of that Jesus made between His disciples and everyone else was that in public He spoke in parables and amongst His disciples He did not. Jesus was followed by many men and women who were all His disciples.

So, then we’d be 187 posts into the argument and the question is lost: Where does it say the Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not individuals?

The answer is: it doesn’t. Jesus never says this. Paul says quite the opposite and seems to be receiving direct communication from Christ.

And I didn’t said that we never receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as individuals. However – Jesus gave that power to the Church to dispense through the Sacraments. In no other passage of the Bible does Jesus bestow this gift** on ANYBODY else. He gives this power to the Church and that’s where we get it from through Baptism and Confirmation.**

So, let’s dispense with all of this and go back to the original statement I questioned:

“… .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.”

The poster claims that people are “rejecting Christ’s Word” and clearly says “when He states” - no hermeneutics necessary, Jesus is supposed to have stated something. What? “…this revelation and this Gift of the Holy Spirit is to the Church not to the individuals…”

I declare that Jesus never made such a statement. That’s the issue, not a bunch of strawmen you set up meant to obfuscate the issue. I’d like to hear from the poster on this. She made the assertion, perhaps she knows some passage I am just not familiar with.

Read my last comment on just WHO Jesus bestowed the gift of the Holy Spirit upon and HOW we receive it as individuals.

 

[praxising]

Based on Sola Scriptura - who is right and who is wrong

Based on the OP, you’re off-topic. Starting with the non-sequitur is how threads get derailed. I’m not helping you do that to this one.

 

[stevekehl]

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.

The heart of the question, for me, is does the use of instruments in worship have an effect on our salvation? There are numerous passages where people, play music in praise to God, but no where does the Bible say we must use instruments in worship, likewise there is no direction to sing acapella in worship. If I am stuck on a desert island with no instruments God will still hear my praises. If I get stranded with my guitar, He will hear me just as well. This is a case where the Bible is silent, so I will not be critical of a church where the members don’t use instruments. Now if a non-instrumental church begins teaching that people who worship with music are going to hell, now there is a problem because they have linked music with salvation, clearly contrdictory to Scripture. In this case I would engage these people with Scripture and patience.
As for everyone being free to form their own theology that happens no matter what. I believe there are numerous heretical theologies in the history of the Catholic Church as well as many people who leave the church. Sadly, we can’t convince everyone.

Easter was AWESOME! Saw all my family and gained 10 pounds. Hope all of yours was the same.

 

[praxising]

Wanna bet?
This is a basic hermeneutical rule that is employed by Catholic AND Protestant – the honest ones at least . . .

I don’t find you to be particularly honest, though I imagine you believe you are. And I don’t engage people who are as rude as you. We disagree about this and I don’t find what you say to be correct or your arguments compelling is as far as I’ll go.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t find you to be particularly honest, though I imagine you believe you are. And I don’t engage people who are as rude as you. We disagree about this and I don’t find what you say to be correct or your arguments compelling is as far as I’ll go.

And that is a wonderful cop-out.

I answered your questions fully and backed them up with Scripture. Shame you can’t do the same . . .

 

[elvisman]

Based on the OP, you’re off-topic. Starting with the non-sequitur is how threads get derailed. I’m not helping you do that to this one.

Not at all - but I can see WHY you don’t want to answer the question. I showed you why Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation is illogical and unteneble and you can’t defend it.

 

[ctkrcia]

The heart of the question, for me, is does the use of instruments in worship have an effect on our salvation? There are numerous passages where people, play music in praise to God, but no where does the Bible say we must use instruments in worship, likewise there is no direction to sing acapella in worship. If I am stuck on a desert island with no instruments God will still hear my praises. If I get stranded with my guitar, He will hear me just as well. This is a case where the Bible is silent, so I will not be critical of a church where the members don’t use instruments. Now if a non-instrumental church begins teaching that people who worship with music are going to hell, now there is a problem because they have linked music with salvation, clearly contrdictory to Scripture. In this case I would engage these people with Scripture and patience.
As for everyone being free to form their own theology that happens no matter what. I believe there are numerous heretical theologies in the history of the Catholic Church as well as many people who leave the church. Sadly, we can’t convince everyone.

Easter was AWESOME! Saw all my family and gained 10 pounds. Hope all of yours was the same.

Steve,

Thanks for the response. You are correct that this particular point is not one that is essential for salvation. When taken by themselves, there are a lot of those in the Catholic church (Immaculate Conception, no siblings of Jesus, sacramentals like Holy Water, etc.). However, to be in full communion with the church means accepting the church’s teachings on all matters, even if they are not 100% essential for salvation. We do not have the latitude to pick and choose which tenants of faith to accept or reject. We are called to be 100% in the ocean. That is part of submitting ourselves to God’s will and recognizing that our will and desires must be subservient to His will.

But the main point here is a question of authority. In the Catholic church, we recognize the authority Jesus gave to his apostles and their successors, the bishops of today. We look to them for guidance in all things, especially in faith and morals. This is not to say we are all robots that do only what we are told! Quite the contrary! For example, we are free to read and interpret scripture for ourselves as long as our interpretation doesn’t contradict what has been universally taught for over 2,000 years of church history.

From what I know about the Church of Christ, each congregation is under the direction of elders/shepherds who spiritually guide the membership. I still find it strange that while there is no central authority, all CoC’s around the country hold the same theology (Bible alone, full immersion Baptism of adults, no icons, no feast days outside of Sunday, no creeds, etc.). I suppose that comes from the training the ministers receive at seminaries and universities, but I’m not sure. I even asked a CoC minister this once and he couldn’t give me a direct answer.

Nonetheless, each congregation is autonomous and independent. This is where interpretation of scripture gets personal and not universal. Scripture itself warns against personal interpretation (2 Pet 1:20-21). If a person interprets scripture to say there should only be one cup during communion, how does that person worship in a congregation that uses small, individual cups? Again, this may not be essential for salvation, but I’ve personally seen people get so hung up on this that they walked away from churches who hold the opposing position from their personal interpretation. BTW, I’ve seen similar action among Catholics and our beliefs, so we have work to do also.

The bottom line is a question of authority. Who has it and how far does it reach? Once that is answered, then the rest becomes academic.

Easter was fantastic at my house! We all praised God for the risen Christ and ate way too much! Glad to hear yours was the same!

Peace and grace. He has RISEN! ALLELUIA!! ALLELUIA!!!