WBC vs. individual interpretation of Scripture

[Newbie2]

I would think that most reasonable people would agree that Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas are pretty messed up when it comes to their interpretation of Scripture.

However, isn’t this the danger of the notion of personal interpretation of Scripture?

If someone says that personal interpretation is OK, even preferred, then how can that someone then say that the WBC folks are misguided i.e. what makes the WBC wrong and the someone right?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The study of biblical hermenutics is common to Christians. Orthodox, Catholics, Evangelicals, and even critics of scripture have offered a framework for the interpretation of scripture.
So the question is a good one but the scope is wide-ranging. The question is not just a Christian one either. It reaches across religions. How does one determine truth when evaluating the claims of adherents of religion as well as those who are opposed to any religions?
To specifically answer your question, the claims of any group are evaluated based upon the existing presuppositions of the person doing the evaluation. I can list the presuppositions of a fundamentalist for example.
However, you are right, the larger question is truth; does obective truth exist?
I am not sure which route you wish to go…big picture or small picture.

 

[JonNC]

I would think that most reasonable people would agree that Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas are pretty messed up when it comes to their interpretation of Scripture.

However, isn’t this the danger of the notion of personal interpretation of Scripture?

If someone says that personal interpretation is OK, even preferred, then how can that someone then say that the WBC folks are misguided i.e. what makes the WBC wrong and the someone right?

I think you are right, and that’s why Lutherans aren’t supposed to do that. But it is also true that the biggest split in Christ’s Church happened when personal interpretation was not an issue, or maybe it was - just not Protestants.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

I am not sure which route you wish to go…big picture or small picture.

I dunno either…just thought I’d throw it out there…

 

[Rightlydivide]

If I say that the personal lives of individuals and corporate fruits of a group are the most important thing in determining whether they are Christ’s church; is that accurate?

 

[imkingdad]

The study of biblical hermenutics is common to Christians. Orthodox, Catholics, Evangelicals, and even critics of scripture have offered a framework for the interpretation of scripture.
So the question is a good one but the scope is wide-ranging. The question is not just a Christian one either. It reaches across religions. How does one determine truth when evaluating the claims of adherents of religion as well as those who are opposed to any religions?
To specifically answer your question, the claims of any group are evaluated based upon the existing presuppositions of the person doing the evaluation. I can list the presuppositions of a fundamentalist for example.
However, you are right, the larger question is truth; does obective truth exist?
I am not sure which route you wish to go…big picture or small picture.

---

Most certainly Truth Exists. God is Truth. What we can discern from the observable world & derive from right reason can also be deemed Truth ( though not the same as the immutable truth that is God)

but as you point out that can be a long-drawn out discussion where semantics & conventions need to be established & agreed upon before beginning the trek.

Bottom line though for OP is if one side gets to claim Divinely Inspired (HS) Personal Interpretation, which they have little chance of proving or demonstrating, (perhaps we could use the OT tests for determining a Prophet) they can not reserve that right or privilege to themselves & claim any degree of Justice or Righteousness (outside of self-delusion) when confronting their Brothers in Christ with whom they disagree.

regards,

 

[Newbie2]

If I say that the personal lives of individuals and corporate fruits of a group are the most important thing in determining whether they are Christ’s church; is that accurate?

Begs the question by what interpretation “fruits” are defined, no?

 

[survive]

Westboro isn’t an example of anything. I do believe there is danger in private interpretation of Scripture, but they are a small cluster of friends and family who may simply be running a scam anyway. To address the danger of private interpretation let’s look at the splitting of every denomination that ever formed to reunite all the denominations. Pentecostalism, Church of Christ, etc. It seems to me that’s where private interpretation gets us. A couple of people say, “Let’s just pray and read the Bible; that’s all we need, and we’ll all be one again.” A year later there are factions within their new movement already, and twenty years later they deny any relationship to each other.

 

[Newbie2]

Westboro isn’t an example of anything. I do believe there is danger in private interpretation of Scripture, but they are a small cluster of friends and family who may simply be running a scam anyway.

Fred Phelps has what some consider legitimate theological training.

I agree that they are probably scamming in one way or the other, but that they do make use of scripture in a bizarre, twisted way is an extreme example of how private interpretation can be misused.

And that’s my topic; how far is too far when it comes to personal interpretation of Scripture? And by who’s authority does one judge? Can a Lutheran, for example, legitimately look at the WBC and say “they’ve gone too far!”? (I don’t mean to imply that Lutherans have wacky interpretations of Scripture too)

 

[JonNC]

Fred Phelps has what some consider legitimate theological training.

I agree that they are probably scamming in one way or the other, but that they do make use of scripture in a bizarre, twisted way is an extreme example of how private interpretation can be misused.

And that’s my topic; how far is too far when it comes to personal interpretation of Scripture? And by who’s authority does one judge? Can a Lutheran, for example, legitimately look at the WBC and say “they’ve gone too far!”? (I don’t mean to imply that Lutherans have wacky interpretations of Scripture too)

Everything Lutherans believe is, eventually, normed by scripture. However, we look to our Confessions and also the early councils and to decide what is “too far”, not personal interpretation. When I was in catechetical class, I was taught, primarily through the Small Catechism, what it means to be Lutheran. I was not given a Bible and told to go interpret for myself what it means. To be Lutheran, I must hold to the true faith taught by the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, etc. Otherwise, I am not Lutheran, my personal interpretations notwithstanding.
Therefore, while WBC may “go too far”, it is not my judgement, but that of Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. But then, while we love them as siblings in Christ, we consider virtually all Baptists to be heterodox.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Everything Lutherans believe is, eventually, normed by scripture. However, we look to our Confessions and also the early councils and to decide what is “too far”, not personal interpretation. When I was in catechetical class, I was taught, primarily through the Small Catechism, what it means to be Lutheran. I was not given a Bible and told to go interpret for myself what it means. To be Lutheran, I must hold to the true faith taught by the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, etc. Otherwise, I am not Lutheran, my personal interpretations notwithstanding.
Therefore, while WBC may “go too far”, it is not my judgement, but that of Scripture through the lens of the Confessions. But then, while we love them as siblings in Christ, we consider virtually all Baptists to be heterodox.

Jon

Yes, but didn’t somebody personally interpret scripture personally to decide how to decide if other interpretations of scripture are interpreted correctly?

Did that come out right? In other words, I agree with what you’re saying in that there is some “official” guidance of Lutheran interpretation of Scripture, and that the WBC is at the far other end of the spectrum.

Perhaps it may be a matter of size…perhaps a larger, more diverse group of Christians are more likely to go off on their own, interpretation-wise.

 

[gearhead]

I would think that most reasonable people would agree that Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas are pretty messed up when it comes to their interpretation of Scripture.

However, isn’t this the danger of the notion of personal interpretation of Scripture?

Personally, I think it’s the danger of the notion of the Bible as a source of doctrinal authority.

 

[JonNC]

=Newbie2;5851365]Yes, but didn’t somebody personally interpret scripture personally to decide how to decide if other interpretations of scripture are interpreted correctly?

:hypno:

Did that come out right? In other words, I agree with what you’re saying in that there is some “official” guidance of Lutheran interpretation of Scripture, and that the WBC is at the far other end of the spectrum.

I guess I’d say of course, but that would also apply to the ECF’s and even the early councils that we generally agree upon. And the Catholic Church would say that only the Magisterium and pope have the authority to interpret. The issue always becomes the fact that no other groups of Christians, even Orthodoxy, recognize that authority as it is currently exercised.
I think the big difference might be that a group like WBC, or modern non-denoms, may not be willing to take the early councils or ECF’s into account when making their interpretations. There may not be any historical guidance. This is just speculation, however, and maybe in fact they do, but I doubt it.

Jon

 

[chaunceygardner]

I would think that most reasonable people would agree that Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas are pretty messed up when it comes to their interpretation of Scripture.

However, isn’t this the danger of the notion of personal interpretation of Scripture?

If someone says that personal interpretation is OK, even preferred, then how can that someone then say that the WBC folks are misguided i.e. what makes the WBC wrong and the someone right?

From what I have seen and heard of them, it sounds more like “group interpretation” rather than personal. This is a hate-filled group of people who dwell in the muck of blatant prejudice and outrageous lies, with not one iota of Christian love among them. They are the antithesis of everything that Jesus taught us.

If anything I would call it “very selective” interpretation at best, and more truthfully a “total rejection of the Word” and a descent to the most base and evil instincts present in humanity.

Finally, your logic is flawed, as you are attributing their beliefs and behavior to personal interpretation of scripture, even though we could list many instances of beliefs and behaviors just as evil that were based on an institutionally developed and approved interpretation of scripture.

I think what we have here is another example of people who are easily swayed by a dynamic personality and latch onto this person’s warped messages, clothed in bible-speak, as a way to assign blame for their own condition in life and to lift their self-esteem.

 

[Newbie2]

From what I have seen and heard of them, it sounds more like “group interpretation” rather than personal. This is a hate-filled group of people who dwell in the muck of blatant prejudice and outrageous lies, with not one iota of Christian love among them. They are the antithesis of everything that Jesus taught us.

If anything I would call it “very selective” interpretation at best, and more truthfully a “total rejection of the Word” and a descent to the most base and evil instincts present in humanity.

Finally, your logic is flawed, as you are attributing their beliefs and behavior to personal interpretation of scripture, even though we could list many instances of beliefs and behaviors just as evil that were based on an institutionally developed and approved interpretation of scripture.
I think what we have here is another example of people who are easily swayed by a dynamic personality and latch onto this person’s warped messages, clothed in bible-speak, as a way to assign blame for their own condition in life and to lift their self-esteem.

Such as? Inquisition, perhaps?

 

[chaunceygardner]

Chaunceygardner said:

Finally, your logic is flawed, as you are attributing their beliefs and behavior to personal interpretation of scripture, even though we could list many instances of beliefs and behaviors just as evil that were based on an institutionally developed and approved interpretation of scripture.

Such as? Inquisition, perhaps?

I didn’t want to get into specific events and stir up emotions. My point was that the doctrine, beliefs, theology or whatever you want to call the stuff coming from the WBC is not due to “personal interpretation” of each member, but is from the collective interpretation driven by one person. A question would be: Did the members of that church join because their views were in agreement with that of the group, or were their views affected by what they heard and saw at the church?

We know that individuals will often set aside their own ethical and moral concerns for that of the group to which they belong or want to participate. Individuals who would not say or do things in a one on one situation will join right in with whatever the group does or says. The individuals gain a feeling of strength and power from the group, and the group in turn is empowered by those who fall in with their rhetoric. Through the manipulation by one or a few strong personalities, they then attack (verbally or physically) those they have identfied as the foe or as “bad” people. The rise of Nazi Germany is one huge example.

I don’t see this as derived from a general interpretation of scripture, but rather the use of selective and distorted readings of God’s Word to stir emotions and advance an agenda.

The use of various interpretations, understandings or applications of scriptural passages (whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or others) to excuse or rationalize evil is not limited to any particular church or other group. It unfortunately has been fairly pervasive throughout the world and throughout history. The WBC is just one current example.

 

[Newbie2]

I see. But is not the WBC driven by one man’s (mis)interpretation of scripture then?