About claiming scriptural authority...

[JoeP222w]

if one claim to reject theology and just read Scripture

If one does such a thing, that would be a false dichotomy. Reading scripture is studying Theology. Moreover, the Trinity doctrine is throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[FenderTL5]

Sure, which is why we can't just isolate those verses, but must read the whole Bible and rely on the entirety of Scripture.

It goes further than that; it's why you can't isolate, not only those verses, but scripture itself. You must also take into consideration the historical setting, the context, the audience, the customs of the time, the philosophical mind of the writer, what issue(s) was being addressed. How does that compare/contrast with other similar/related doctrine and yes indeed, what other passages both Old and New Testament say.
This is the challenge for the modern understanding of sola scriptura; if scripture is removed from its cultural and historical moorings your understanding can drift.

It is my opinion, speaking only for me, that there is no such thing as sola scriptura in the modern sense. Everyone relies on outside influence(s) for their interpretation even if it's just one's own life experience or trusted leaders.
This emphasizes, even more, the need for a reliance on the ancient, historical Church. YMMV

 

[amariselle]

Christ got baptized by John, the holy spirit appeared as a dove and God Father spoke in the cloud. That is scripture, to connect said scripture to the concept of God not as three, but as three-&-one is a theological conclusion.

As a believer we cannot escape the construction and articulation of theology.

Scripture tells us there is one God, and in the creation account, the word "us" is used. The concept of the Trinity is found throughout Scripture and also clear from Scripture is that there are not multiple Gods.

 

[amariselle]

It goes further than that; it's why you can't isolate, not only those verses, but scripture itself. You must also take into consideration the historical setting, the context, the audience, the customs of the time, the philosophical mind of the writer, what issue(s) was being addressed. How does that compare/contrast with other similar/related doctrine and yes indeed, what other passages both Old and New Testament say.
This is the challenge for the modern understanding of sola scriptura; if scripture is removed from its cultural and historical moorings your understanding can drift.

It is my opinion, speaking only for me, that there is no such thing as sola scriptura in the modern sense. Everyone relies on outside influence(s) for their interpretation even if it's just one's own life experience or trusted leaders.
This emphasizes, even more, the need for a reliance on the ancient, historical Church. YMMV

I agree with everything you said, except the point about needing to rely on the "Church" to be able to properly understand all these things.

I think it is within the ability of every believer to read and study Scripture.

 

[FenderTL5]

I think it is within the ability of every believer to read and study Scripture.

I would agree with this sentence and so would our church. However the Apostle was very clear on this subject that the church is the ground and the bulwark of truth and the anecdote from Acts chapter 8, Philip ran to him (the Ethiopian) and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”
We all need someone to guide us.

 

[amariselle]

I would agree with this sentence and so would our church. However the Apostle was very clear on this subject that the church is the ground and the bulwark of truth and the anecdote from Acts chapter 8, Philip ran to him (the Ethiopian) and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”
We all need someone to guide us.

Having structure and guidance within a church is one thing, having a hierarchy where certain people are elevated above others is entirely another. Jesus told His disciples that it was not to be like that among them, because we are all brethren.

As we learn and grow in spiritual maturity, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we should definitely be willing to listen to one another, and to encourage one another. We should never, however, be required to submit to a system where certain people are seen as somehow closer to God than others, and where, therefore, division is created between these elite Christians and the "ordinary" ones. We have no earthly spiritual monarch or leader who is above all the rest, Peter knew this as well, as did Paul. This is what Jesus warned about and He used the Pharisees and religious leaders of the time as an example of what happens when this is done, and in response to the disciples having been arguing among themselves who was greatest.

This is, unfortunately, the tendency human beings can have, but it should not be a characteristic of Christians. Our King and Lord is Christ.

 

[lesliedellow]

How did I know this was somebody lauding the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church, before I had even finished reading it?

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is the answer to the Pope's pretensions to be the world's last absolute monarch, with a hotline to God.

It is the Bible and Nicene Creed which will ensure that the various branches of Christianity remain recognisably the same religion, inspite of their differences.

 

[Goatee]

It's interesting you would mention being "confrontational". The OP was nothing if not that.

As for interpretation. The Bible is actually perfectly clear on so many things, and we are also promised the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, to guide us in understanding them.

God bless.

Holy Spirit has been guiding the church for 2,000 years.

 

[amariselle]

Holy Spirit has been guiding the church for 2,000 years.

I agree, as all true believers have the Holy Spirit, as promised.

 

[amariselle]

How did I know this was somebody lauding the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church, before I had even finished reading it?

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is the answer to the Pope's pretensions to be the world's last absolute monarch, with a hotline to God.

It is the Bible and Nicene Creed which will ensure that the various branches of Christianity remain recognisably the same religion, inspite of their differences.

You are absolutely correct about power corrupting. History confirms this in both the secular and religious aspects of the world.

 

[Goatee]

Problem being is that many 'think they know scripture. Many 'think their views on scripture are the only correct ones. Many 'think they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Many 'think they have the right meaning for certain verses etc but they mostly 'take them out of context.

 

[amariselle]

Problem being is that many 'think they know scripture. Many 'think their views on scripture are the only correct ones. Many 'think they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Many 'think they have the right meaning for certain verses etc but they mostly 'take them out of context.

True, so how do we know that the Pope or any other official leadership isn't doing the same?

 

[Goatee]

True, so how do we know that the Pope or any other official leadership isn't doing the same?

Pope again! You know why the Pope can't, as you have be told why before in other threads!

How about other church leaders in other denominations?

 

[Halbhh]

Did you know that though you consider doing so when confronted by the challenging theology of others pious, you actually undermine and falsify them by patronizing their faith and position.

This actually leads to the opposite of what you probably thought, you're helping the secularization of Christianity all together.

If theology falls into the fallpit where there's no room for challenges and/ or need for good reasons to uphold doctrine and normative theology without being ostracized, then in the end Christianity will end up as a private matter, a faith where everyone claim orthodoxy in their interpretation of scripture and no theology is open for discussion.

If all Christians saw theology this way then we'd face a completely privatised and secular, subjective religion.

The reason why this is the case?
If no-one's allowed to question any part of what constitutes your faith in God then the door into a fruitful theological discussion is forever closed.

So, to all you in here (and there are several of you) who seek to toss your own subjective interpretation of scripture on others and do your best to strangle discussion by claiming superior insight in scripture.

You end up in that ditch, you run the errand of the world, a world who seek to undermine Christianity and shatter the faithful and spreading them around, cut of the rest of the Christian world. The world wants to see Christianity torn apart and privatised to the level where even evangelizing people will be ilegalised.

Sola Scriptura with every man as interpreter can easily be the end of Christianity as a cultural and moral voice in a increasingly anti Christian world.

Christ foresaw all of these problems, which are part of human nature, and present when He was on Earth also, and gave us all the instructions that are the only solution, which we can learn and grow in, if we read all that He said, instead of only parts. We need to read Him with a listening attitude, and not do the talking. He is the Teacher, and we are the students. Each and all of us, instead of instructing the Teacher, we must seek to learn from Him. We can listen with "ears that hear" if we are humble enough to expect to learn from Him even while reading a chapter in a gospel for the 2nd or 5th or 8th time in our lives.

I feel there is no way around our human problems except only by following Him, putting His words into practice, and then our problems between us get defeated to the extent we are humbly following Him as our Teacher/Rabbi/Instructor.

 

[amariselle]

Pope again! You know why the Pope can't, as you have be told why before in other threads!

How about other church leaders in other denominations?

The Pope can't what?

Yes, there is no church leadership of any denomination that is ever infallible, as we are all human. Only God Himself is infallible.

 

[redleghunter]

the whole concept of believing in the Trinity dogma for example makes no sense if one claim to reject theology and just read Scripture, yet most such people do believe in the Trinity, that is highly inconsistent...

Yes important to note. I found Against Heresies very informative how the very early father's revered Holy Scriptures and how they used them to debate/refute heretics. Irenaeus really mapped out how heresies take root and how to challenge them in Book III.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The Pope can't what?

Yes, there is no church leadership of any denomination that is ever infallible, as we are all human. Only God Himself is infallible.

Problem is that you are infallible as interpreter yourself in your own eyes.

Have you solved the problem yet, the one about reading translations of fallible men and their thousands of choices as to what a Greek word with several meanings should be translated into?

Already by opening your bible you're accepting tradition and the scholastics you despise so much, if not you'd do as the queeker in here who rely on nothing but his own empiricism.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Yes important to note. I found Against Heresies very informative how the very early father's revered Holy Scriptures and how they used them to debate/refute heretics. Irenaeus really mapped out how heresies take root and how to challenge them in Book III.

Ireneaus was a great scholar and we owe him big time. It's good to see that you appreciate his work, as do I.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Christ foresaw all of these problems, which are part of human nature, and present when He was on Earth also, and gave us all the instructions that are the only solution, which we can learn and grow in, if we read all that He said, instead of only parts. We need to read Him with a listening attitude, and not do the talking. He is the Teacher, and we are the students. Each and all of us, instead of instructing the Teacher, we must seek to learn from Him. We can listen with "ears that hear" if we are humble enough to expect to learn from Him even while reading a chapter in a gospel for the 2nd or 5th or 8th time in our lives.

I feel there is no way around our human problems except only by following Him, putting His words into practice, and then our problems between us get defeated to the extent we are humbly following Him as our Teacher/Rabbi/Instructor.

Do you translate your own bibles?
If not you have to trust that others have done a honest and good job, which in most cases fortunately they do.

You cannot trust scripture and distrust theologians at the same time without letting go of any sort of logic.

It's so inconsistent.

 

[lesliedellow]

Problem is that you are infallible as interpreter yourself in your own eyes.

Nope. I believe my reading of scripture is correct, but I have no pretensions to infallibility.

Have you solved the problem yet, the one about reading translations of fallible men and their thousands of choices as to what a Greek word with several meanings should be translated into?

Ho hum. Even Bart Ehrman, who is no friend to Christianity, can admit that none of the textual variants in NT manuscripts have any effect upon Christian doctrine. As for Greek words with multiple meanings, context and grammar will determine their actual meaning in a sentence; just as it does with English.

Already by opening your bible you're accepting tradition and the scholastics you despise so much, if not you'd do as the queeker in here who rely on nothing but his own empiricism.

Protestants have traditions. What they do not have is traditions which are supposed to have an equal status with the Bible, as being revelation.