The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

[fhansen]

While that's a logical defense, looking at the historic picture the claims of the supposed mechanism don't trace back to the original churches. We have 3 generations of writers, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, and the ECF that all wrote before the claim of direct apostolic transmission appears which if such were the case why none of them thought to mention it is pretty suspect. The other thing is that the claim evolved over time, first asserting a coincidental authority with councils as an authentic advisor, then assuming a role of equality with councils, then asserting a dominance over councils, and finally asserting absolute dominance over councils. Claims like papal infallibility are no where in the historic record until scholastic theology was in full fledge, finally being asserted by Innocent IX and not being elaborated on until Vatican II with a full elaboration still waiting and appears to only be evident in retrospect(as in, if a statement by the pope is demonstrably false, then he wasn't speaking from the chair but if a claim stands we have no way of knowing if its from the chair or from the man.) It's an unnecessary addition, and from my vantage point is nothing more than treating doctrines of men above the Word of God.

And yet human interpretations of Scripture are, in fact, necessarily doctrines of men. And we see this every time we see plausible Scripture-based arguments on both sides of a relevant matter. I doubt very much that most of us would necessarily be Trinitarians-and some SS adherents are not-if not for the council of Nicaea- if not for the church, IOW. No such council is even possible in any real or practical sense among Protestant denominations today. And if nothing else, the doctrine of infallibility is nothing more than an honest acknowledgment of the need for that guidance, that charism that affords a place where the doctrinal buck stops.

 

[Clare73]

No, you are confusing the law of Moses that was written by Moses that was placed on the side of the ark, not inside, and was added because of sin

The Sinaitic Covenant of law was temporarily added (Galatians 3:19) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace to reveal sin.

The conditions of that Sinaitic Covenant were the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets, which were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21; 2 Chronicles 6:11).

You're mixing the covenants-

Mixing which covenants. . .Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic, New?

law of God which is eternal Psalms 89:34 and the law of Moses which is temporary (and why it was on the side of the ark, not inside

The stone tablets of the Law/Ten Commandments which were the conditions of the Sinaitic Covenant were placed in (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:2; 2 Chronicles 5:10, 6:11) the Ark of the Covenant (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8; Joshua 3:3, etc.)

Deal with the Scriptures which show your error in this regard.

Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 8:13

The "written code" of Colossians 2:14 which has been cancelled is the Mosaic Levitical ceremonial laws, and
the obsolete covenant of Hebrews 8:13 is the Mosaic covenant of Exodus.

What do they have to do with the Ark of the (Sinaitic) Covenant?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Hi everyone, new poster here so please be kind!

I have struggled for a long time with the balance between personal interpretation of scripture, and dependence on people in positions of authority (who may have greater knowledge).

This is an even more acute issue in the current age, where the authority of traditional news sources is being challenged, and people are being encouraged to make up their own minds.

How do we, as a community of Christians, find that balance between personal engagement with scripture, and relying on the people who understand it best to inform us?

@Albion has given an excellent reply on page one.

We trust both where God leads us in our understanding of Scripture as well as the understanding given by our elders/pastors in our faith.

Everything taught must be in line with Scripture and everything believed must be in line with Scripture.

This isn't a Catholic versus protestant debate... its who has the most accurate reflection of what is Written as God leads you, the new believer.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Sinaitic Covenant of law was temporarily added (Galatians 3:19) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace to reveal sin.

The conditions of that Sinaitic Covenant were the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets, which were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21; 2 Chronicles 6:11).

Mixing which covenants. . .Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic, New?

The stone tablets of the Law/Ten Commandments which were the conditions of the Sinaitic Covenant were placed in (Exodus 25:16, 21; Deuteronomy 10:2; 2 Chronicles 5:10, 6:11) the Ark of the Covenant (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8; Joshua 3:3, etc.)

Deal with the Scriptures which show your error in this regard.

The "written code" of Colossians 2:14 which has been cancelled is the Mosaic Levitical ceremonial laws, and
the obsolete covenant of Hebrews 8:13 is the Mosaic covenant of Exodus.

What do they have to do with the Ark of the (Sinaitic) Covenant?

You are mixing God's laws with the law of Moses. These are separate covenants. God's laws are eternal Psalms 89:34 and the law of Moses was temporary. Col 2:14, Hebrews 8:13

I honestly have no idea the point you are trying to make by your post or how it relates to my original post that you replied to.

Are you saying God's laws are not eternal and not sure what you mean by "deal with the scriptures" or why you would say that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've read the verses, but they don't mean what the Catholic church claims they mean. And that interpretation is what was the invention of 3rd century scholars, and was largely rejected as spurious until Leo invoked it to try to claim authority. Mentions prior to ~250 on the verse show no indication that such an interpretation had entered anyones mind, and the historical record denies any sort of direct line of succession within Rome since the first bishop of Rome appears to be Stephen with the church at Rome being ruled by a council prior and even the idea that Stephen was sole head of Rome is questionable.

Prove it. What I see is your opinion. Or maybe someone else's.

And again the claim of apostolic succession doesn't match the historical record, and that's not even including late crises like the time there were 3 popes at the same time and the various times that there was no legitimate claimant to the papacy. The whole claim was a late invention to try to grant authority to the Roman church and nothing more.

So the real question is "Did Jesus provide for the authoritative transmission of the faith?" And of course, He did. So what WAS the vehicle for that authoritative transmission? It was oral tradition. Jesus said "G into all nations and teach them. He said "I will be with you until the end of the age", He named Peter the head of the Church, saying that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, speaking to Peter and the other apostles, "Whoever hears you hears me" and "Whose sins you forgive will be forgiven, whose sins you retain will be retained."
Jesus authorized the apostles to go out and do this. And it's all Scripture, so whatever silence you might think you see, you have to realize that the Church was illegal the first 2 1/2 centuries, so, we don't have a lot.

 

[Root of Jesse]

While that's a logical defense, looking at the historic picture the claims of the supposed mechanism don't trace back to the original churches. We have 3 generations of writers, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, and the ECF that all wrote before the claim of direct apostolic transmission appears which if such were the case why none of them thought to mention it is pretty suspect. The other thing is that the claim evolved over time, first asserting a coincidental authority with councils as an authentic advisor, then assuming a role of equality with councils, then asserting a dominance over councils, and finally asserting absolute dominance over councils. Claims like papal infallibility are no where in the historic record until scholastic theology was in full fledge, finally being asserted by Innocent IX and not being elaborated on until Vatican II with a full elaboration still waiting and appears to only be evident in retrospect(as in, if a statement by the pope is demonstrably false, then he wasn't speaking from the chair but if a claim stands we have no way of knowing if its from the chair or from the man.) It's an unnecessary addition, and from my vantage point is nothing more than treating doctrines of men above the Word of God.

I would like to ask you a question...
How do you know the difference between dogma and opinion? Dogma, being what the Church must believe, opinion being what people can differ about and still be considered part of your denomination?

 

[Clare73]

You are mixing God's laws with the law of Moses. These are separate covenants. God's laws are eternal Psalms 89:34 and the law of Moses was temporary. Col 2:14, Hebrews 8:13
I honestly have no idea the point you are trying to make by your post or how it relates to my original post that you replied to.

Are you saying God's laws are not eternal and not sure what you mean by "deal with the scriptures" or why you would say that.

You presented the stone tablets as being placed outside the Ark of the Covenant, which contradicts Scripture.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You presented the stone tablets as being placed outside the Ark of the Covenant, which contradicts Scripture.

I said no such thing and if you're familiar with my posts you should know this is not what I have ever said. Please revisit post #36

This is what I said:

God choose only His law to be the only scripture He personally wrote with His own finger. He than choose His law that He personally wrote and personally spoke to place inside the ark in the Most holy of His Temple.

God wrote the Ten commandments with His own finger and only His Ten commandments was placed inside the ark in the Most holy of God's Temple. Exodus 40:20.

The law of Moses, written by Moses Deut 31:24, 2 Cor 35:12 was placed on the side Deut 31:26 because it was not permeant Col 2:14, Heb 8:13

 

[fhansen]

This isn't a Catholic versus protestant debate... its who has the most accurate reflection of what is Written as God leads you, the new believer.

Everyone has the right and duty to follow their consciences on what constitutes the truth-and where we may find it. We ultimately discern and decide for ourselves what Scripture means to tell us, which elders, denominations, creeds, confessions, church that precede us might be instructive in that endeavor. Either way for myself our faith relies on more than exegesis of a book, even the Bible. The church that precedes us with it's lived, historical legacy traceable to the beginnings is an indispensable part of our coming to know the faith, and in knowing it accurately.

 

[Clare73]

I said no such thing and if you're familiar with my posts you should know this is not what I have ever said. Please revisit post #36
This is what I said: God choose only His law to be the only scripture He personally wrote with His own finger. He than choose His law that He personally wrote and personally spoke to place inside the ark in the Most holy of His Temple.
God wrote the Ten commandments with His own finger and only His Ten commandments was placed inside the ark in the Most holy of God's Temple. Exodus 40:20.

The law of Moses, written by Moses Deut 31:24, 2 Cor 35:12 was placed on the side Deut 31:26 because it was not permeant Col 2:14, Heb 8:13

Thanks, you've resolved my misunderstanding of your meaning of "the law of Moses" as distinct from the Ten Commandments.

Moses wrote what God told him to write (Exodus 24:4, Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 31:24)
and the commands God gave him (Deuteronomy 5:31, Deuteronomy 6:1-2, 17, 20, 24-25, Deuteronomy 4:2, 5, 8, 14, 40) for the people,
so why do you call it the "law of Moses," as though he were its author, instead of the "law of God," who is its author?

 

[pescador]

I am a Protestant. I am not a Catholic because they have strayed so far from the New Covenant.

To be a Protestant is to be a true child of God in Christ. One must have a personal relationship with God the Father and, like every other relationship with one's father. it is based on intimacy and love.

There is no need for...

Priests (intermediaries between Father and child)
Elaborate buildings, statues, rituals
Confession to an intermediary "father"
Penance or other penalty for one's sins
Praying to "saints" -- we're all saints -- including asking them to pray for us
Adoration of Mary.
Pride, such as "we're the one true church", we were the "first church", and other myths

Again, we have been adopted into God's family in Christ; we have a direct, loving relationship with our heavenly Father.

We are His children in every sense of the word. He is our Father -- our "Abba" -- who loves us on the most personal level. No ornate buildings, rituals, costumes, intermediaries, forced penitence, extra-Biblical teachings, or any other things outside of Scripture should be erected or practiced that distance us from our loving Father in heaven.

Hallelujah!

 

[Fervent]

And yet human interpretations of Scripture are, in fact, necessarily doctrines of men. And we see this every time we see plausible Scripture-based arguments on both sides of a relevant matter. I doubt very much that most of us would necessarily be Trinitarians-and some SS adherents are not-if not for the council of Nicaea- if not for the church, IOW. No such council is even possible in any real or practical sense among Protestant denominations today. And if nothing else, the doctrine of infallibility is nothing more than an honest acknowledgment of the need for that guidance, that charism that affords a place where the doctrinal buck stops.

This is nonsense, and the invokation of non-trinitarian belief is inappropriate since such belief is never originated through the Scriptures but through speculative arguments. Scripture itself is sufficient to demonstrate the reality that Christ is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one God which is sufficient for Trinitarian belief. The abuse of Scripture to bend and twist and try to claim it doesn't have an actual meaning is no reason to discard an individuals ability to arrive at true belief based solely on Scripture. Certainly such a thing is not grounds to invoke a separation between clergy ane laity as if there are divisions in the body of Christ. Catholic dogma does nothing but elevate men into the seat of God and the fact that you smear the Word of God to displace it so is abhorrent.

 

[Fervent]

Prove it. What I see is your opinion. Or maybe someone else's.
So the real question is "Did Jesus provide for the authoritative transmission of the faith?" And of course, He did. So what WAS the vehicle for that authoritative transmission? It was oral tradition. Jesus said "G into all nations and teach them. He said "I will be with you until the end of the age", He named Peter the head of the Church, saying that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, speaking to Peter and the other apostles, "Whoever hears you hears me" and "Whose sins you forgive will be forgiven, whose sins you retain will be retained."
Jesus authorized the apostles to go out and do this. And it's all Scripture, so whatever silence you might think you see, you have to realize that the Church was illegal the first 2 1/2 centuries, so, we don't have a lot.

What you see is statements about history. The fact that your response is "prove it" to my statement that there is an absence of such writings renders your claim suspect, as if such things existed you would simply need to produce one to discredit my statement. The Catholic tradition is not Scripture otherwise the Catholic church would not have found itself on the wrong side of the gospel as often as it has throughout history.

 

[fhansen]

This is nonsense, and the invokation of non-trinitarian belief is inappropriate since such belief is never originated through the Scriptures but through speculative arguments. Scripture itself is sufficient to demonstrate the reality that Christ is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one God which is sufficient for Trinitarian belief. The abuse of Scripture to bend and twist and try to claim it doesn't have an actual meaning is no reason to discard an individuals ability to arrive at true belief based solely on Scripture. Certainly such a thing is not grounds to invoke a separation between clergy ane laity as if there are divisions in the body of Christ. Catholic dogma does nothing but elevate men into the seat of God and the fact that you smear the Word of God to displace it so is abhorrent.

I won't call this nonsense-just self-deception- to be kind. Sorry, but the Emperor named Sola Scriptura has no clothes. It just takes time and getting real with ourselves to finally admit it. The error of Arianism, which was widespread and spreading wider yet within the Christian world back in the day, was based on reason and Scripture. It didn't happen in a vacuum. The verses used are quite plausible and offer ambiguity if not outright support for the non-deity of Christ. And that's only one reason why the church was necessary along with it's host of believers down through the centuries in order to keep Christianity from ending up a minor footnote in history. The assembling of the writings of the New Testament canon was another example.

We only fool ourselves if we think we could pick up a bible out of the blue and read it centuries after the fact, without the input of the historical church, and understand it to a truly meaningful degree, let alone believe it rather than walk away scratching our heads. Protestants, based on Scripture alone, also disagree with each other on such things as baptismal regeneration (a matter of soteriology), infant baptism, the nature and importance of the Eucharist and real presence, the role of man's will, if any, eternal assurance, and the nature of justification to name a few. Most such things were uncontroversial and already settled in the ancient churches, east and west, having received the Christian way at the beginning.

 

[Clare73]

I won't call this nonsense-just self-deception- to be kind. Sorry, but the Emperor named Sola Scriptura has no clothes. It just takes time and getting real with ourselves to finally admit it. The error of Arianism, which was widespread and spreading wider yet within the Christian world back in the day, was based on reason and Scripture. It didn't happen in a vacuum. The verses used are quite plausible and offer ambiguity if not outright support for the non-deity of Christ. And that's only one reason why the church was necessary along with it's host of believers down through the centuries in order to keep Christianity from ending up a minor footnote in history. The assembling of the writings of the New Testament canon was another example.

We only fool ourselves if we think we could pick up a bible out of the blue and read it centuries after the fact, without the input of the historical church, and understand it to a truly meaningful degree, let alone believe it rather than walk away scratching our heads. Protestants, based on Scripture alone, also disagree with each other on such things as baptismal regeneration (a matter of soteriology), infant baptism, the nature and importance of the Eucharist and real presence, the role of man's will, if any, eternal assurance, and the nature of justification to name a few. Most such things were uncontroversial and already settled in the ancient churches, east and west, having received the Christian way at the beginning.

Is that a balanced picture of Christendom, admitting no grievous errors?

 

[Fervent]

I won't call this nonsense-just self-deception- to be kind. Sorry, but the Emperor named Sola Scriptura has no clothes. It just takes time and getting real with ourselves to finally admit it. The error of Arianism, which was widespread and spreading wider yet within the Christian world back in the day, was based on reason and Scripture. It didn't happen in a vacuum. The verses used are quite plausible and offer ambiguity if not outright support for the non-deity of Christ. And that's only one reason why the church was necessary along with it's host of believers down through the centuries in order to keep Christianity from ending up a minor footnote in history. The assembling of the writings of the New Testament canon was another example.

We only fool ourselves if we think we could pick up a bible out of the blue and read it centuries after the fact, without the input of the historical church, and understand it to a truly meaningful degree, let alone believe it rather than walk away scratching our heads. Protestants, based on Scripture alone, also disagree with each other on such things as baptismal regeneration (a matter of soteriology), infant baptism, the nature and importance of the Eucharist and real presence, the role of man's will, if any, eternal assurance, and the nature of justification to name a few. Most such things were uncontroversial and already settled in the ancient churches, east and west, having received the Christian way at the beginning.

No, arianism was not based on Scripture though a few Scriptures were twisted in its service. A single verse is enough to defeat Arianism in total in John 1:1, which is why modern day arian translations alter it(and their own interlinear gives up the goose). The church didn't debate whether to entertain Arius' view, but whether Arius had gone too far to tolerate. Which is why the arians were largely Germanic converts who knew nothing of the Bible or the history that preceded it. True heresy isn't supported by Scripture which is why people like Marcion and Swedeborg seek to make their own canon. Protestants simply tend to make mountains out of mole hills and set arbitrary lines in the sand on 2nd and 3rd tier issues.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Thanks, you've resolved my misunderstanding of your meaning of "the law of Moses" as distinct from the Ten Commandments.

Moses wrote what God told him to write (Exodus 24:4, Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 31:24)
and the commands God gave him (Deuteronomy 5:31, Deuteronomy 6:1-2, 17, 20, 24-25, Deuteronomy 4:2, 5, 8, 14, 40) for the people,
so why do you call it the "law of Moses," as though he were its author, instead of the "law of God," who is its author?

Yes, God spoke the laws to Moses that he (Moses) wrote down on paper that is called the law of Moses. Luke 2:22, 1 Cor 9:9. God spoke and God personally wrote His Ten commandments Exo 31:18, 32:16 and on stone to reflect it's eternal nature and than stored inside the ark of the Most holy of God's Temple. These two sets of laws serve different purposes and many, when they read Paul's writing, confuse the two sets of laws.

God's laws are eternal Psalms 89:34, reflect the very essence of God's character (pure, righteous, just, perfect, holy, faithful, spiritual) I can reference the scripture to these when I have more time. God's law points out sin Romans 7:7, Romans 3:20, the law of Moses was added because of sin Gal 3:19. God's law judges all men James 2:10-12, the law of Moses judges no man, Col 2:14-16. God's law is spiritual Romans 7:14, the law of Moses was carnal Hebrews 7:16. God's law brings blessings and peace Proverbs 29:18, Psalms 119:165, the law of Moses contained curses Deut 29:20-21, Gal 3:10. God's law is PERFECT Psalms 19:7, the law of Moses made nothing perfect Hebrews 7:19. God's laws are ETERNAL Psalms 89:34, Mathew 5:17-19, the law of Moses is temporary Col 2:14, Hebrews 8:13.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, God spoke the laws to Moses that he (Moses) wrote down on paper that is called the law of Moses. Luke 2:22, 1 Cor 9:9. God spoke and God personally wrote His Ten commandments Exo 31:18, 32:16 and on stone to reflect it's eternal nature and than stored inside the ark of the Most holy of God's Temple. These two sets of laws serve different purposes and many, when they read Paul's writing, confuse the two sets of laws.

God's laws are eternal Psalms 89:34, reflect the very essence of God's character (pure, righteous, just, perfect, holy, faithful, spiritual) I can reference the scripture to these when I have more time.

God's law points out sin Romans 7:7, Romans 3:20, the law of Moses was added because of sin Gal 3:19.
God's law judges all men James 2:10-12, the law of Moses judges no man, Col 2:14-16.
God's law is spiritual Romans 7:14, the law of Moses was carnal Hebrews 7:16.
God's law brings blessings and peace Proverbs 29:18, Psalms 119:165, the law of Moses contained curses Deut 29:20-21, Gal 3:10.
God's law is PERFECT Psalms 19:7, the law of Moses made nothing perfect Hebrews 7:19.
God's laws are ETERNAL Psalms 89:34, Mathew 5:17-19, the law of Moses is temporary Col 2:14, Hebrews 8:13.

That makes no sense!

The law of Moses came from God!
The law of Moses is the law of God!

This is absurd on its face!

 

[fhansen]

No, arianism was not based on Scripture though a few Scriptures were twisted in its service. A single verse is enough to defeat Arianism in total in John 1:1, which is why modern day arian translations alter it(and their own interlinear gives up the goose). The church didn't debate whether to entertain Arius' view, but whether Arius had gone too far to tolerate. Which is why the arians were largely Germanic converts who knew nothing of the Bible or the history that preceded it. True heresy isn't supported by Scripture which is why people like Marcion and Swedeborg seek to make their own canon. Protestants simply tend to make mountains out of mole hills and set arbitrary lines in the sand on 2nd and 3rd tier issues.

Sure, it's a slam-dunk.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27.46/Mark 15.34).

“‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10.17-18/Luke 18.18-19)

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. “ (John 14:1)

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. John 14:28

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17.3)

“…Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst” (Acts 2.22).

“I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20.17).

“so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom 15.6: 2)

“There is no God but one…. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Corinthians 8.4, 6)

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor 1.3

“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Eph 1:17

“To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.” Rev 1:6

 

[Clare73]

???????