Under whose authority do you say you have the correct interpretation of the Bible?

David Cabrera said:

Well, if there was something wrong then there would had been others who criticize those ideas.
.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

As in?

Click to expand...

Seadish said:

I study much but always during before and after I go to the Word of God period. If and when God shows me different takes in scripture than previous, it is because His word is alive. Not because it changes but because there is so much that He says in just one verse. I do not do religion although lately am preferring Nazarene, which I find interesting that there are no Nazarene sections here, at least what I can see.

Click to expand...

worshipjunkie said:

I used to be Catholic. And there is just as much division in the Catholic church as there is in the Protestant church. Because of the comittment to the structure of the Catholic church, it's not as visible, but it's there. Even conservative Catholics disagree on how many things are to be interpreted and on the very meaning of infallibility itself. Some Catholics believe if the Pope doodles on a notepad it's infallible and others only accept ex cathedra statements as falling under the dogma of infallibility.
To choose just one issue that there is a great deal of division on among even conservative Catholics: no salvation outside the church (EENS). Are all Protestants saved? WHat about the Eastern Orthodox? Non-Christians? Is Pope Francis' liberal views on the subject more correct then Pope Benedict XVI's more conservative? In fact, the controversy over Pope Francis' pontificate is another example of the division among Catholics.
The argument is very circular. The Church decides the correct interpretation of Scripture and Tradition (in the case of Tradition, you can't even know what it is without the Magisterium). If you say "I read the Scriptures, and it says X is wrong with Catholic teaching", the Magisterium says that they're right because they're the only ones who have the authority to decide if they're right or not! There's no objective standard you can hold them up to in order to see if their claims about themselves are accurate, because they can dismiss any proof they don't like.

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

Click to expand...

bcbsr said:

The problem is they would ban, excommunicate, or crucify those who criticize them (much as on these forums) And so contrary to some, institutional popularity is not the measure of truth.

Click to expand...

ml5363 said:

Try checking in congregation or community..I am pretty sure I saw nazarene

Click to expand...

Tigger45 said:

Here ya go>
Wesley's Parish - Methodist/ Nazaren

Click to expand...

David Cabrera said:

There was the case of Athanasius who a lot of people didn't like but his Orthodoxy was triumphant in the end and he is a famous saint now.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Then there is the case of Augustine, who is widely revered, especially in Calvinistic circles, but whose monergism has been completely rejected by the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

JackRT said:

...
Matthew 5:39 --- “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. ..

...Jesus is not counseling humility here, he is counseling a covert defiance.
....

Click to expand...

David Cabrera said:

Augustine isn't monergist.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Actually, Augustine is not. He was and is not living with us anymore.

The fact is that in his earlier years Augustine founded the monergistic theology which was subsequently embraced by the Reformers. It was no mere coincidence that Luther was an Augustinian monk.

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation?

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't?

Click to expand...

If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't?

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

The Bible says the Trinity is correct.

Click to expand...

bcbsr said:

That's the thing. I've been unjustifiably banned twice from these forums for "boldly" telling the truth. And I expect to the banned yet again for doing so in the near future. Seems the nature of these forums that Bereans are not welcomed.

Click to expand...

JackRT said:

Trinity is an interpretation. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is the word "trinity" ever used.

Click to expand...

Ing Bee said:

Hi Alex-
While I think I understand the question(s), there are some assumptions in your setup that I disagree with or find somewhat leading.

If you are familiar with the old chestnut that goes: "Yes or no: have you stopped beating your child?", you know it's possible to ask a question that is impossible to answer usefully. Perhaps if I point those parts of your post I find problematic you can clarify so that I (and others) can give a more meaningful response.

• How do you understand "the Church"? Who is in it and what is the basis for being part of it? It's so easy to get frustrated or speak past one another if we don't understand the definitions for our respective points of view.
• What do you mean by "divisions in the Church"? That is: Is a disagreement on whether Jesus is "in very nature God" an 'internal division' or an example of "there were not of us"? Are there degrees of divisions? Is fundamental unity in God's household threatened by minor interpretive differences? And on that note...

• Are the central, defining elements of the gospel clear to the average reader?
  • If the answer is "no" then your assertion that "a lot" of Christians think this way can't be true and the reason they would come to a church is to get help from an "expert".
  • If the answer is "yes" then "divisions" are of the "uncritical" variety, and any who reject the essential, easy-to-grasp teachings are not really part of the church anyway so it's "much ado about nothing".
  • If the answer is "no, but people falsely think they understand", then why are they going to a church in the first place? And again, they may not actually be Christians and so are likely excluded from this discussion.
• Can we make a distinction between people who call themselves Christians and those who actually are Christians? If someone attends a local Christian community meeting because they hear what they want to hear, I don't know if that qualifies them as actually sharing the life of Jesus, otherwise they would "hear [his] voice " (2 Timothy 4:1-4). In this case, we have to eliminate them from any actual discussion about anything relating to the new life, including interpretation.
• What do you mean by "people think their interpretation is the most important"?
  • Do you mean they think that personal interpretation is the most important part of the Christian life?
  • Or do you mean they think their personal interpretation is the best?" If it's that latter, are they looking for others who agree with them? How can others agree with someone else's personal interpretation? It's personal!
• Is there a difference between claiming to follow the Bible and actually following the Bible? Can people discern that difference?

• Is "correct interpretation" even the right metric, here? This goes back to the first question: What is the nature of "the Church"? In the New Testament writings it is faith (i.e. interpersonal trust in Jesus) that is the defining characteristic of the Christian communities. A quick survey of uses of "belief" and "faith" in the New Testament (and in the Old Testament) demonstrates that relational trust and loyalty to the PERSON of Son as the representative of the PERSON of the Father is what matters (e.g. the clearest example being 1 John 5:11).
  
• Is the Holy Spirit at work in the life of each believer? If the Holy Spirit indwells all who have been adopted through Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14), then he fulfills all the functions Jesus and the New Testament writers said he would, including as an "interpreter" (1 Corinthians 2:1-16)
• Can Christian leaders be wrong? Peter was wrong and Paul "opposed him to his face" (Galatians 2:11-14). If this is the case in the early church, we should humbly admit that it can be true today. In that case, Jesus' true sheep will listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, and He will call them and lead them.
• Where do you think the doctrine of the Trinity originated? The church father's quote the New Testament like crazy as the source of their authority. Several scholars (e.g. Dan Wallace) have noted that if we had no New Testament manuscripts we would still have a majority of the New Testament

• What is most important in the Christian life ; is it easily discover-able in the Bible? This goes back to the relative importance of issues in the bible. For instance, one thing you can't get out of the Bible is a teaching that the death penalty is evil. Jesus never mentions it and Paul explicitly defends the lethal power of the state as divinely granted. (Romans 13:4). As serious as the death is, in the scope of eternity it is much less important than a person's relationship to the only source of Life in Eternity. Therefore, although two Christians may disagree on this issue (and one of them may be the Pope), it is not necessarily "disunity" since the basis of unity in the first place is not total agreement, but shared union with the Father through the Son by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:14, Titus 3:3-7).

• Does the Paul teach in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 that everyone who is born of the Spirit, discerns the things of the Spirit such that he can say "we have the mind of Christ"? In the gospel of John (ch.3), Jesus says that no one enters the kingdom unless they have been "born of the Spirit".
• Here's the conundrum: if a person is born of the Spirit, they have been sealed with the indwelling Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) and hence, the Spirit enables them to "discern the things of the Spirit" so he/she can have "the mind of Christ".
  • If someone says that person doesn't have the Spirit (and they don't) then they are not a Christian and are excused from this entire discussion.
  • If they do have the Spirit, then they can discern the things of the Spirit, regardless of the pedigree of the individual who denies their New Birth.
• Not to be troublesome, but is this kind of discussion really useful? If someone is alive in Christ, they will be increasingly transformed into the likeness of Christ as they cooperate with the "Spirit who is the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18). Maturing Christians sound more and more like Jesus and he is not absent from this equation because His Spirit is at work in the lives of those he has called. When I meet someone who knows Jesus, it is plainly evident in the quality and character of their joyful life, regardless of their denomination or secondary and tertiary beliefs. If they don't know Jesus, it doesn't matter what they say they believe, there is no evidence of the transforming power of the Spirit. Those who love Jesus, love His Word. They delight in His voice and they live to encourage and build up his people.

• When you say "it's far too complex, is there ANYTHING in the Bible that you understand? This for me is the biggest issue with your questioning, you presuppose that the Bible is not at all understandable, as though it weren't written by actual human beings, in actual geographic and historical settings, in actual human languages using the normal grammar and ideas of the time. In your characterization, since it is not understandable, all interpretations are suspect, as if people will come to a spectrum of interpretations for a saying like: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life". The reason why John 3:16 is so popular is that it concisely and unambiguously expresses the essential nature of the gospel: relationship with the Father through the Son.
• Does this paragraph present a "straw man"? It sounds like you think other churches don't affirm the core teachings found in the Bible which the catechisms and early creeds affirm. Why do you think that? I've never run into any protestant of any kind who would deny the "Apostles Creed", the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
• Another issue: you've presented a false dichotomy here. It is perfectly possible to affirm the Bible as authoritative and understandable through "proper interpretation" by the average person willing to employ normal interpretive principles AND value and consider the thoughts of other believers both now and through the centuries who have been empowered by the Holy Spirit.

This final paragraph is a collection of logical fallacies:

• appeal to authority "disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, "
• genetic fallacy "who lived much closer to Christ's time,"
• hasty generalization "before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies)"
• ad hominem "if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers"
• circular argument "and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us..."

How would you answer to the following questions:

1. Are the centrally important truths necessary for new life in Christ understandable to the average Bible reader (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:3-11)?
   • On what basis do you hold this belief?
2. Do you believe that unity in those centrally important truths is sufficient or does true Christian unity require absolute uniformity on even minor doctrinal points?

Click to expand...