The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
Well, you've managed to avoid the question at least. Rome was part of the council. Today, if such a question arose, or if anyone were to try to convene such a council across all of Christendom to resolve any issues that divide denominations or churches today, well... it just couldn't even happen. It's not just about vesting authority in an office, which at least isn't an unreasonable concept BTW, but in vesting authority in the Church. No ecumenical decree would ever come close to being universally accepted today because no such authority of any kind is recognized in any universal manner today. That idea was discarded with the Reformation. There is no Church recognized by the majority at least which could pull off such a thing.

You seem to have not understood what I said, because I didn't avoid the question I pointed out how what you're trying to use to justify the Catholic position demonstrates that it is false. If there was this apostolic transmission that is currently claimed by the Catholics there would have been no need for Nicea, all it would have taken is an authoritative statement from Rome. But it took Constantine setting up a council, and the council wasn't dictating dogma but deciding if Arius had gone too far. Simply because Rome was a part of the council doesn't address the major issue that Rome clearly did not have the authority it now tries to claim. Christ didn't set up a "church" in the modern sense with a governmental structure, He gathered together a bunch of misfits under the confession of Him as Messiah. If you want to say "the church" as all confessing Christians have authority, sure. But that authority does not belong to an episcopate, Rome is an usurper.

Clare73 · Jul 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
Justification and sanctification are not the same in the Greek.
Jusification (dikaiosis) is not holiness.
Justification is simply a judicial pronouncement of acquittal, a declaration of "not guilty," giving one right standing with God's justice--positional righteousness, sanctification (setting apart from sin) only.
Justification does not confer personal holiness. That is the lifetime process of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit.

fhansen said:
Sure, we've been down this road before and I see
you still haven't quite gotten on the right track yet-

Is that hubris I see peeking out from your misperception?

I'm thinking you're the one who fails to see and understand the issue.

The issue is the nature of salvation and justification, not the evidence of salvation and justification.

but close-because either way, if you believe that a person begins to be sanctified as a result of justification, then you're only missing the fact that said sanctity is necessary-and not guaranteed- in order to enter heaven.

You go in circles and meet yourself coming back, all to avoid dealing with the nature of salvation and justification in:
Romans 4:5 - "To the man who does not work (perform) but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Ephesians 2:8 - "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith--and this not from yourself, it (salvation) is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." (Romans 4:2)
For "Salvation is the Lord's!" (Revelation 7:10), the work of God, and God alone.

Their nature: not by works, but by faith apart from works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28).
Their evidence: obedience in the Holy Spirit.

And for the born again, sanctity is guaranteed.
Philippians 2:14 - 'For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

Ephesians 1:14 - "Having believed, you were marked in him (Christ) with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession." (v.11, 18)

2 Corinthians 1:21-22, 5:5 - "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand frim in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownerhsip on us and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

"Go and learn what this means." (Mark 12:24)

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Rom 6:22

"So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Gal 6:7-9

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Rev 22:14-15

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
You seem to have not understood what I said, because I didn't avoid the question I pointed out how what you're trying to use to justify the Catholic position demonstrates that it is false. If there was this apostolic transmission that is currently claimed by the Catholics there would have been no need for Nicea, all it would have taken is an authoritative statement from Rome. But it took Constantine setting up a council, and the council wasn't dictating dogma but deciding if Arius had gone too far. Simply because Rome was a part of the council doesn't address the major issue that Rome clearly did not have the authority it now tries to claim. Christ didn't set up a "church" in the modern sense with a governmental structure, He gathered together a bunch of misfits under the confession of Him as Messiah. If you want to say "the church" as all confessing Christians have authority, sure. But that authority does not belong to an episcopate, Rome is an usurper.

You're still avoiding the question. There isn't even a universally recognized group such as met in Acts in Jerusalem that could decide anything for Christianity. There's nothing accepted there to which even some form of sola ecclesia could apply. The point is that a council could be and was convened and the resulting decisions did become recognized as dogma in both the east and west and even a new creed came forth from it.

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
You're still avoiding the question. There isn't even a universally recognized group such as met in Acts in Jerusalem that could decide anything for Christianity. There's nothing accepted there to which even some form of sola ecclesia could apply. The point is that a council could be and was convened and the resulting decisions did become recognized as dogma in both the east and west and even a new creed came forth from it.

The decisions aren't recognized as dogma, per se, but a recognition that Arius' speculation are beyond the scope of what is supportable from Scripture. Nicea was a matter of exclusion, not a statement of positive position. There is a historical context that has to be considered whenever it is discussed, but your attempt to move from a universal joining of the confessing churches to an apostolic descent is entirely inappropriate especially since the very fact of it highlights that the Roman claims arose later. Your evidence directly contradicts your position. Nor is it appropriate to say "well, this was a need then so clearly its a need now." The essentials of the faith have been defined, we can look to the truly ecumenical councils and show that both the historic faith and the Biblical witness are in agreement, though the historic position is not the authority but was based on that authority. The Nicea-constantinople creed is nothing more than a codification of what's in the Bible, and its authority is drawn from that not as an authority in itself.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
The decisions aren't recognized as dogma, per se, but a recognition that Arius' speculation are beyond the scope of what is supportable from Scripture. Nicea was a matter of exclusion, not a statement of positive position. There is a historical context that has to be considered whenever it is discussed, but your attempt to move from a universal joining of the confessing churches to an apostolic descent is entirely inappropriate especially since the very fact of it highlights that the Roman claims arose later. Your evidence directly contradicts your position. Nor is it appropriate to say "well, this was a need then so clearly its a need now." The essentials of the faith have been defined, we can look to the truly ecumenical councils and show that both the historic faith and the Biblical witness are in agreement, though the historic position is not the authority but was based on that authority. The Nicea-constantinople creed is nothing more than a codification of what's in the Bible, and its authority is drawn from that not as an authority in itself.

I didn't bring up apostolic succession-there's no need to even go there at this point anyway. So ok, again, the church as some unified body even back then wasn't really at all necessary. And certainly isn't necessary now because of all the unification that has come about in the past many centuries. Protestants can't even agree on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, but, hey, it's only salvation.

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
I didn't bring up apostolic succession-there's no need to even go there at this point anyway. So ok, again, the church as some unified body even back then wasn't really at all necessary. And certainly isn't necessary now because of all the unification that has come about in the past many centuries. Protestants can't even agree on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, but, hey, it's only salvation.

You're painting a false picture if you think the church was unified back then. The question was a question of limits not orthodox position, how far can we go before we are no longer within the realm of Christendom? Which is why I kept referring to 1st level issues, unless you are going to say that protestants are no longer Christians your reference to Nicea does not establish what you are trying to establish through it.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
You're painting a false picture if you think the church was unified back then. The question was a question of limits not orthodox position, how far can we go before we are no longer within the realm of Christendom?

The church was unified enough to meet and address the question.

Fervent said:
Which is why I kept referring to 1st level issues, unless you are going to say that protestants are no longer Christians your reference to Nicea does not establish what you are trying to establish through it.

Now that's a strawman. Just because unity is God's will doesn't mean that a person can't, in ignorance, have imperfect faith and still be Christian. Presumably none of our theologies or understandings as individuals are perfect for that matter. And the CC, for its part, recognizes the majority of Christians as brethren in the faith, though separated. And there can only be one church, however loosely or specifically we define it.

Either way, the decision at Nicaea held and continued to be held down through the centuries to this day-and that Trinitarian belief, while still questioned by some Sola Scriptura adherents, is one of the most important criterion by which most of us determine a person to be Christian in the most basic sense.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
The issue is the nature of salvation and justification, not the evidence of salvation and justification.

Risking the accusation of hubris, for the sake of truth

, I'll just say you’re apparently not back on track yet. As many Scriptural verses attest, our state of justice can be compromised, forfeited, lost- by our living unjustly. The question isn’t about the nature vs the evidence of justification and salvation but whether or not personal justice or righteousness is demanded to any degree, whether or not one must be sanctified, must be righteous and therefore live righteously, in order to enter eternal life. You say, ‘Yes, we must be righteous, but only “imputedly” so’. I say, ‘Yes we must be righteous, but personally so by the grace of God and our cooperation with it through whatever time we have on this planet.

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
The church was unified enough to met and answer the question.
Which is why I kept referring to 1st level issues, unless you are going to say that protestants are no longer Christians your reference to Nicea does not establish what you are trying to establish through it.
Now that's a strawman. Just because unity is God's will doesn't mean that a person can't, in ignorance, have imperfect faith and still be Christian. Presumably none of our theologies or understandings as individuals are perfect for that matter. And the CC, for its part, recognizes the majority of Christians as brethren in the faith, though separated. And there can only be one church, however loosely or specifically we define it.

Either way, the decision at Nicaea held and continued to be held down through the centuries to this day-and that Trinitarian belief, while still questioned by some Sola Scriptura adherents, is one of the most important criterion by which most of us determine a person to be Christian in the most basic sense.

No, it's not a straw man. You seem to be forwarding the idea that there was an internal structure within the church to call Nicea, but there wasn't. It took Constantine, the emperor and not a church official, to use his political influence to make Nicea happen. "The church" was a loose conglomeration of city churches each with their own governmental structure. There was no pope, there were no official bishoprates, there weren't distinct parishes. There wasn't a strict unity in either structure or theology, though Constantine tried to create such a structure with himself as the head and the divisions essentially coming down to ordinary political divisions. And the decision at Nicea wasn't implemented as an official position statement, nor did it put an end to the controversy(neither did Constantinople). The attendants didn't appeal to their pedigree, nor did they hold themselves as particular authorities, they discussed the matter and questioned whether there was a point that one's theology excluded them from rightfully being called a Christian.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
No, it's not a straw man. You seem to be forwarding the idea that there was an internal structure within the church to call Nicea, but there wasn't. It took Constantine, the emperor and not a church official, to use his political influence to make Nicea happen. "The church" was a loose conglomeration of city churches each with their own governmental structure. There was no pope, there were no official bishoprates, there weren't distinct parishes. There wasn't a strict unity in either structure or theology, though Constantine tried to create such a structure with himself as the head and the divisions essentially coming down to ordinary political divisions. And the decision at Nicea wasn't implemented as an official position statement, nor did it put an end to the controversy(neither did Constantinople). The attendants didn't appeal to their pedigree, nor did they hold themselves as particular authorities, they discussed the matter and questioned whether there was a point that one's theology excluded them from rightfully being called a Christian.

Well, down-playing the council is one speculative way to deal with the matter I guess. The council was certainly more formal-while able to draw bishops from far ranging locales- than the meeting at Jerusalem even though that also serves as a model for the need and possibility for such get-togethers. It doesn't matter how it happened- Constantine was a pawn-the Holy Spirit was in control from beginning to end which is one reason the bishops couldn't even consider voting in favor of Constantine's pet position BTW.

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
Well, down-playing the council is one speculative way to deal with the matter I guess. The council was certainly more formal-while able to draw bishops from far ranging locales- than the meeting at Jerusalem even though that also serves as a model for the need and possibility for such get-togethers. It doesn't matter how it happened- Constantine was a pawn-the Holy Spirit was in control from beginning to end which is one reason the bishops couldn't even consider voting in favor of Constantine's pet position BTW.

There's no down playing, simply putting it into the proper historical context. The bishops were able to be drawn because Constantine used his political influence and capital, it was intended as a first act of the establishment of an official state church under emperor Constantine. For your position to be valid it absolutely matters how it happened, because you're attempting to rest the authority of "the Church," in specific the Roman Catholic Church, on its proceedings. You're attempting to conflate the church as the body of Christ with the codified structures of the Catholic clergy and the need for such a clergy. So it is important to highlight that Nicea did not happen from any such structure, the Holy Spirit made provision through Constantine's state powers. If such a need arises again, the Holy Spirit can make provision without the need for human corporations.

Clare73 · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
As many Scriptural verses attest, our state of justice can be compromised, forfeited, lost- by our living unjustly. The question isn’t about the nature vs the evidence of justification and salvation but whether or not personal justice or righteousness is demanded to any degree, whether or not one must be sanctified, must be righteous and therefore live righteously, in order to enter eternal life. You say, ‘Yes, we must be righteous, but only “imputedly” so’. I say, ‘Yes we must be righteous, but personally so by the grace of God and our cooperation with it through whatever time we have on this planet.

None of which is the meaning of the terms salvation and justification as one-time transactions of God.

Root of Jesse · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
Yes, but not in Matthew. His line of transmission is given in John 14-17.

Thats your opinion.

Root of Jesse · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
The New Testament speaks in many places of human teachers, and the call for that vocation. So much for Sola Scriptura. You're not really relying on Christ as your teacher anyway, but on your personal interpretation of Scripture as your teacher: on yourself in large part, IOW. Scripture, unlike Christ, cannot speak directly for itself when questions or controversies arise; only a human entity, a teacher, can do so.

Thanks. I was busy worshiping God. Couldn't have expressed it better.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Fervent said:
There's no down playing, simply putting it into the proper historical context. The bishops were able to be drawn because Constantine used his political influence and capital, it was intended as a first act of the establishment of an official state church under emperor Constantine. For your position to be valid it absolutely matters how it happened, because you're attempting to rest the authority of "the Church," in specific the Roman Catholic Church, on its proceedings. You're attempting to conflate the church as the body of Christ with the codified structures of the Catholic clergy and the need for such a clergy. So it is important to highlight that Nicea did not happen from any such structure, the Holy Spirit made provision through Constantine's state powers. If such a need arises again, the Holy Spirit can make provision without the need for human corporations.

I don't recall asserting any of those things particularly. I simply maintain that the church, as designated by God, is necessary in order to maintain a meaningful unity of faith. And the Eastern model based on councils and Tradition is-has served to be-at least far superior to anything that one might presume to expect from Sola Scriptura regarding the ability to maintain a unity of basic beliefs.

But, ok, maybe you've convinced me. God prefers disunity-and never would've considered such a ridiculous idea as giving His "deposit of faith" to the church at the beginning, apart from Scripture even, and then preserving it intact down through the centuries. Persevering it through humans despite their failings and weaknesses and limitations.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
None of which is the meaning of the terms salvation and justification as one-time transactions of God.

They're not just one time transactions. They're encounters with God that result in a fellowship, a communion with Him as we enter His family; that's the purpose of faith. That relationship, itself, is both the essence and further source of man's righteousness or justice; it's all a matter of who we hang out and rub elbows with. We demonstrate who we've been hanging out with by the fruit we bear, by the love we have and express IOW, without which we won't enter heaven.

Clare73 · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
They're not just one time transactions.
They're encounters with God

Nope. . .they are in the NT:

salvation from the condemnation and wrath of God (Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3) and
justification--declaration (based on remission of one's sin by faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice)
of "not guilty" and in right standing with God's justice
are one-time permanent positional actions of God,

raising one out of spiritual death and into eternal life of the new creation (the Church), where
"God then works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13); i.e.,
"to be holy and blameless in his sight, to be adopted as his sons" (Ephesians 1:5),
"to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" that he might have many brothers (Romans 8:29), etc.,

Somewhat transcends the notional "encounters with God" dialect.

And speaking of being on track, where is that stated in the NT?

encounters with God that result in a fellowship, a communion with Him as we enter His family; that's the purpose of faith. That relationship, itself, is both the essence and further source of man's righteousness or justice; it's all a matter of who we hang out and rub elbows with. We demonstrate who we've been hanging out with by the fruit we bear, by the love we have and express IOW, without which we won't enter heaven.

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

fhansen said:
I don't recall asserting any of those things particularly. I simply maintain that the church, as designated by God, is necessary in order to maintain a meaningful unity of faith. And the Eastern model based on councils and Tradition is-has served to be-at least far superior to anything that one might presume to expect from Sola Scriptura regarding the ability to maintain a unity of basic beliefs.

But, ok, maybe you've convinced me. God prefers disunity-and never would've considered such a ridiculous idea as giving His "deposit of faith" to the church at the beginning, apart from Scripture even, and then preserving it intact down through the centuries. Persevering it through humans despite their failings and weaknesses and limitations.

Councils are all well and good, but when they ceased being ecumenical they lost whatever authority they may have had. Tradition is also fine, but it must be subservient to the word of God. When you make it "Holy Tradition" and place it on the same level as Scripture it is the exact same error of the pharisees with the halaka where they encoded the traditions of men. You accuse me of promoting disunity, but that's created when men attempt to usurp the authority of God and elevate themselves to an unwarranted position. Jesus disposed of the seat of Moses, why would He then re-create it in the seat of Peter? Why would He re-establish what He had destroyed?

Fervent · Jul 18, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Thats your opinion.

Sure, based on contextual reading of the two texts. In Matthew the central focus is what Peter confessed, both from the structure of the narrative and in terms of the conversation Jesus had with Peter. The wordplay between Peter/petra is a clever device but it isn't integral contextually. That scene serves as the denouement of Matthews gospel, where the central question is Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? So both within the narrative and literarily the focus is on what Peter has said rather than who Peter is. What are all Christians gathered under? The confession of Jesus as Christ.

John, on the other hand, has Jesus giving instructions to the church for how to handle things after He has ascended with John 13-17 being His final address to His disciples. That's where we would expect to find where He made His deposit, and He highlights that it is through the giving of the Spirit to all believers.

fhansen · Jul 18, 2021

Clare73 said:
Nope. . .they are in the NT:

Clare73 said:
salvation from the condemnation and wrath of God (Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3) and

So now you're saying all men are saved?
"So then as through one trespass [the judgment came] unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness [the free gift came] unto all men to justification of life." Rom 5:18

Eph 2:3:
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

And so, yes, if we put to death the deeds of the flesh we will live (Rom 8:12-13). Anyway, justification is both a one-time event and an ongoing process; justification and sanctification being parts of the same operation. If we were to die immediately once justified via faith, we'd enter heaven then. Most are given a greater challenge though-to live and remain faithful to that union with God throughout our lives-and to grow in it even more yet. Salvation is simply the result of being and remaining just: in that state of righteousness without which we're children of wrath, worthy of condemnation.

There's much encouragement and hyperbole regarding our status, though, balanced by warnings and admonitions:
“You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” Rom 11:19-22

Anyway, salvation is spoken of as past:
"...it is by grace you have been saved." Eph 2:5

present:
"...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," Phil 2:12

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18

"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls." 1 Pet 1:8-9

future:
"And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Act 2:47

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Romans 5:9-10

The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Oldbie

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Similar threads