The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree that many misinterpret the Bible on important matters, including the hierarchy of the Catholic church. The Bible -- God's word -- is meant to be read or heard by all Christians. I don't accept people's interpretations as authoritative, as they vary "all over the map".

Scripture is infallible; humans are fallible. End of story.

John 16:13a, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." Notice that it doesn't say priests (or any clergy) will guide you into all truth.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So....Sola Scriptura is fine, but individuals may and do interpret God's word incorrectly.

What's remarkable about that observation?

Every church, not just every Protestant church, has had internal disputes concerning what its clergy, theologians, doctrinal statements, and so forth should be teaching. And that's to say nothing of what the ordinary member decides to believe or not believe!

Agreed. Individuals -- including clergy! -- may and do interpret God's word incorrectly. God's word -- the Bible -- is true, period. The Bible itself is infallible.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree that many misinterpret the Bible on important matters, including the hierarchy of the Catholic church. The Bible -- God's word -- is meant to be read or heard by all Christians. I don't accept people's interpretations as authoritative, as they vary "all over the map".

Scripture is infallible; humans are fallible. End of story.

Exactly. Why this should be the cause of endless arguing (as it seems to be around here) is unexplained. There's really nothing to dispute.

Every significant denomination considers the Bible to be divine revelation and every one of them knows that individual Christians misinterpret what they read. Nor is that the fault of the churches.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Exactly. Why this should be the cause of endless arguing (as it seems to be around here) is unexplained. There's really nothing to dispute.

Every significant denomination considers the Bible to be divine revelation and every one of them knows that individual Christians misinterpret what they read. Nor is that the fault of the churches.

The individual Christians that misinterpret what they read also includes clergy. Nobody is infallible, including church officials. FYI, I was a church elder for many years until I retired and -- ready for it? -- I am not infallible. It is the fault of the churches to consider their particular doctrine to be infallible, making all other doctrines wrong.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So....Sola Scriptura is fine, but individuals may and do interpret God's word incorrectly.

What's remarkable about that observation?

Every church, not just every Protestant church, has had internal disputes concerning what its clergy, theologians, doctrinal statements, and so forth should be teaching. And that's to say nothing of what the ordinary member decides to believe or not believe!
The point is that anyone can say, perhaps from a position of moral superiority,
"The Bible is God's perfect message to humanity. It is considered to be God's perfect word."

As if that resolves everything and so now we can all go home, perfectly knowing God's perfect wisdom and will in all matters of the faith while clearly countering most all Catholic teachings.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The point is that anyone can say, perhaps from a position of moral superiority,
"The Bible is God's perfect message to humanity. It is considered to be God's perfect word."

As if that resolves everything and so now we can all go home, perfectly knowing God's perfect wisdom and will in all matters of the faith while clearly countering most all Catholic teachings.

If God's word does counter Catholic teachings, we of course would have to be guided by God's word. But that wasn't the point here.

Rather, it was that no one is defending an incorrect reading of Scripture, nor is there any way to prevent that from happening.

However, the claim we so often hear ("People disagree on what their reading of Scripture teaches, so that must mean that there's something wrong with trusting Scripture or with the churches that put their ultimate trust in it!") is either said out of misunderstanding or in order to create controversy where there really isn't any.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Bible is God's perfect message to humanity. It is considered to be God's perfect word.

The interpretations of the Bible and rituals of the churches -- especially the Catholic church -- are man-made. The truth exists in the Bible, not in some human-created hierarchy of men. There are no cathedrals, popes, cardinals, bishops; no confessions to priests for forgiveness of sins, no veneration of Mary, no prayers to "saints", -- we're all saints -- in the Bible.

Sola scriptura!
First of all, Sola scriptura isn't in the Bible either. It's a man-made idea.
So, you can have your sola scriptura, but the Bible is a man-made book (or collection), too. And if what you believe is true is true, then you're saying God stopped talking to us after Scripture was written, and we know that's just not true. Jesus said it himself.
I don't care if you don't like all those things. It's a personal preference. I don't particularly like some cathedrals, either, such as the one in Oakland, CA. But some are beautiful and for the glory of God, so the idea is not wrong. It is nice to have a structure, like the Temple, to worship in. There is a pope in the Bible, also bishops, and there is confession in the gospel (whose sins you forgive (spoken to the apostles) are forgiven, whose sins you don't forgive aren't), there is veneration of Mary (ask Elizabeth), prayer to saints (see Revelation). We are all called to be saints. Not all respond positively. That's why there's hell for those who choose not God.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
That's a claim, a claim not supported by the historical picture nor clearly elaborated in Scripture but instead rests on the thinnest speculation that ignores both immediate and larger context of Matthew 16 in order to support. Ekklesia in Matthew does not mean governmental structure/designated clergy but speaks to the entire congregation of believers. Most of the theology surrounding the Catholic claims started to take shape shortly before Leo 1, finding its fullest justification in Augustine against the Donatists in order to legitimize using legal censure against clerical enemies in order to preserve temporal authority.
The historic record is full of that claim. I know it's thin, but we have more historic record of that than we do of Plato or Aristotle. Also, the Christian faith, which was One, Catholic, ask Ignatius of Antioch...was illegal, so it would be thin. You can say that ekklesia doesn't mean something, but rather, tell us what it does mean. Never mind, you don't have a good record of responding to others' questions...Ekklesia was a structure and people. The apostles as the authority, the disciples and the followers. Being illegal, they didn't have structures to worship in, but they did have a hierarchy. (That answers the question "Did Jesus provide a structure for transmission of the faith?") If you go to Rome, there are huge underground basilicas where the early Christians of Rome met. Regarding the fathers of the Church before Augustine, there were plenty, and they wrote plenty.
The only revisionism is that of Catholic myths.
To quote the author, that's just like...your opinion, man. And you can't have it both ways. "The Church is too old-fashioned." Is used for us as a comment and a criticism.
That's just like...your opinion, man.
Actually, it was Jesus' prophecy. Remember? "The gates of hell will not prevail against my church"?
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If God's word does counter Catholic teachings, we of course would have to be guided by God's word. But that wasn't the point here.

Rather, it was that no one is defending an incorrect reading of Scripture, nor is there any way to prevent that from happening.

However, the claim we so often hear ("People disagree on what their reading of Scripture teaches, so that must mean that there's something wrong with trusting Scripture or with the churches that put their ultimate trust in it!") is either said out of misunderstanding or in order to create controversy where there really isn't any.
It is true that Scripture speaks to us where we are, today, as well as the other four senses (literal, moral, anagogical and moral). But that isn't the same thing. It's one thing to personally interpret a passage as it speaks to you today. I often write down what the readings mean to me today, date it, and then go back to see when that reading comes around again. And often it speaks to me differently. But that is very personal, not something I might share with people in general. But when people speak of passages such as Matthew 5-7, or John 6, where people disagree vehemently, such as saying that Jesus didn't really multiply 5 loaves and two fish, or that Jesus didn't really mean that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood...all people are doing is taking the anti-Catholic approach, which is a lot like the Biden doctrine of anti-Trumpism.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The historic record is full of that claim. I know it's thin, but we have more historic record of that than we do of Plato or Aristotle. Also, the Christian faith, which was One, Catholic, ask Ignatius of Antioch...was illegal, so it would be thin. You can say that ekklesia doesn't mean something, but rather, tell us what it does mean. Never mind, you don't have a good record of responding to others' questions...Ekklesia was a structure and people. The apostles as the authority, the disciples and the followers. Being illegal, they didn't have structures to worship in, but they did have a hierarchy. (That answers the question "Did Jesus provide a structure for transmission of the faith?") If you go to Rome, there are huge underground basilicas where the early Christians of Rome met. Regarding the fathers of the Church before Augustine, there were plenty, and they wrote plenty.To quote the author, that's just like...your opinion, man. And you can't have it both ways. "The Church is too old-fashioned." Is used for us as a comment and a criticism.Actually, it was Jesus' prophecy. Remember? "The gates of hell will not prevail against my church"?
The historical record indicates the church at Rome was headed by a council, that persecutions were short and punctuated during the first century not persistent so your claim "it was illegal" isn't exactly true. Ekklesia refers to the congregation, the general people. There is no governmental structure in Matthew, and in fact where Jesus speaks of "how it will be" he specifically denounces hierarchy:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

so to try to assert that Jesus established such a thing is patently absurd. Jesus' preparation for the transmission of the faith is an open declaration, no subterfuge or hidden means but the open practice in spite of the risks. And the issue isn't that there weren't writers before Augustine, but that the structures of the church were not codified until shortly before and then finding a full measure with Augustine. The church was shaped by crises, and the Donatist crisis shows that there was no official church hierarchy until that point which is precisely why the Donatists were such an issue when they denounced bishops who had recanted under threat of death.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The historical record indicates the church at Rome was headed by a council, that persecutions were short and punctuated during the first century not persistent so your claim "it was illegal" isn't exactly true.
Show me authoritative documentation that proves me wrong.
Ekklesia refers to the congregation, the general people. There is no governmental structure in Matthew, and in fact where Jesus speaks of "how it will be" he specifically denounces hierarchy:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Governmental hierarchy, right. The call to the apostles was to serve, not to be served, and it's the same for bishops and pastors today. That's why we have a celibate priesthood, so our pastors can be servants to their flock.
so to try to assert that Jesus established such a thing is patently absurd. Jesus' preparation for the transmission of the faith is an open declaration, no subterfuge or hidden means but the open practice in spite of the risks. And the issue isn't that there weren't writers before Augustine, but that the structures of the church were not codified until shortly before and then finding a full measure with Augustine. The church was shaped by crises, and the Donatist crisis shows that there was no official church hierarchy until that point which is precisely why the Donatists were such an issue when they denounced bishops who had recanted under threat of death.
So, what you believe is that Jesus didn't provide for the transmission of the faith he spent his life building. Thanks for finally answering the question! But, you're wrong. Jesus did provide for the transmission of the faith, he told the apostles they were it, and they knew that they should also appoint successors and vicars as the Church grew. He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide THEM in all truth, meaning that the Holy Spirit would prevent error from infringing on the Church He built. He gave them authority to bind and loose. The end.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Show me authoritative documentation that proves me wrong.
The issue is you're the one making a claim, stating that this structure existed. While I could parse the record with you to show why it's most likely that Rome was governed by a council, it's clear from this conversation that such an effort would be wasted.

Governmental hierarchy, right. The call to the apostles was to serve, not to be served, and it's the same for bishops and pastors today. That's why we have a celibate priesthood, so our pastors can be servants to their flock.
Hierarchal authority, as in church governance. None of the apostles demanded their authority be respected based on position, they based their claims on Scripture and the few times Paul needed to assert his apostleship he referenced his trials. Totally different from popes and cardinals who live in palaces and operate one of, if not the richest non-state human corporations. The entire structure is about trying to assert authority over individuals and not about service.

So, what you believe is that Jesus didn't provide for the transmission of the faith he spent his life building. Thanks for finally answering the question! But, you're wrong. Jesus did provide for the transmission of the faith, he told the apostles they were it, and they knew that they should also appoint successors and vicars as the Church grew. He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide THEM in all truth, meaning that the Holy Spirit would prevent error from infringing on the Church He built. He gave them authority to bind and loose. The end.
Nice putting words in my mouth, I deny that Jesus set up a human governmental corporation for such transmission. I already told you His provision is given in John, not Matthew. The structures of the Catholic church are nothing more than human corporations that developed over time, in response to various controversies. And its clear that Jesus set up no such line of transmission since even Catholics admit there have been multiple selection methods for new popes. If Jesus set up the transmission, why is the mechanism for selection a matter of human opinions?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If God's word does counter Catholic teachings, we of course would have to be guided by God's word. But that wasn't the point here.

Rather, it was that no one is defending an incorrect reading of Scripture, nor is there any way to prevent that from happening.

However, the claim we so often hear ("People disagree on what their reading of Scripture teaches, so that must mean that there's something wrong with trusting Scripture or with the churches that put their ultimate trust in it!") is either said out of misunderstanding or in order to create controversy where there really isn't any.
I actually believe I assessed his meaning pretty well. Either way, each person must decide for themselves if their-or their denomination's-interpretations and understandings are correct, of course. But to say that Scripture is God's word is one thing; to most fully or sufficiently understand its meaning-His will for man-is another.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Either way, each person must decide for themselves if their-or their denomination's-interpretations and understandings are correct, of course. But to say that Scripture is God's word is one thing; to most fully or sufficiently understand its meaning-His will for man-is another.
Yes. Is anyone denying this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And that's the problem. Is there a resolution to it?
On the one hand, we would be inclined to say "No." That's because, when you really get down to it, we don't know anything for sure. We simply trust what we believe because we have scrutinized it and decided to believe it on the basis of the evidence. It could be that the whole universe is a mirage and doesn't exist at all, if we wanted to push this point. But we don't do that and we believe based on what we consider to be compelling.

On the other hand, "Yes" because the word of God--if there is a God--cannot be beat! (to put it crudely but as simply as possible)

What is more persuasive than God's own message to mankind?? Huh?

Well, nothing. And nothing else is even its equal. That's so obvious, and there is hardly any Christian church that denies that the Bible IS, in fact, divine revelation.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some Sola Scriptura adherents respond as if, going by the bible alone, they should have that kind of certainty, virtually implying infallibility, in fact, while not acknowledging it.

But "some" supporters of almost any Christian doctrine you can name--Marian devotions, Prophesy, Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Good works, Apostolic Succession. etc.--can be accused of doing what you are saying about "some Sola Scriptura adherents."

That makes wrongdoing or ignorance by "some" people be your reason for condemning the principle of Sola Scriptura itself rather than the more sensible conclusion that we should fault them instead.

:doh:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
On the one hand, we would be inclined to say "No." That's because, when you really get down to it, we don't know anything for sure. We simply trust what we believe because we have scrutinized it and decided to believe it on the basis of the evidence. It could be that the whole universe is a mirage and doesn't exist at all, if we wanted to push this point. But we don't do that and we believe based on what we consider to be compelling.

On the other hand, "Yes" because the word of God--if there is a God--cannot be beat! (to put it crudely but as simply as possible)

What is more persuasive than God's own message to mankind?? Huh?

Well, nothing. And nothing else is even its equal. That's so obvious, and there is hardly any Christian church that denies that the Bible IS, in fact, divine revelation.
Of course we all agree that Scripture is divine revelation. How much we understand it, and how much we need to understand of it, is a matter of disagreement at times between Protestant and Protestant, and Protestant and non-Protestant. In any case I like your first paragraph above as it gives an honest description of how things work IMO. OTOH, most of us can get sort of testy defending our positions anyway. We all think its important to know the truth-that's what we believe our our salvation to be dependent on.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Of course we all agree that Scripture is divine revelation. How much we understand it, and how much we need to understand of it, is a matter of disagreement at times between Protestant and Protestant, and Protestant and non-Protestant.

and between Catholic and Catholic.

In any case I like your first paragraph above as it gives an honest description of how things work IMO. OTOH, most of us can get sort of testy defending our positions anyway. We all think its important to know the truth-that's what we believe our our salvation to be dependent on.
Thanks.
 
Upvote 0