A middle ages question.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Before there were newspapers and institutional people who we trust to vet information to certify it is true or at least thought to be true by those we hold in high regard, there was an individual responsibility to vet information for himself or for his family (if he was head of the household). Now we have just reached the tail end of the age of newspapers and trusted institutions and what are we to do? Shall we return to the middle ages approach?

In conjunction with this is the role of the Church because middle ages people trusted the church (in varying degrees) to vet information for its safety and truth whenever it dealt with matters of eternal life. Who do we trust now? Just ourselves? Or are there some institutions we trust and if so which organisations do we trust and are they really trustworthy?

What of the scriptures? We, as Christians, acknowledge them as the inspired oracles of God and as such as trustworthy but we must admit to ourselves that holy scripture is difficult to interpret at times, and even those passages that seem easy to interpret may contain allusions to past revelation and revelatory events or even to cultural "memes" that a modern reader doesn't understand or know. So despite the trust we invest in the scriptures we are left with a task of interpretation that is inherently complex, who do we trust to help us with the work of interpreting the holy scriptures? We might appeal to the Holy Spirit, and that is excellent, yet how can we know what he is saying or if it is he who is saying it? Many men and women have claimed the Holy Spirit told them such and such, are we obliged to believe them, and if not shall we be as sceptical of our own "leadings from the Holy Spirit"?

Who can we trust, if anyone?

 

[bling]

The main way we know we are true Christians is by having the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given as our guarantee of God’s promises.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is totally trust worthy, knows our inter thoughts, and knows everything, but we still have free will so, He can be quenched by us and we may not realized it at the time.

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent with scripture (he authored), so His message to us cannot contradict scripture, which is one way of knowing the interpretation of the message is from Him.

A key to finding truth, allowing the Spirit to help us, and understanding scripture is our personal motive for knowing. Almost any doctrine, we thought up, can be supported by the misuse and abuse of scripture. Lots of times we look at scripture to find support for our conclusions and not the other way around, so the Spirit is not going to be helping us.

So, why do you want to know what this scripture is saying? Are you using the verse to win an argument and make yourself look good? Are you writing a commentary on the scripture to sell a book and make money, build a following, receive praise for yourself? Are you just wanting to know for academic reasons?

I have no problem understanding scripture, if I do the following: really question my motive for knowing and have an excellent positive reason for knowing (changing my own life to be more selfless and helping with the positive change in other people’s lives), pray extensively for help to know what the verse says and my reason for knowing, patiently allow, through meditation, the Spirit to provide wisdom to me, read extensively scripture to understand the context, read other verses which might help me understand, fast for as long as it might take, present my ideas to other like minded Christians, who will pray and study with me.

One of the promises we have in this life is: we can obtain wisdom, by praying for it know we will get it, but that assumes we have a strong pray life (getting what we pray for).

 

[B Griffin]

We might appeal to the Holy Spirit, and that is excellent, yet how can we know what he is saying or if it is he who is saying it? Many men and women have claimed the Holy Spirit told them such and such, are we obliged to believe them, and if not shall we be as skeptical of our own "leadings from the Holy Spirit"?

Who can we trust, if anyone?

There is no person or institution that is more worthy of our trust than God Himself. It can be a long journey to learn to discern His voice from all others, but it is a journey worth embarking on if you are unfamiliar with it.

 

[B Griffin]

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent with scripture (he authored), so His message to us cannot contradict scripture, which is one way of knowing the interpretation of the message is from Him.

One of the big problems with this popular POV is that our interpretation of Scripture is often in conflict with God. If we seek wisdom from Him, He will give it. But we must trust what He says in order to have what we seek. Otherwise, we're like ships adrift at sea in high winds (James 1).

 

[timothyu]

Life and society is dictated by those who control the narrative. Different stages of history, different narratives. That has always been the way and despite what they may tell you, no one may be trusted to tell truth but simply what serves the purposes of the controllers. That has been the way of man since the Garden. Even Jesus that represents God's truth outside this realm of man, who said I tell you truth, had His gospel changed by man to better suit their ways. According to them God's will would never supersede theirs and to get around the fact Jesus claimed otherwise, they then claimed to represent God, inserting themselves as middle men to control the narrative. Controlling the narrative does not eliminate truth, but merely makes life miserable for those who seek it.

 

[bling]

One of the big problems with this popular POV is that our interpretation of Scripture is often in conflict with God. If we seek wisdom from Him, He will give it. But we must trust what He says in order to have what we seek. Otherwise, we're like ships adrift at sea in high winds (James 1).

How can it be "in conflict with God" if it is consistent with scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit?

 

[B Griffin]

How can it be "in conflict with God" if it is consistent with scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. This is what you said:

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent with scripture (he authored), so His message to us cannot contradict scripture, which is one way of knowing the interpretation of the message is from Him.

You are proposing that we may use "Scripture" to test the verasity of what God reveals to us by His Spirit.

There are many problems with this proposal besides the problem I raised. For example: it is unscriptural, it is devoid of trust in God, and it subjugates God to the Scriptures.

But the problem I raised is that our understanding of Scripture is often flawed, so testing what God might say to us against a false view of Scripture in an invalid test.

 

[bling]

Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. This is what you said:

You are proposing that we may use "Scripture" to test the verasity of what God reveals to us by His Spirit.

There are many problems with this proposal besides the problem I raised. For example: it is unscriptural, it is devoid of trust in God, and it subjugates God to the Scriptures.

But the problem I raised is that our understanding of Scripture is often flawed, so testing what God might say to us against a false view of Scripture in an invalid test.

Ok, I see your issue better now. If the Spirit provides a true message to you and it seems to contradict what you feel scripture is saying, then you are interpreting scripture incorrectly or it was not the Holy Spirit providing you the information, is what I was trying to communicate.
Another way of knowing it was the Holy Spirit not with you at the time is by looking back down the road and seeing the lousy results you had on your own. I can usually figure out when I quenched Him and was on my own. I can also look back and see some wonderful positive changes and know it was the Spirit working through me at that time, so they were His results.

 

[B Griffin]

Ok, I see your issue better now. If the Spirit provides a true message to you and it seems to contradict what you feel scripture is saying, then you are interpreting scripture incorrectly

I pretty much agree with this. When the Holy Spirit challenges my views of Scripture, I always receive the blessings when I listen to Him and take to heart what He says.

or it was not the Holy Spirit providing you the information, is what I was trying to communicate.

True. Sometimes the direction He wants me to go is so different than what I believed before that I question if it is Him or not. On rare occasions I conclude it is my own thoughts getting in my way. I don't remember ever concluding the "message" came from an evil spirit.

Another way of knowing it was the Holy Spirit not with you at the time is by looking back down the road and seeing the lousy results you had on your own. I can usually figure out when I quenched Him and was on my own. I can also look back and see some wonderful positive changes and know it was the Spirit working through me at that time, so they were His results.

True. Sometimes retrospect gives a clearer perspective. For instance, when He was correcting my veiws on Galatians, I remember it was hard at first to grasp the things He was teaching me. But now, looking back, I can see what a profound difference it has made in my life.

 

[BobRyan]

Before there were newspapers and institutional people who we trust to vet information to certify it is true or at least thought to be true by those we hold in high regard, there was an individual responsibility to vet information for himself or for his family (if he was head of the household). Now we have just reached the tail end of the age of newspapers and trusted institutions and what are we to do? Shall we return to the middle ages approach?

In conjunction with this is the role of the Church because middle ages people trusted the church (in varying degrees) to vet information for its safety and truth whenever it dealt with matters of eternal life. Who do we trust now? Just ourselves? Or are there some institutions we trust and if so which organisations do we trust and are they really trustworthy?

Acts 17:11 says to trust the scriptures "to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" -- long before newspapers.

What of the scriptures? We, as Christians, acknowledge them as the inspired oracles of God and as such as trustworthy but we must admit to ourselves that holy scripture is difficult to interpret at times

But not so difficult that we could not be expected to "vet" even the Apostle Paul in the case of Acts 17:11 where they "studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul were so".

And that was the case even for non-Christian Jews and gentiles that were doing the 'vetting" of the Apostle Paul to see IF his teaching was legit.

In Gal 1:6-9 Paul says to them "Even if WE (apostles) or an Angel from heaven should come to you with a different gospel - let him be accursed".

who do we trust to help us with the work of interpreting the holy scriptures? We might appeal to the Holy Spirit, and that is excellent, yet how can we know what he is saying

Is the Holy Spirit so unskilled that He is not fully capable of communicating with us - with 100% accuracy? Is He really that poor of a communicator? Maybe he does not fully realize our weakness and so without fully understanding it he simply fails to communicate effectively?

================================

Any time I share my understanding of what the Bible says in this or that chapter - I expect the one I am speaking to NOT TO SAY "well Bob said it - so I assume it is true" -- rather I expect them to go to scripture - look at the text - see IF Those things are so.

2 Cor 5:10 says EACH ONE stands before the judgment seat of Christ - alone... no one will have ME standing by their side to explain to God why so-and-so has this particular view of Matt 28 or Matt 24.

 

[zippy2006]

In conjunction with this is the role of the Church because middle ages people trusted the church (in varying degrees) to vet information for its safety and truth whenever it dealt with matters of eternal life.

The Middle Ages had the same problem we have. There were all sorts of problems with idiosyncratic religious groups, such as the Waldensians and the Cathars. There were so many strange new groups popping up, with strange new ideas, that there was a moratorium on new religious Orders and new Rules. All of this was a precursor to the Reformation.

 

[B Griffin]

The Middle Ages had the same problem we have. There were all sorts of problems with idiosyncratic religious groups, such as the Waldensians and the Cathars. There were so many strange new groups popping up, with strange new ideas, that there was a moratorium on new religious Orders and new Rules. All of this was a precursor to the Reformation.

I think the biggest problem for Christians in the middle ages was their lack of having a Bible that they could read and understand on their own.

 

[zippy2006]

I think the biggest problem for Christians in the middle ages was their lack of having a Bible that they could read and understand on their own.

This was true for the vast majority of Christian history.

 

[B Griffin]

This was true for the vast majority of Christian history.

Yes, You're right. But maybe they also had to use their spiritual senses more. Who knows.

 

[timothyu]

I think the biggest problem for Christians in the middle ages was their lack of having a Bible that they could read and understand on their own.

Yes, change came about as a result of access to scripture rather than controlled narrative.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not everybody trusted the Church in the Middle Ages, and that trust also wasn't necessarily unequivocal.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the biggest problem for Christians in the middle ages was their lack of having a Bible that they could read and understand on their own.

Because having a Bible in the hands of everybody has turned out just great... ? You must be living in a different world from me.

 

[bling]

Because having a Bible in the hands of everybody has turned out just great... ? You must be living in a different world from me.

Is having the Bible the problem or is it having all these commentaries and "religious" books the problem?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is having the Bible the problem or is it having all these commentaries and "religious" books the problem?

Having a bible is part of the problem, the bible needs to be interpreted and leaving that task to individuals to do for themselves leads to aberrations in faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't get me wrong. I just think you have to be realistic. The Reformation hasn't turned out the way the Reformers hoped.