How do we sort out different intepretations, and seeming contradictions?

[Mary Meg]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

 

[ripple the car]

Well..... asking this lead me, while still only studying the Bible, to let go of Sola Fidé. There are many, many Protestant models of salvation. They all explain and interpret this differently.

But what I have found out, though, is that our salvation is a journey of faith and of works, fueled by grace.

 

[ripple the car]

Assurance of Salvation?

SALVATION | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

 

[HTacianas]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

To begin with, read Ephesians 2 beginning at 2:1. The meaning of 2:8-9 will become clear, and there will be no contradiction between Paul and James. The confusion comes only from having some preconceived notion of salvation. After understanding Ephesians 2 and recognizing that there is no contradiction, compare that to the teaching of the Church. That teaching is that we are not saved due to anything we may have done previously but we are to cooperate with grace to attain salvation at the end.

There are many other such seeming contradictions, but viewing them in light of the teachings of the Church the contradictions disappear. An example is 1 John:

1Jo 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And then:

1Jo 3:6 - Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

Now either we sin or we do not sin. How can the writer say that we cannot claim that we have no sin, but if we sin we do not know Jesus?

But if we consider the idea of both mortal and venial sin, it becomes clear. As if to say "we all sin unintentionally, but anyone who sins intentionally does not know him".

 

[bekkilyn]

How do Protestants make it work at all?

For me, two verses in scripture pretty much sum up everything.

First, John 3:16 (and throw in verse 17 just as an extra bonus). When it states "believe" it's more of putting our trust or confidence in the *person* of Christ. (Our justification)

Second, John 13:34. (Our sanctification)

Justification + Sanctification = Salvation (our journey of Salvation lasts throughout our lives. We were saved, we are saved, we are being saved.)

(For United Methodists, we also have Prevenient Grace that goes before these two, where God is continuously extending his grace to us even before we know of him or accept him as God loves the world, i.e. everybody)

It really doesn't need to be complex.

 

[Mary Meg]

For me, two verses in scripture pretty much sum up everything.

First, John 3:16 (and throw in verse 17 just as an extra bonus). When it states "believe" it's more of putting our trust or confidence in the *person* of Christ. (Our justification)

Second, John 13:34. (Our sanctification)

Justification + Sanctification = Salvation (our journey of Salvation lasts throughout our lives. We were saved, we are saved, we are being saved.)

(For United Methodists, we also have Prevenient Grace that goes before these two, where God is continuously extending his grace to us even before we know of him or accept him as God loves the world, i.e. everybody)

It really doesn't need to be complex.

So... you prioritize these verses over all the rest. What do you do with the rest?

 

[TuxAme]

The Church interprets the Scripture because Scripture is from the Church. The book of Acts is certainly the best place to learn this. Just read it- don't examine it, don't try to "figure it out". See how to apostles settled disputes over doctrine, and how they went about reaching a decision.

 

[bekkilyn]

So... you prioritize these verses over all the rest. What do you do with the rest?

They help us to mature in our faith, to better get to know God's character as we study and meditate on scripture so that we can continue to build a stronger relationship with him. It may also inspire us as when we look at scripture as a whole, we can see God's salvation plan throughout, in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. We also can get a glimpse of what God's Kingdom is like and how we can show Christ to others and proclaim his gospel message.

 

[Acts2:38]

What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all

The bible is quite clear though.

It's the doctrines that baptists and the like, have confused you on. (I'm not looking to poke people or get into it with hostility, but to use scripture and truth with love)

Salvation is in the very sense:
hearing- Romans 10:17
Believing - Hebrews 11:6
Repenting - Luke 13:3
Confessing - Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 8:36-37
Being Baptized for the remission of sins, putting on Christ, entering the kingdom and receiving the Holy Spirit- Acts 2:38; John 3:3 and 5; Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21
Remaining faithful- Revelations 2:10

You cannot put on Christ without being baptized Galatians 3:27

You cannot enter the kingdom without baptism John 3:3 and 5

You cannot receive spiritual blessings if you cannot put on Christ Ephesians 1:3

You cannot obey the gospel if you are not baptized Romans 6:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Mark 16:16 says "believe and be baptized". "And" joins believing/baptized as a necessity with both.

Believe, in scripture for salvation, is NOT the english noun, but the Greek Koine verb (action required)

John 3:16 "whosoever believeth" believeth -Koine Greek verb/action

You have to do something aka James 2:14 and following tied in with the entire Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11 shows that everyone DID something

The protestant world merely stops at Ephesians 2:8-9 but they don't see verse 10. We have to "walk" (verb) in the good works that were "ordained" by God (refer to James 2 again)

Thank you for your time reading this, and may you be able to find the truth.

 

[Mary Meg]

They help us to mature in our faith, to better get to know God's character as we study and meditate on scripture so that we can continue to build a stronger relationship with him. It may also inspire us as when we look at scripture as a whole, we can see God's salvation plan throughout, in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. We also can get a glimpse of what God's Kingdom is like and how we can show Christ to others and proclaim his gospel message.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm asking. Why do you take these two verses as the "sum" when other verses seem to say something else?

John 3:16 says God loved the world and sent Jesus to save those who believe. But it's not really a technical statement of how or why we're saved; Jesus said in the very same chapter, in the very same conversation (John 3:5), that we have to be baptized, apparently?

 

[GodLovesCats]

An outstanding word here is "justified." That word is about judgment, not salvation. So there is no type of contradiction between Ephesians 2:8 and James 2:24.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm asking. Why do you take these two verses as the "sum" when other verses seem to say something else?

John 3:16 says God loved the world and sent Jesus to save those who believe. But it's not really a technical statement of how or why we're saved; Jesus said in the very same chapter, in the very same conversation (John 3:5), that we have to be baptized, apparently?

Because I'm looking at the overall message. We put our trust and confidence in Christ that he knows what he is doing even if we don't.

Is baptism mandatory to be saved? The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet he will enter God's kingdom, so we know that it is not a mandatory ticket to get in. So what else might baptism be useful for or why would it be desired? And that's a question that would erupt many arguments between all the different Christian groups and entire threads will be devoted to baptism alone. Then you get bogged down in the whole baptism question and while it can be fun to argue every now and again here on CF, it's more like arguing over the details of a wedding vs. the fact that there is a wedding and all are invited.

 

[Acts2:38]

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet he will enter God's kingdom

The thief on the cross was under the OT mosaic law, not the NT Covenant. Christ wasn't dead yet for the NT covenant to begin.

 

[Brightmoon]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

I feel for you but I guess I never felt that way because I don’t accept biblical inerrancy

 

[bekkilyn]

Thinking about it, Mary Meg, you might want to (if you haven't already) read a biography of John Wesley and/or parts of his journal. He went through a long period of time where he struggled with many of the very same questions and thoughts you are struggling with, and so maybe you would find it inspiring if not helpful in some way. He also extensively read writings from the early church, as well as others more modern, and was well versed in Hebrew and Greek.

 

[A_Thinker]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

Christianity is of the "heart", as opposed to being of the "head". LOVE is the byword, so Christian's, of all persons, should be able to agree to disagree.

Locate yourself in a church of your choosing, and concentrate on the "doing", rather than the "knowing". Christian's have functioned with partial understanding for millennia, and continue to do so.

1 Corinthians 13:12 ... " for now we see, as through a blurred glass"

When God determines that He needs to perfect your understanding, He will guide you into such ....

 

[GodLovesCats]

Pentecostals, Baptists, and Evangelicals believe "baptism" in regards to salvation is a Holy Spirit gift, so it does not contradict the more popular denominations -(Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) that interpret it to be only water baptism. Read 1 Corthians 13, which explains "baptism" is not necessarily water immersion.

 

[Acts2:38]

Pentecostals, Baptists, and Evangelicals believe "baptism" in regards to salvation is a Holy Spirit gift, so it does not contradict the more popular denominations -(Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) that interpret it to be only water baptism. Read 1 Corthians 13, which explains "baptism" is not necessarily water immersion.

It says nothing of the sort in 1 Cor 13. Unless you intended a different verse? Either way it still wouldnt say that anywhere you look.

 

[A_Thinker]

John 3:16 says God loved the world and sent Jesus to save those who believe. But it's not really a technical statement of how or why we're saved; Jesus said in the very same chapter, in the very same conversation (John 3:5), that we have to be baptized, apparently?

Not much more to it than that.

The friends of Jesus are welcome to enter His Father's house.

Remember, the gospel must be simple enough for a child to understand, for Jesus said that the Kingdom was for such as them.

It is men who complicate the gospel, like the Judaizers. God desires that His kingdom be accessible to the least of us. Trust in His promise to save you ...

 

[Acts2:38]

John 3:16 says God loved the world and sent Jesus to save those who believe. But it's not really a technical statement of how or why we're saved; Jesus said in the very same chapter, in the very same conversation (John 3:5), that we have to be baptized, apparently?

Not much more to it than that.

The friends of Jesus are welcome to enter His Father's house. Remember, the gospel must be simple enough for a child to understand, for Jesus said that the Kingdom was for such as them.

It is men who complicate the gospel, like the Judaizers. God desires that His kingdom be accessible to the least of us. Trust in His promise to save you ...

Except people are missing one important thing. The bible, written in Koine Greek, intends "believeth" to be a verb, not a noun.

This indicates you have to do something.